The proposed uses in Building B the ground-floor commercial in Building A would be employment- and revenue-generating under this scenario. Additionally, the assisted living uses would provide services to the community. As such, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial provides opportunities for both potential employees and existing and future residents of the City.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.6-23 Land Use and Planning
4) Summary of CDSP Guiding Principle 4 and Associated Objectives: Creating a thriving community that meets basic needs and provides opportunities for wellness and quality of life through improving Pasadena’s infrastructure and urban form through modernized buildings that are energy- and water-efficient, and the development of the area’s urban forest.
Providing adequate care and housing for the senior community is a critical component of a City that is meeting the basic needs for all segments of its population. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would facilitate residents, including senior residents, being able to shop for groceries and household items, and dine at on-site buildings that would be accessible even to those with mobility aids. There are abundant dining options and other retail/commercial facilities within walking distance of the site. Within walking distance, light rail/bus ride, or a short drive/rideshare, there are medical facilities, including Huntington Hospital and emergency rooms; additional restaurants, shopping, and services; and numerous cultural amenities, such as ArtCenter, Pasadena Playhouse, Pasadena Civic Center, museums, theater, and music venues. As such, implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would enable the site to become an active part of the neighborhood fabric.
5) Summary of CDSP Guiding Principle 5 and Associated Objectives: Providing a community that supports efficient transportation and multi-modal options through development of land uses that are pedestrian friendly and transit-accessible.
As discussed previously, the higher density of land uses proposed on the site compared to the existing condition is both economically and environmentally sustainable, particularly due to the site’s proximity to bus and light rail transit facilities. 6) Summary of CDSP Guiding Principle 6 and Associated Objectives: Supporting institutional growth through development of commercial uses and quality medical and assisted living uses.
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would support institutional growth by providing high-quality redevelopment of the site with complementary commercial, assisted living, and residential uses.
7) Summary of CDSP Guiding Principle 7 and Associated Objectives: Enhancing a local community identify through supporting the continued modernization and development of the Arroyo Parkway as a major commercial corridor.
As discussed previously, the higher density of land uses proposed on the site compared to the existing condition is both economically and environmentally sustainable, particularly due to the site’s proximity to bus and light rail transit facilities and underutilized condition.
The urban public spaces proposed as part of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial invite gathering on the site in an aesthetically pleasing and safe environment whereas the existing site conditions are disjointed and do not provide open spaces for gathering not associated with a restaurant.
The proposed building facades incorporate numerous window openings to provide views and to avoid blank, massive-looking building faces. The facades would also be articulated with patios, window shades, and varying surface treatments to provide variation and break up the surface of the buildings. Portions of both proposed buildings would be set back from the widest part of the building envelope and some portions of the buildings would extend only to Level 4 and Level 6. Additionally, the ground floor would be slightly taller than the remaining levels, at 15 feet high. This would act to differentiate the ground floor Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.6-24 Land Use and Planning
and, combined with some unique architectural features for this level, create a human-scale and pedestrian-friendly environment. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would support Arroyo Parkway continuing to modernize and be a major commercial corridor in the City.
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
As discussed above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not require a General Plan amendment and would be consistent with the Land Use Element’s Guiding Principles and applicable goals and policies that pertain to environmental effects. Additionally, as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is an urban infill development located within both a High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) and a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable goals of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would increase density, including senior and market-rate housing, in an area within ½-mile of two light rail stations (Fillmore and Del Mar). As discussed above, the Project would enable residents to shop for groceries and household items and dine at on-site buildings that would be accessible even to those with mobility aids. Additionally, there are abundant dining options and other retail/commercial facilities within walking distance of the site.
With a light rail and or short drive/rideshare, abundant dining, entertainment, and services in the City are accessible from the site. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would also provide bicycle parking and bicycle serving amenities, and electric car charging would be provided in the subterranean parking garage. Furthermore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would include this mix of land uses–residential, commercial, and employment–in one location thereby supporting the transition from single-use parcels and disjointed, disparate land uses to a cohesive mix of uses that are near transit and support pedestrian accessibility within and through the site. As such, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would promote and maximize regional mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability compared to the existing uses on the site and contribute to a healthier community and region as a whole.
As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan–SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP– nor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Accordingly, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is consistent with SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS as it regards land use and transportation patterns that, in turn, help CARB achieve its air quality attainment goals as defined in the applicable SIPs. As discussed above, Section 3.4, GHG Emissions, determined the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be consistent with the City’s CAP, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, CARB, California’s Scoping Plan, and Statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. As discussed in Section 3.9, Transportation, using the City’s Transportation Demand Model, the Pasadena DOT determined that the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines, including VT per capita and VMT per capita. SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS has a focus on transit-oriented development as a means to reduce VMT to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and improve mobility.
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a less than significant impact on any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.6-25 Land Use and Planning
3.6.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Project
The cumulative impacts related to demographic growth are analyzed for the City of Pasadena.
Growth and development in the City would be accompanied by potential changes in existing land uses. New development on vacant areas and underutilized lots are anticipated to be developed in accordance with the General Plan, Housing Element, and zoning code in effect at the time of each project’s application. This includes consideration of variances and vehicles such as PD zoning districts, where allowable. If discretionary actions are needed, individual projects would be subject to evaluation for potential environmental impacts as required by CEQA. This review process would address potential land use and planning policy conflicts.
Projects requiring General Plan amendments or zone changes/variances would need to show consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and/or actions in the General Plan and/or Zoning Code, respectively, and thus are not expected to lead to land use incompatibilities or conflicts.
Planned or required infrastructure and public facilities associated with individual projects would provide the necessary facilities and services to existing and future developments. Thus, these projects would complement the private development projects planned in the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The cumulative analysis of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same as that of the Project. The change in proposed use from medical to residential in Building A does not adversely affect the consistency with the City’s General Plan and zoning code. As such, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would also not result in a cumulatively considerable impact, and no mitigation is required.
3.6.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts related to land use and planning would occur, and no mitigation is required.
3.6.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.6.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
The Project would not require a General Plan amendment and would be consistent with the Guiding Principles of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and numerous goals and policies related to avoiding or reducing environmental impacts. The Project would establish a PD zoning district (via a Zone Change from CD-6 to PD-39) for the site and requires adoption of a PD Plan.
The regulations and standards that dictate allowed and conditionally allowed land uses and development would be prescribed in the accompanying PD Plan. The basic design of a project, including compatibility with surroundings, massing, proportion, siting, solid-to-void relationships, and compliance with applicable design guidelines is evaluated through the City’s Design Review process and is a role for the City’s Design Commission. A subsequent review of a proposed PD zone and PD Plan would occur at a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Therefore, with adherence to the PD Plan processes, including consideration of a variance for historic resources to increase the height of the proposed buildings, the Project would be considered consistent with the zoning code. The Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.6-26 Land Use and Planning
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; therefore, there would be less than significant impacts.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of consistency with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; therefore, there would be less than significant impacts.
3.6.10 REFERENCES
Pasadena, City of. 2016 (January 25, amended). Land Use Element of the Pasadena General Plan. Pasadena, CA: the City. Land-Use-Element-2016-01-25.pdf (cityofpasadena.net). ———. 2015a (August). Pasadena General Plan. Pasadena, CA: the City. General Plan - Planning & Community Development Department (cityofpasadena.net). ———. 2015b (January). Pasadena General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I.
Pasadena, CA: the City. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wpcontent/uploads/sites/56/2015/09/General-Plan_Draft-EIR_2015-
01.pdf?v=1640133432068.
———. 2004 (November 8, adopted). Central District Specific Plan. Pasadena, CA: the City.
Central District - Planning & Community Development Department (cityofpasadena.net).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020 (September 3, approved). 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los Angeles, CA:
SCAG. Read the Plan Adopted Final Plan - Southern California Association of Governments.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-1 Noise
3.7 NOISE
This section analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Information in this section is derived from the noise analysis conducted by Psomas and summarized here and the City of Pasadena General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The noise modeling data is provided in Appendix F.
3.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing noise environment in the Project area is primarily influenced by traffic noise on nearby roads and, to a lesser extent, the Metro’s Gold (L) Line, which runs adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Site. The roadways contributing the most noise to the Project site are South Arroyo Parkway and East California Boulevard.
Noise Background
Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, when it has adverse effects on health, or, as stated in the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC), is unnecessary, excessive, or annoying. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
Range of Noise
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at 3 feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
Noise Descriptors
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. These additions are made to Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-2 Noise
account for the noise-sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Pasadena relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with noise sources.
Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.
Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.
Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.
Atmospheric Effects
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.
Shielding
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby resident.
However, for vegetation to provide a substantial or even noticeable noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-3 Noise
Community Response to Noise
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels. An increase or decrease of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible.
Land Use Compatibility with Noise
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) encourages State and local governments to regulate land development in such a way that noisesensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that any noise impacts are minimized.
Vibration
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. VdB serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-4 Noise
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibrationvelocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Noise Level Measurements
To determine the baseline noise level environment and to assess potential noise impacts, four short-term (20 minutes) and two long-term (24 hours) noise level measurements during typical weekday conditions were collected on September 9 and 10, 2021.
The long-term measurements were collected along the eastern Project site boundary on South Arroyo Parkway and southern site boundary along East California Boulevard where existing noise levels are highest. The average noise levels along South Arroyo Parkway adjacent to the site range from 57 to 70 dBA Leq and the 24-hour weighted noise level at this location is 72 dBA CNEL.
The average noise levels along East California Boulevard range from 54 to 74 dBA Leq and the 24-hour weighted noise level at this location is 73 dBA CNEL. The long-term noise measurements indicate that noise levels, generated primarily by traffic, along these two roadways are very similar.
The short-term measurements were collected along the western Project site boundary adjacent to the Metro Gold (L) Line and in the parking lot in front of K9 Loft at 491 South Arroyo Parkway (south side of the Whole Foods Market building) where noise levels are less substantial than along South Arroyo Parkway and East California Boulevard. Table 3.7-1, Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurements, presents the average (Leq), maximum (Lmax), and minimum noise level (Lmin) values that were collected at these two locations. The complete noise monitoring results are included in Appendix F.
TABLE 3.7-1
SHORT-TERM AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location Time
Noise Levels (dBA) Primary
Leq Lmax Lmin Noise Source(s)
Western Project site boundary
(adjacent to Metro L Line) 12:09 PM–12:30 PM 63.8 87.4 48.7 Metro Gold (L) Line and background traffic 491 South Arroyo Parkway
(adjacent to south side of Whole
Foods Market)
12:32 PM–12:52 PM 61.7 76.1 48.9 Background traffic
dBA: A-weighted decibels; Leq: equivalent noise level; Lmax: maximum noise level; Lmin: minimum noise level As shown in Table 3.7-1, the average daytime noise levels near the site range from 62 to 64 dBA Leq. These noise levels are considered typical for the site due to substantial levels of background traffic on two adjacent roadways.
Sensitive Receptors
California’s General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2017) defines noise-sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions.
Furthermore, the City of Pasadena attempts to minimize exposure to excessive noise levels to residents, workers, and visitors of Pasadena by adopting the noise-related California General Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-5 Noise
Plan Guidelines. The land use categories requiring the lowest noise thresholds are schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residences. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residences proximate to the Project site are referred to as the Project’s “noise sensitive receptors” due to sensitivity of these uses to noise exposure. Although each land use category has a different measure of acceptable noise exposure, most of the categories listed must remain under 60-70 dBA per State and City guidelines.
The buildings and structures that surround the Project site are mostly commercial properties, including medical office buildings at 55 East California Boulevard and 333 South Arroyo Parkway, a self-storage facility at 411 South Arroyo Parkway, and a Public Radio facility at 474 South Raymond Avenue. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Project site include a mix-use residential complex located immediately east of the Project site at 482 South Arroyo Parkway and a hotel located at 400 South Arroyo Parkway. The closest hospital is located two blocks west of the Project site at 625 Fair Avenue Oaks (Huntington Hospital), the closest school is located 0.2- mile to the east at 405 South Euclid Avenue (Mayfield Junior School, the closest church is located
0.3-mile to the west at 500 South Pasadena Avenue (Pasadena Community Christian Fellowship), and the closest park is located 0.2 mile to the north-northwest at 275 South Raymond Avenue (Central Park).
3.7.2 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise.
Noise Standards
California Noise Insulation Standards
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code or, more commonly, as the California Building Code (CBC), codifies the State’s noise insulation standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the State. Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, of the CBC states “Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.”
The 2019 California’s Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, contains mandatory measures for non-residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, and other areas where noise contours are not readily available. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the combined sound transmission class (STC) rating of the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies must be at least 50. For those developments in areas where noise contours are not readily available and the noise level exceeds 65 dBA Leq for any hour of operation, a wall and roof-ceiling combined STC rating of 45 and exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 40 are required (Section 5.507.4.1). Alternatively, if the interior noise levels of non-residential buildings satisfy the performance criteria of 50 dBA Leq (1 hour), then the performance method to meet CALGreen standards defined in Section 5.507.4.2 has been met.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-6 Noise
City of Pasadena General Plan Noise Element
The City of Pasadena is affected by several different sources of noise, including automobile traffic, Rose Bowl events, commercial activity, and periodic nuisances such as construction, loud parties, and other events. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan is intended to identify these sources and provide objectives and policies that ensure that noise from these sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment (Pasadena 2015). The Noise Element contains the City’s guidelines for noise compatible land uses, which are presented as Table 3.7-2, City of Pasadena Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use.
The City’s Noise Element acknowledges that noise from major roadways may affect sensitive receptors. The following policy and implementation measures are applicable to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial:
Policy 2a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses along major roadways.
Measure 1 The City will consult the guidelines for noise compatible land use shown on Table 3 of this Noise Report to guide the appropriateness of land uses relative to roadway noise.
Measure 2 An acoustical study showing the ability to meet state noise insulation standards may be required for any development proposed in an area where the noise level exceeds the “clearly acceptable level” as determined by the City and shown on Table 3.
The Noise Element recognizes that noise generated by commercial operations, maintenance, truck deliveries, and traffic can affect adjacent residential areas and other sensitive land uses.
The following objective and implementation measure are applicable to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial:
Objective 6 The City will minimize noise spillovers from commercial and industrial operations into adjacent residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses, while maximizing the Land Use Element’s objectives to encourage mixed-use development in the Central District and other Specific Plan areas as well as to promote economic vitality.
Measure 26 The City will warn new residents and other sensitive noise receptors about the potential for noise in the Central District and other mixed-use areas.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-7 Noise
TABLE 3.7-2
CITY OF PASADENA GUIDELINES FOR NOISE COMPATIBLE LAND USE Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, DBA
55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Residential – Low density
single family, duplex,
mobile homes
Residential – Multi-family
and Mixed Commercial/
Residential Use
Transient Lodging – Motels,
Hotels
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding
Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
CLEARLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirement.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
If new construction or development proceeds, an analysis of the noise reduction requirements should be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken after an analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTALBE
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, unless it can be demonstrated that an interior level of 45 dBA can be achieved.
Source: Pasadena 2002.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-8 Noise
The Noise Element recognizes that construction activity is also a source of occasional temporary nuisance noise throughout the City; that these and other such nuisance noises are common to cities; and, because of their unpredictable nature, that these activities must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The following policies are applicable to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial:
Policy 7b The City will encourage limitations on construction activities adjacent to sensitive noise receptors as defined in Table 3 of this Noise Report.
Policy 7c The City will encourage construction and landscaping activities that employ techniques to minimize noise.
City of Pasadena Municipal Code
Chapter 9.36, Noise Restrictions, of the PMC is the City’s Noise Ordinance. It is the City’s policy “to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises from all sources. Noise at certain levels is detrimental to the health and welfare of the general public”. The following sections of the Noise Ordinance are applicable to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial:
9.36.040 - Ambient noise level.
A. When "ambient noise level" is referred to in this chapter, it means the actual measured ambient noise level.
B. Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A weighting.
1. Where the sound alleged to be offending is of a type or character set forth below, the following values shall be added to the sound level measurement of the offending noise:
a. Except for noise emanating from any electrical transformer or gas metering and pressure control equipment existing and installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, any steady audible tone: + 5;
b. Repeated impulsive noise: + 5;
c. Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes per hour: - 5; d. Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 minutes per hour: - 10; e. Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour: -20.
2. Values of subsections (B)(1)(c), (B)(1)(d) and (B)(1)(e) of this section shall be added to the sound level measurements during daytime (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) periods only.
9.36.050 – General noise sources.
A. It is unlawful for any person to create, cause, make or continue to make or permit to be made or continued any noise or sound which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-9 Noise
9.36.070 – Construction projects.
A. No person shall operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick power hoist, forklift, cement mixer or any other similar construction equipment within a residential district or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom at any time other than as listed below:
1. From 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday;
2. From 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday; and
3. Operation of any of the listed construction equipment is prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
B. No person shall perform any construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects within a residential district or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance at any time other than as listed below:
1. From 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday;
2. From 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday; and
3. Performance of construction or repair work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
C. For purposes of this section, holidays are New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
9.36.080 – Construction equipment.
It is unlawful for any person to operate any powered construction equipment if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dBA when measured within a radius of 100 feet from such equipment.
9.36.110 – Radio, television sets and similar devices.
A. Use Restricted. It is unlawful for any person within any residential zone of the city to use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound (between the hours of 10 PM of one day and 7 AM of the following day) in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents or any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.
B. Prima Facie Violation. Any noise level exceeding the ambient base level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels is deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this section.
Vibration Standards
The following vibration standards are used in this analysis to assess the construction vibration levels generated by the proposed land uses and their effects at adjacent, existing land uses to be retained on the Project site. The City’s General Plan and the PMC do not identify vibration level standards.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-10 Noise
The Federal Transit Administration provides quantitative vibration damage and vibration annoyance criteria, which have been applied in this analysis. Table 3.7-3, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria present these thresholds.
TABLE 3.7-3
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Building Class
PPV,
(in/sec)
Approximate
Lv*
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/ sec
Source: FTA 2018.
The building damage threshold for Class II Buildings is selected for surrounding non-historic retail buildings; the threshold for Class III buildings is selected for surrounding residential buildings; and the threshold for Class IV buildings is selected for the on-site historic structures. These thresholds represent the vibration limits for damage to buildings from continuous sources of vibration during construction activities on the Project site.
3.7.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project would result in a significant adverse noise impact if it would:
Threshold 3.2a: 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, local noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Threshold 3.2b: Result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
The Initial Study (provided in Appendix A-1) concluded the following thresholds related to noise were determined to result in no impacts or less than significant impacts and were not carried forward into the Draft EIR for further analysis:
• 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?
3.7.4 METHODOLOGY
Point Source Noise
The distance from the noise source to a receptor is a primary consideration in determining the actual noise level experienced at the receptor. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Noise impacts from stationary construction equipment are assessed from the center of the equipment, while noise impacts for mobile Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-11 Noise
construction equipment are assessed as emanating from the center of the equipment activity or construction site.
Traffic Noise
The noise levels for roadways in the Project traffic study area were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-77-108). The FHWA model determines a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for traffic flows, speed, truck mix, varying distances from the roadway, length of exposed roadway, and noise shielding. The calculations do not consider the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The net trip generation for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial was used to estimate off-site traffic noise generation.
Groundborne Vibration
In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem.
Some common sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Trains and similar rail vehicles can also produce vibration. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible. In quantifying vibration, the PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts and is typically measured in inches per second (in/sec). Vibration levels that may cause annoyance to humans are described using the vibration decibel (VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source.
3.7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.2a 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? Project
Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would include noise generated from demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, building construction and architectural coating activities. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the Project (USEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels. Construction noise levels for each generalized construction phase (groundclearing/demolition, excavation/grading, foundation construction, building construction and site cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for a mixed-use project and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers). The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity.
Table 3.7-4, Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Receptors, summarizes the estimated maximum and average construction noise levels at several receptors (both sensitive and non- Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-12 Noise
sensitive) for each construction phase as well at the noise level at a distance of 100 feet; which is the City’s construction noise threshold (Section 9.36.080 of the PMC). Maximum noise levels represent the noise levels from construction equipment occurring nearest to the noise sensitive use/receptor. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of the Project site. Noise levels from general Project-related construction activities were evaluated based on the City’s noise limit of 85 dBA at 100 feet. As shown in Table
3.7-4, Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Receptors, construction noise levels at 100 feet from the construction area would range from 72 to 83 dBA Leq. As shown, noise generation for all construction phases would be less than the 85 dBA noise limit as measured at 100 feet; and would be lower than 85 dBA for almost all receptors and/or all construction phases. Noise level reductions from intervening structures and from existing masonry walls on-site and equipment being below grade were not considered in the noise modeling. As such, actual average and maximum construction noise levels would be lower than shown in Table 3.7-4.
TABLE 3.7-4
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT SURROUNDING RECEPTORS
Receptor
Construction Phase Noise Levels (dBA)
Demolition/
Site Prep
Grading/
Excavation Foundations
Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max
Noise Level at Each Receptor Location
482 South Arroyo Parkway 70 83 70 83 59 72 68 81 70 83
Huntington Hospital Complex 64 65 64 65 53 54 62 63 64 65 Central Park 59 61 59 61 48 50 57 59 59 61
Mayfield Junior School 62 62 62 62 51 51 60 60 62 62
KPCC1 86 93 86 93 75 82 84 91 86 93
Medical Building2 72 75 72 75 61 64 70 73 72 75
Plastic Surgery + Medical Spa3 75 83 75 83 64 72 73 81 75 83 HRC Fertility Complex4 69 71 69 71 58 60 67 69 69 71
Pasadena Inn5 70 73 70 73 59 62 68 71 70 73
Noise Level at 100 ft (dBA) 83 83 72 81 83
Noise Limit at 100 ft (dBA) 85 85 85 85 85
Exceeds Noise Limit? No No No No No
dBA: A-weighted decibels; Site Prep: site preparation; max: maximum noise level; avg: average noise level; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not consider attenuation provided by intervening structures. 1 Complex located at 474 South Raymond Avenue
2 Medical Building at 55 East California Boulevard
3 Medical use located at 100 East California Boulevard
4 Medical use at 333 Arroyo Parkway
5 Hotel use at 400 South Arroyo Parkway
Sources: USEPA 1971 (construction equipment noise levels); see Appendix F, Noise Modeling Data, for modeling assumptions and outputs.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-13 Noise
Truck trips would be needed for delivery of construction equipment and materials as well as the export of the excavated soils. Noise generated from truck trips would add to the ambient noise level generated by vehicle traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic is necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. For the Project, it is anticipated that development site would result in an average of approximately 110 truck trips per day during the demolition phase and 250 truck trips day during the grading/excavation phase.1 These truck trips would travel along local truck routes near the Project site. The City of Pasadena’s Truck Route Map (DOT 2016) designates Del Mar Boulevard, Arroyo Parkway and Fair Oaks Avenue as truck routes. The addition of an average of 250 truck trips per day to roadway volumes of approximately 18,000 daily trips along Arroyo Parkway north of California Boulevard or 21,000 daily trips along California Boulevard west of Arroyo Parkway would increase roadway volumes by approximately 1 to 2 percent. A doubling of traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dBA. 3 dBA is also the lowest change in noise levels that is considered to be perceptible in outdoor environments. As such, the small increase in traffic volumes related to construction activities proximate to the Project site would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. Noise from truck trips associated with development of the site would cease when construction of the Project is complete.
In summary, noise from construction activities on site would be clearly audible above the existing ambient noise environment. However, construction would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, consistent with Section 9.36.070 of the PMC, nor would it exceed the City's construction noise limit of 85 dBA at 100 feet. Additionally, off-site noise from the addition of construction-related truck trips would not be discernable. There would be less than significant construction noise impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Operation
Off-Site Traffic Noise Generation
Operation of the Project would increase traffic compared to the existing uses on the site, which has the potential to increase noise levels on local roadways proximate to the site. Table 3.7-5, Net Trip Generation for the Project, summarizes the daily total trip generation and the AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the existing land uses (not including Whole Foods Market as this is not changing), the Project land uses, and the net difference.
TABLE 3.7-5
NET TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROJECT
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Uses 2,454 189 237
Proposed Uses 6,366 515 618
Net Change 3,913 326 381
Source: Pasadena 2021a.
1 Based on an estimated excavated export volume of 184,013 cubic yards transported by 14 cubic yard trucks which results in 13,144 truckloads. Assuming that there are two truck trips per load, there would be 26,288 one-way truck trips. These truck trips would be distributed over a grading period of 4-months with 104 workdays per month. The 253 average truck trips per day was obtained by dividing 26,288 truck trips by 104 grading days.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-14 Noise
As shown in Table 3.7-5, the existing uses on the site generate 2,454 vehicle trips per day with 189 AM and 237 PM peak-hour trips. The Project is estimated to generate a total of 6,366 vehicle trips per day, with 515 AM and 618 PM peak hour trips. The net change in trips, when considering the traffic generated by existing land uses, is an additional 3,913 trips per day with 326 AM peak hour trips and 381 PM peak hour trips.
Table 3.7-6, Net Street segment volumes with the Project (Year 2026), on the following page summarizes the average daily trips (ADT) for several street segments on the Project site vicinity, the additional ADT attributable to the Project, and the net different as a percentage.
TABLE 3.7-6
NET STREET SEGMENT VOLUMES WITH THE PROJECT (YEAR 2026) Street Segment Existing ADT Additional ADT Net Change
Bellevue Dr. b/t Arroyo Prkwy. and Marengo Ave. 850 160 19% Bellevue Dr. west of Arroyo Prkwy. 4,690 0 0%
Arroyo Prkwy. b/t Bellevue Dr. and Del Mar Blvd. 17,040 490 3% Arroyo Prkwy. b/t Bellevue Dr. and California Blvd. 16,200 650 4% California Blvd. b/t Raymond Ave. and Arroyo Prkwy. 17,060 900 5% California Blvd. b/t Raymond Ave. and Fair Oaks Ave. 14,640 300 2% Raymond Ave. b/t California Blvd. and Bellevue Dr. 9,780 600 6% Raymond Dr. b/t California Blvd. and Pico Street 9,140 0 0% California Blvd. b/t Arroyo Prkwy. and Marengo Ave. 24,750 1,280 5% California Blvd. b/t Arroyo Prkwy. and Raymond Ave. 21,020 540 3% Arroyo Prkwy. b/t California Blvd. and Bellevue Dr. 17,990 2,480 14% Arroyo Prkwy. b/t California Blvd. Pico Street 26,540 980 4% Arroyo Prkwy. b/t Del Mar Blvd. and Bellevue Dr. 16,220 480 3% Arroyo Prkwy. b/t Glenarm Street and Fillmore Street 24,000 980 4% ADT: average daily trips; b/t: between; Dr.: Drive; Prkwy.: Parkway; Ave.: Avenue; Blvd.: Boulevard Source: Pasadena 2021a
As shown in Table 3.7-6, implementation of the Project would result between 0 percent and 19 percent increase in ADT. It is noted that the percent change in trips is 6 percent or below on all street segments except on (1) Arroyo Parkway between California Boulevard and (2) Bellevue Drive and on Bellevue Drive between Arroyo Parkway and Marengo Avenue. A three-decibel increase occurs when traffic volumes double or a project increases the percentage of noisy trucks on roadways. With a maximum increase of 19 percent, the increase in off-site traffic-related noise would be less than 1 decibel. This increment is not discernable to human hearing even under laboratory conditions. As such, the Project would not result in a substantial permanent change in noise levels related to off-site traffic. There would be a less than significant impact related to traffic noise, and no mitigation is required.
On-Site Stationary Noise Generation
Operational noise sources associated with the Project would include, but not be limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units) and landscape maintenance equipment. The City’s Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded.
PMC Section 9.36.090, Machinery, Equipment, Fans and Air Conditioning, defines the noise level exposure limits at properties affected by specific noise sources. HVAC units and other stationary Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-15 Noise
equipment would be selected and installed to comply with the City of Pasadena’s Noise Ordinance. The noise threshold for HVAC equipment is that the noise shall not exceed 5 dBA above ambient conditions at the property lines. HVAC units would be located on top of seven to eight story buildings; therefore, noise generation from the HVAC equipment would be substantially attenuated by the distance between the top of the building to the nearest receptors beyond the property lines. Additionally, the HVAC units would be situated behind parapets, which would reduce nose transmission to lower elevation receptors.
Noise from landscape maintenance would be similar to noise currently occurring at the Project site. Noise from leaf blowers is specifically addressed under Section 9.37, Leaf-Blowing Machines, of the PMC. The City limits the use of leaf-blowing machines to the least noise sensitive portions of the day, limits the use to 30 minutes per day, and sets a noise level limit of 65 dBA as measured at 50 feet. Compliance with the City’s requirements would result in noise levels that are acceptable pursuant to the PMC.
The Project would also have outdoor uses such open spaces and dining. Noise generated by these uses typically include people talking and, possibly, use of amplified music. Any noise generated within the open spaces would be substantially attenuated by the proposed structures, the elevation above the street, and the distance between the outdoor activities and the nearest property line. Also, all outdoor uses would be subject to the 5 dB noise limit established in Section
9.36.050 of the PMC.
In summary, through compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, there would be less than significant impacts related to on-site stationary noise sources, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Construction Noise
Construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same construction noise generation as the Project. The only difference in construction scenario is that subterranean parking is reduced to four levels (instead of five). However, this would not affect the noise generation from the excavation activities themselves because there would be the same daily construction activities.
As discussed for the Project, at a distance of 100 feet from the Project’s construction area, construction activities for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate noise levels ranging from 72 to 83 dBA Leq. As shown in Table 3.7-4 above, noise generation for all construction phases would be less than the City’s 85 dBA noise limit as measured at 100 feet.
As discussed for the Project, truck trips are needed for delivery of construction equipment and materials as well as the export of the excavated soils. For the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, based on data provided by the Project Applicant, it is anticipated that grading and excavation of the site would result in a maximum of 10,515 truckloads of soil during the grading/excavation phase of four months. Assuming that each truckload has two trips, there would be an average of approximately 200 truck trips per day (reduced from an estimated 250 trips for the Project). The addition of 200 truck trips per day to roadway volumes of approximately 18,000 daily trips along Arroyo Parkway north of California Boulevard or 21,000 daily trips along California Boulevard west of Arroyo Parkway would increase roadway volumes by approximately 1-2 percent. A doubling of traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dBA. 3 dBA is also the lowest change in noise levels that is considered perceptible to human hearing in outdoor environments. As such, the small increase in traffic volumes related to construction activities proximate to the Project site would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-16 Noise
After completion of Project related construction activities, noise from truck trips associated with development of the site would cease.
Therefore, as with the Project, construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be clearly audible above the existing ambient noise environment. However, construction would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, consistent with Section 9.36.070 of the PMC, nor would it exceed the City's construction noise limit of 85 dBA at 100 feet.
Additionally, off-site noise from the addition of construction-related truck trips would not be discernable. There would be less than significant construction noise impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Operation
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Operation of the proposed Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would increase traffic as compared to existing uses on the site, which has the potential to increase noise levels on local roadways proximate to the site. Table 3.7-7, Net Trip Generation for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, summarizes the daily total trip generation and the AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the existing land uses (not including Whole Foods Market as this is not changing), the Project land uses, and the net difference.
TABLE 3.7-7
NET TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROJECT WITH BUILDING A
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Uses 2,454 189 237
Project Uses 2,494 194 217
Net Change 41 5 (20)
Source: Pasadena 2021b.
As shown in Table 3.7-7, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is estimated to generate a total of 2,494 vehicle trips per day, with 194 AM and 217 PM peak hour trips. The net change in trips, when considering the traffic generated by existing land uses, is 41 additional trips per day with an increase of 5 AM peak hour trips and a reduction of 20 PM peak hour trips.
Because the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate fewer daily trips than the Project, it can be concluded that this scenario would not result in a substantial permanent change in noise levels related to off-site traffic. There would be a less than significant impact related to traffic noise, and no mitigation is required.
On-Site Stationary Noise Generation
Operational noise sources associated with the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as the Project. As with the Project, through compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, there would be less than significant impacts related to on-site stationary noise sources, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-17 Noise
Threshold 3.2b Would the Project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Project
Construction
As discussed previously, there are no applicable City standards for vibration-induced building damage and/or annoyance and applicable FTA criteria have been applied in this analysis.
Pile driving and blasting are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during construction. Neither pile driving nor blasting would be used during Project construction.
Conventional construction equipment would be used for demolition and grading activities.
Table 3.7-8, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, summarizes typical vibration levels measured at 25 feet during construction activities for various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment.
TABLE 3.7-8
VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec)
Pile driver (impact) upper range 1.518
typical 0.644
Pile driver (sonic) upper range 0.734
typical 0.170
Vibratory roller 0.210
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inch(es) per second.
Source: FTA 2018.
Demolition, grading and excavation, and building construction would occur up to the property lines for much of the Project site. These construction activities would generate vibration. However, construction related vibration would not be expected to interfere with the operation of land uses proximate to the construction area. Land uses nearby (about 50 feet) include restaurants, moving and storage facilities, a supermarket, and other non-vibration sensitive uses. Construction generated vibration from the Project would not interfere with their operation. However, heavy construction vehicles and activities may have the potential for cosmetic building damage.
Table 3.7-9, Vibration Levels and Building Damage at Surrounding Uses, summarizes the expected vibration level at several receptors – both on-site and off-site – for the primary vibrationgenerating construction equipment compared to the applicable vibration building damage threshold.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-18 Noise
TABLE 3.7-9
VIBRATION LEVELS AND BUILDING DAMAGE AT SURROUNDING USES Equipment
Vibration Levels (PPV)
Whole Foods
Market
located within
the Project
Site1
Commercial
Historic Uses
within the
Project Site2
Commercial
Use to the
West of the
Project Site3
Medical Use
to the
Southwest of
the Project
Site4
Residential
Use to the
East of the
Project Site5
(PPV at 10 ft) (PPV at 10 ft) (PPV at 30 ft) (PPV at 100 ft) (PPV at 105 ft) Large bulldozer 0.35 0.35 0.07 0.01 0.01
Small bulldozer 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jackhammer 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00
Loaded trucks 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.01 0.01
Threshold 0.3 0.12 0.3 0.3 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No
PPV: peak particle velocity; ft: feet
1 Facility located at 465 South Arroyo Parkway
2 Commercial property located at 501 & 523 South Arroyo Parkway 3 Commercial use located at 474 South Raymond Avenue
4 Medical use located at 100 East California Boulevard
5 Residential use located at 482 South Arroyo Parkway
Source: FTA 2018; see Appendix F, Noise Modeling Data, for modeling assumptions and outputs.
As shown in Table 3.7-9, the estimated vibration levels would not exceed the building damage threshold at adjacent off-site structures. However, during construction activity in close proximity (around 30 feet or less), buildings located within the Project site (i.e., Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) may be exposed vibration levels that could result in cosmetic building damage. As discussed in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway are considered historic resources and are represented in Table 3.7-9 in the second column of estimated vibration levels (Commercial Historic Uses within the Project Site). Because of the age of these two structures, they are considered more susceptible to vibration-related damage than newer construction, such as Whole Foods Market. located at 465 South Arroyo Parkway. As shown, a lower threshold (0.12 compared to 0.30) is applied to these structures for consideration of vibration-inducing building damage.
As shown in Table 3.7-9, both the Whole Food Market building and the structures at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway may experience vibration levels during operation of certain equipment that could cause cosmetic damage. Therefore, MM NOI-1 requires that certain construction activities/equipment are set back from these buildings, that vibration monitoring is implemented, and, if cosmetic damage does occur despite setbacks and monitoring, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for restoring the damage. With implementation of MM NOI-1, there would be less than significant impacts related to vibration causing damage to the three on-site buildings being retained.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same construction related vibration generation as the Project. The only difference in the construction scenario is that subterranean parking is reduced to four levels (instead of five). However, this would not affect the vibration generation from the excavation activities themselves because there would be the same daily construction activities. As with the Project, with implementation of MM NOI-1, there would be less than significant impacts for the Project with Building A Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-19 Noise
Residential/Commercial related to vibration causing damage to the three on-site buildings being retained.
3.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Project
Cumulative Construction Noise and Vibration
Noise and vibration generated during construction of the proposed Project would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time throughout the construction period. Shortterm cumulative impacts related to ambient noise and vibration levels could occur if construction associated with the proposed Project as well as surrounding current and future development were to occur simultaneously. Noise or vibration generated by construction of the Project in combination with another project with major construction activity within approximately 1,000 feet of the site could adversely impact sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site with a cumulative noise level greater than the noise generated solely at the Project site.
At this time there are no projects within 1,000 feet that are anticipated to be constructed concurrently with the Project that have the potential to generate cumulatively considerable noise or vibration levels. The City also limits noise from construction equipment to 85 dBA at 100 feet.
Because construction noise would be substantially attenuated prior to reaching land uses proximate to the Project site and imposes a noise limit on construction equipment, cumulative noise from both construction projects would not be substantially different than that generated by the Project. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable construction noise and vibration impact.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative traffic noise was evaluated by the City’s General Plan EIR (Pasadena 2015), in which traffic noise levels were assessed for year 2015 and the buildout year of 2035 along Arroyo Parkway north of California Boulevard. Cumulative traffic noise levels were found to increase by
0.5 dBA. As discussed previously, the Project would increase traffic volumes by a maximum of 19 percent over existing conditions. This increase in traffic volumes would result in noise level increases of 1 dBA CNEL, which would not result in increases in cumulative traffic noise above the 5 dBA CNEL significance threshold used in the General Plan EIR.
Individual stationary sources of noise are regulated by the City’s Municipal Code for both the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The stringent noise limitations established for each of these noise sources, the infrequency of occurrence, and the separation distance for these noise sources would limit cumulative noise exposure near the Project site to a less than significant level. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable stationary noise source impact.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The cumulative analysis for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is essentially the same as the Project. For construction noise and vibration, the only difference in the construction scenario is that subterranean parking is reduced to four levels (instead of five). However, this would not affect the construction noise and vibration generation from the excavation activities themselves because there would be the same daily construction activities. For operation, the only difference is the provision of residential instead of medical office land uses. This results in fewer daily vehicle trips. However, this would not affect the stationary source noise generation nor change the traffic noise generation to a degree that would be audible to human hearing. As such, Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-20 Noise
the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable construction noise and vibration impact or operational noise impact.
3.7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
MM NOI-1 The potential for vibration-induced cosmetic (i.e., not structural) damage to the structures at 465, 501, and 523 South Arroyo Parkway shall be reduced by implementing the following three steps: (1) setbacks, (2) monitoring, and (3) restoration (if applicable).
(1) The Project Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the construction specifications include the following language: “Construction equipment shall observe setback distances of 30 feet from any of the three on-site buildings being retained (Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) for equipment equivalent to a large bulldozer (29,000 pounds or more) and 20 feet for jackhammers and loaded trucks. Small dozers and other equipment with vehicle weights of less (29,000 pounds) are not anticipated to result in substantial levels of vibration that could cause building damage”. (2) The Project Applicant shall be responsible for placing a vibration monitor in each of the three on-site buildings to remain on the site. The contractor would need to have vibration measurements taken on the site when heavy equipment or vibration intensive activities occurs near (i.e., less than 30 feet horizontal distance) to these three buildings. Vibration measurements will be recorded and compared to the vibration thresholds appropriate for the building that may be impacted. Vibration records shall be submitted to the City once a week. The appropriate vibration thresholds are as follows: 0.12 peak particle velocity (PPV) for 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway and 0.30 PPV for Whole Foods Market. The Applicant shall be responsible for preparing a Monitoring Plan, describing the proposed location of vibration monitors, the timing of monitoring, collecting vibration records (including date, time, activity that precipitated the monitoring, and who recorded the vibration level), to whom and when the monitoring records will be submitted, and any remedial actions needed because of vibration readings. The Monitoring Plan is subject to review and approval by City staff and will be submitted prior to initiation of any construction activity on the site.
If vibration levels are below these thresholds, it is permissible to have construction activity with large (over 29,000 pounds) equipment, jackhammers, and/or loaded trucks within the setback distances included in item 1 above. Additionally, vibration monitoring shall guide construction activity near the perimeter of these buildings during subterranean excavation and construction activity. If vibration levels are found to exceed the applicable threshold, then the associated construction activity shall immediately halt, and alternative methods for achieving the construction activity shall be determined and employed to reduce the construction-generated vibration exposure to the building(s) to less than the thresholds. While the specific alternative methods to be employed cannot be foreseen, as it would be depending on situationspecific factors, the performance objective of maintaining activity that results in vibration below the applicable thresholds shall guide all decisions. (3) If cosmetic damage does occur to one or more of these three buildings because of vibration from Project-related construction activities despite setbacks and monitoring, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-21 Noise
restoring the damage. Cosmetic damage includes things like, for example, cracks in paint/plaster, fallen plaster/stucco from a facade, and cracked glass.
Specifically, any restorations to Whole Foods Market shall be implemented to return the damaged area to the same condition (e.g., materials, colors, style) as present at the start of construction. Any restorations to the buildings at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) (Standards), and the determination of whether the planned restorations is consistent with the Standards shall be made by a qualified historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history or historic architecture (Professional) and to the satisfaction of the City. The restorations to the historic buildings, if necessary, may be either to the conditions present before construction was initiated or, if the planned updates to these buildings are underway may be conducted to meet proposal conditions.
The City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring these requirements are included in the construction specifications prior to any demolition activity on the site. The Project Applicant and the City’s inspector assigned to the Project shall also be responsible for ensuring these measures are consistently implemented throughout the construction period.
3.7.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.7.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
Construction of the Project would result in less than significant construction noise generation (see Table 3.7-4). Off-site noise from the addition of construction-related truck trips would not be audible. Estimated vibration levels when construction activities occur under the closest distance to each receptor would not exceed the vibration annoyance criteria (see Table 3.7-9) but may exceed the building damage threshold at remaining on-site structures within the Project site (i.e., Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) during construction activity in close proximity. Therefore, MM NOI-1 requires the construction specifications to include the following:
“Construction equipment shall observe setback distances of 30 feet for equipment equivalent to a large bulldozer (29,000 pounds or more) and 20 feet for jackhammers and loaded trucks. Small dozers and other equipment with vehicle weights of less (29,000 pounds) are not anticipated to result in substantial levels of vibration that could cause building damage”. Operation of the Project would result in less than significant operational noise, both from on-site stationary noise sources and off-site traffic noise. With implementation of MM NOI-1, there would be less than significant noise and vibration impacts related to construction and operation of the Project.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of construction noise and vibration and operational noise for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as the analysis of the Project. As discussed above, the differences in construction scenario and land uses between the two scenarios do not materially affect the results of the analysis. As with the Project, approval MM NOI-1 requires the construction specifications for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be required to include the following: “Construction equipment shall Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.7-22 Noise
observe setback distances of 30 feet for equipment equivalent to a large bulldozer (29,000 pounds or more) and 20 feet for jackhammers and loaded trucks. Small dozers and other equipment with vehicle weights of less (29,000 pounds) are not anticipated to result in substantial levels of vibration that could cause building damage”. With implementation of MM NOI-1, there would be less than significant noise and vibration impacts related to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
3.7.10 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020 (April). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
California Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines.
California. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf Pasadena, City of. 2015a (August). Pasadena General Plan. Pasadena, CA: the City. General Plan - Planning & Community Development Department (cityofpasadena.net). ———. 2015b (January). Pasadena General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I.
Pasadena, CA: the City. General-Plan_Draft-EIR_2015-01.pdf (cityofpasadena.net).
Pasadena, City of. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2021a (March 22). Transportation Impact Analysis, Outside of CEQA Analysis for 491-577 South Arroyo Parkway. Pasadena, CA:
Pasadena DOT.
———. 2021b (June 17). Transportation Impact Analysis, Outside of CEQA Analysis for 491-577 South Arroyo Parkway. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT.
———.2016. City of Pasadena Truck Route Map. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/transportation/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/TruckRoutes-Map-PDF.pdf U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018 (September).
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No, 0123 (prepared by the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center). Washington, D.C.: FTA.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (dot.gov).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
Washington, D.C.: USEPA.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-1 Public Services and Recreation
3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section discusses the existing public services in the City of Pasadena and addresses potential impacts associated with the proposed Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial to the following services:
• Fire protection and emergency medical services (Pasadena Fire Department); • Police protection services (Pasadena Police Department); • School services (Pasadena Unified School District);
• Library services (Pasadena Public Library); and
• Parks and recreation services (City of Pasadena Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department).
Information in this section is derived from the above-referenced public service providers, their websites, and the City of Pasadena General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fire Protection
Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City are provided by the Pasadena Fire Department (PFD). The PFD is an “all-risk” fire department providing the community it protects with services that include fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), technical rescue (Urban Search and Rescue), and first-responder hazardous materials response. The PFD provides fire protection services with the capability of mitigating fire incidents within structures, vehicles, vegetation and the wildland-urban interface zone.
Depending on the risk, type, and location of the incident, resources can be dispatched from among the PFD’s eight advanced life support (ALS) engine companies (minimum one paramedic), five rescue ambulances staffed with two advanced life support firefighter paramedics, two trucks, and Battalion Chief. The PFD provides EMS to meet the standards set forth by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Emergency Medical Services Agency, and provide 24-hour emergency response, treatment, transport of the ill and injured in the community. A 911 call for medical assistance receives a paramedic ambulance and an engine or truck, providing a minimum of two paramedic and four firefighter emergency medical technicians (EMTs), for exceptional patient care. Cross staffing provides a Type 1 Heavy Urban Search and Rescue, water tender, brush patrol, strike team command vehicle, and jumper support vehicle. The PFD has five reserve engines, two reserve trucks, fire reserve rescue ambulances, and a reserve command vehicle.
The PFD has California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) Type I Heavy Urban Search and Rescue that is available for response to incidents involving swift water rescue, structural collapse, trench rescue, confined space rescue, technical rope rescue, mountain rescue, and mass transit accident stabilization/rescue. All PFD personnel are trained at the Type3 Light Operational Level per Cal-OES allowing for immediate action on technical rescue incidents involving low angle rope rescue and collapse or failure of light frame construction with the necessary equipment located on all frontline engines and trucks.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-2 Public Services and Recreation
There are eight PFD stations in the City, and three of the eight stations serve the Project site and surrounding area, as summarized in Table 3.8-1 on the following page.
TABLE 3.8-1
PASADENA FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES SERVING THE PROJECT SITE Station No. and Address Equipment and Personnel
Distance and Direction
from Site
Fire Station 31
135 South Fair Oaks Avenue
1 Fire Engine (4 personnel)
1 Ladder Truck (4 personnel)
1 Advanced Life Support Rescue Ambulance
(2 personnel)
10 Personnel Assigned Total
Approximately 0.4 mile to
the northwest
Fire Station 34
1360 East Del Mar Avenue
1 Fire Engine (4 personnel)
1 Advanced Life Support Rescue Ambulance
(2 personnel)
1 Battalion Chief (1 personnel)
7 Personnel Assigned Total
Approximately 1.5 miles to
the east-northeast
Fire Station 39
50 Avenue 64
1 Fire Engine (4 personnel)
4 Personnel Assigned Total
Approximately 1.8 miles to
the west-northwest
Additionally, the PFD through the Area C Unified Response Agreement and various mutual aid and automatic aid agreements has access to the following specialty units:
• Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Apparatus
• Air/Light Utility
• Hazmat (Type 1 from Burbank and Glendale)
• Heavy Rescue (LAFD/LA County Fire)
• Regional Task Force (RTF-4 USAR Specialty Units)
• Type III Brush Engine, Water Tenders, Patrols
The PFD also joined with the Burbank Fire Department and Glendale Fire Department to create the Verdugo Fire Communications Center (VFCC) in 1979. The communications center now dispatches for a total of 13 agencies. There are automatic and mutual aid agreements in place so that the closest unit is dispatched to a given call, regardless of department. The PFD has various automatic aid agreements with each of the cities within the VFCC agencies and the Hollywood Burbank Airport for fire protection. The PFD maintains a Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of EMS and Rescue Services through Automatic Aid/Initial Action and EMS Training Procedures between the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Marino, and San Gabriel.
Additional emergency medical services response is provided via the closest unit model achieved through the agreements of the 13 agencies making up the VFCC. Additionally, the PFD has various automatic and/or mutual aid agreements with the U.S. Forest Service, City of Los Angeles Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Fire Department for fire protection needs. The PFD relies on the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan for major disasters beyond local control (i.e., major emergencies, natural disasters, sabotage, civil disturbance, political violence and terrorism, attack).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-3 Public Services and Recreation
There are no federal or state regulations directing the level of service response times and outcomes, but the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Code is a nationally recognized standard. NFPA 1710 states that a unit (i.e., engine company or ladder truck company) should arrive at the scene of a critical emergency in 8 minutes from time of call receipt in fire dispatch and remaining first alarm units (effective response force) in 12 minutes, 90 percent of the time, where the benchmark travel time is 4 minutes for the first unit on scene and 8 minutes for the effective fire force. PFD’s response time standard for emergency calls is that a fire engine arrives at the scene of an emergency within 5 minutes of dispatch 90 percent of the time. In the 2019 fiscal year, the response time for fire calls averaged 8 minutes 57 seconds and for medical calls averaged 6 minutes 29 seconds (PFD 2020).
Police Protection
The Pasadena Police Department (PPD) is a full-service law enforcement agency with the capability of responding to and fully investigating any type of call for service or crime incident that occurs within the City limits. The PPD is well equipped with sufficient vehicles, resources, and facilities (including a Type I jail) to accomplish any essential law enforcement task or mission. The PPD has several specialized assignments that allow it to address community concerns and critical incidents that occur within the City. Examples of these assignments include Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), Traffic Section, Neighborhood Services Section, Criminal Investigations Unit, and Air Operations Section.
There are frequent calls to the police department from businesses in the Project area related to the unhoused loitering in the area and transients causing disturbances with both the businesses and patrons. The objective is to find permanent housing for the unhoused and services for the transients through outreach, partnering with non-profits, other City entities, and the Los Angeles County Mental Health Department.
The PPD has mutual aid agreements with other police agencies that immediately surround the City. The PPD is the lead agency in mutual aid area “C” and has ready access to additional police resources, when and if needed. Additionally, the PPD has a mutual aid agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) for general law enforcement services, if needed.
The LACSD provides law enforcement service to the Metro “L” Line (formerly known as the Gold Line) adjacent to the Project site via a memorandum of understanding.
PPD classifies priority calls for police services into three categories:
• Priority 1: High priority classification, in progress crime with immediate threat to human life. PPD’s response time standard for Priority 1 calls is 6 minutes or less. • Priority 2: In progress crime with threat to property and suspect on scene. • Priority 3: Priority call due to classification but no suspect on scene.
Schools
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) provides public Transitional Kindergarten–12th grade education to more than 15,350 students in a 76-square mile area that includes the City of Pasadena, City of Sierra Madre, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County including Altadena. PUSD has a total of 23 schools, including 13 elementary schools (grades K-5), 1 K-8 school, 3 middle schools (grades 6-8), 2 high schools (grades 9-12), 1 continuation high school, and 1 alternative education program. In addition to these schools, PUSD also operates Focus Point Academy, an Adult Living Skills Center, four Early Childhood Education Centers, Transitional Kindergarten programs, and Twilight Adult Education. The administrative offices for Options For Youth Public Charter Schools is located in Pasadena at 320 North Halstead Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-4 Public Services and Recreation
Street, Suite 280. Opportunities for Learning Public Charter Schools operates one charter school in the City through the Duarte Unified School District for grades 7-12 at 2029 Lincoln Avenue.
Table 3.8-2 summarizes the PUSD schools that would serve school-age children generated by land uses on the Project site.
TABLE 3.8-2
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SERVING THE
PROJECT SITE
School Name and Address 2020 School Year Enrollment
McKinley Elementary School
325 South Oak Knoll Avenue
Grades K-8
944
Blair Middle & High School
1201 South Marengo Avenue
Grades 6-12
1,015
Source: California Department of Education (CDE). 2021 (October 15, last accessed). California School Dashboard. Sacramento, CA: CDE. California School Dashboard (CA Dept of Education) (caschooldashboard.org).
Parks and Recreational Facilities
City of Pasadena
Although the City is generally built out, it features an extensive system of parkland that includes City parks, trails systems, and larger open space corridors that traverse large swathes of the City.
Pasadena’s location at the southern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains provides residents with numerous hiking, biking, and equestrian opportunities. The City provides approximately 391 acres of parks and 502 acres of open space areas (Pasadena 2015).
The Green Space, Parks and Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan states that an acceptable walking distance to a park is considered a 0.5-mile radius from a site. The City of Pasadena Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department has identified the three community parks within a 0.5- to 0.7-mile radius of the Project site, summarized in Table 3.8-3 below, as the primary facilities serving the Project site.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-5 Public Services and Recreation
TABLE 3.8-3
CITY OF PASADENA PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SERVING THE
PROJECT SITE
Facility Name, Address, and
Distance from Site Amenities
Size
(Acres)
Central Park
275 South Raymond Avenue
0.2-mile to the northwest
• Picnic tables, rose garden, children’s playground, and lawn bowling greens with a club house operated by the Pasadena Lawn Bowling and Croquet Club.
• 3-4 full time staff for park maintenance
• Central Park Center is located at the south end of Central Park.
The center provides after school care and youth camp
administrative offices for the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department.
• 4 full time staff
9.2 Memorial Park
85 East Holly Street
0.7 mile to the north
• Picnic tables, children’s playground, exercise equipment and a band shell with seating.
• 3-4 full time staff for park maintenance
• The Pasadena Senior Center is located on the south end of the park which is independently operated by a non-profit to provide social services, programs and activities for seniors age 50 and older.
5.3 Singer Park
Southwest corner of California
Boulevard and St. John Avenue
0.4 mile to the west
• Children’s playground, covered seating areas, picnic tables, and passive recreation opportunities
• 2-3 full time staff for park maintenance
2.9 For maintenance purposes, the three parks mentioned are serviced by full time staff to ensure that the quality of the physical space and any structures within the park boundaries are maintained, and inquiries from the public are addressed within 48 hours.
The City of Pasadena does not have a minimum standard of parkland per capita. Rather, policy GSRP 6.3 of the Green Space, Recreation, and Parks Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the City’s parkland policy as: “Adequate Developed Parkland. Acquire or otherwise make available local parkland and open spaces in sufficient quantity to meet the community demand for facilities and programs identified in the Master Plan” (Pasadena 2015).
Other Parks and Open Space Facilities
The City of Pasadena and the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) maintain joint-use agreements permitting public use of the following PUSD facilities:
• Madison School/Park, 515 Ashtabula Street,
• Linda Vista Park, 1200 block of Linda Vista Avenue (former elementary school), • McKinley School Park, 325 South Oak Knoll Avenue,
• John Muir High School Tennis Courts, 1905 North Lincoln Avenue, and • Pasadena High School Tennis Courts, 2925 East Sierra Madre Boulevard (Pasadena 2015).
The Angeles National Forest (ANF), which spans about 700,000 acres, mostly in the San Gabriel Mountains, borders part of the north City boundary. The ANF offers 557 miles of hiking and equestrian trails, including 73 miles of National Recreation Trails and 176 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT); and 58 campgrounds (Pasadena 2015).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-6 Public Services and Recreation
Other Public Facilities
For purposes of this Draft EIR, other public facilities refer to library services. The Pasadena Public Library (PPL) provides library services to City residents. PPL has a central library location (Central Library) and nine branch libraries, which are located so that all residents are within a mile from a library or within walking distance. PPL provides a variety of services and programs to meet each community’s information needs. Programs are geared toward adults and children, service to the homebound, preschool story hours, and the Summer Reading Program.
The Project site falls between the Central Library and Allendale Branch Library service areas.
Central Library is located approximately 0.8 mile to the north-northeast, and Allendale Branch Library is located approximately 0.7 mile to the south-southeast. It is noted that Central Library is currently closed for a seismic retrofit but will reopen. Also, many library resources are available 24 hours 7 days a week (24/7) virtually, including e-books, audiobooks, magazines and comics, and streaming music and video.
The Central Library is the main facility in the City and is over 100,000 square feet (sf) and houses over 300,000 collections. Central Library has provided a wide variety of programs and services for almost 100 years. Annually, 30,000-40,000 community members attend story times, author visits, cultural events, Art Night, recitals, plays, and many other programs. Central Library has also served as the hub of Pasadena’s local history archives, providing valuable historical documents, newspaper, photos, and research. This facility also serves as a destination for those who need computer and/or WiFi access, providing highspeed internet access, computers, and a variety of productivity software for job searching, research, or personal use. For the last two years, Central Library has housed the iLab–an innovative space that provides the community with access to maker equipment like 3-D printers, Carvey machines, sewing machines, and more. In addition, Central Library is the home of the Office of the Young Child–a City wide systems-change initiative to bring all resources and activities for zero- to five-years-old children and their families together.
The Allendale Branch Library, located at 1130 South Marengo Avenue, is 3,172 sf with a 23,500- item collection and 4.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. Allendale Branch is significantly smaller than Central Library but provides access to an extensive materials collection and programming that support the needs of neighboring high school students.
The PPL does not have one systemwide standard for square footage of library space per person; library space needs are determined individually for the service area of each branch. According to PPL, the total library facility square footage and collections are adequate to serve Pasadena’s existing population and sufficient to support a population of up to a least 175,000 (as of 2013).
Additionally, PPL adds approximately 60,000 items per year to its collection, which is expected to increase as titles continue to move toward electronic format. PPL’s total collection exceeds national per capita standards at the time the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared (Pasadena 2015).
3.8.2 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
State
California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement is an agreement between the State of California, its various departments and agencies, and the various political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and other public agencies of the State of California. The agreement allows for the use of all the resources and facilities of the participating agencies in Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-7 Public Services and Recreation
preventing and combating the effect of disasters, such as flood, fire, earthquake, pestilence, war, sabotage, and riot. It commits the participating agencies to voluntarily aid and assist each other in the event of a disaster, through the interchange of services and facilities, including fire, police, medical and health, communication, and transportation services and facilities, as necessary to provide rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
Assembly Bill 2926
The State has traditionally been responsible for funding local public schools. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986. This bill allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space to fund school construction and reconstruction. AB 2926 also established maximum fees (adjusted for inflation) which can be collected under this and any other school fee authorization.
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (or “Leroy Greene School Facilities Act”) and Proposition 1A (both of which passed in 1998) provide a comprehensive school facility financing and reform program by, among other methods, authorizing both a $9.2 billion school facilities bond issue and school construction cost containment provisions. Specifically, the bond funds are to provide for new construction and for reconstruction/modernization needs. The provisions of SB 50 (1) prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and (2) reinstate the school facility fee cap for legislative actions (e.g., general plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments). According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation”.
SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by a school district’s governing board. Beginning in 2000, the maximum allowable amount of Level 1 developer fees is adjusted every two years based on the change in the statewide cost index for class B construction per Section 65995(b)(3) of the Government Code (OPSC 2021). These fee levels depend upon certain conditions within a district. For year 2020, these three levels currently include the following:
Level 1: Level 1 fees are the base statutory fees. Level 1 fees are $4.08 per square foot (sf) for new residential development and $0.66 per sf of chargeable, covered, and enclosed floor space for new commercial/industrial development. These amounts represent the maximum that can currently be legally imposed upon new development projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding. Payment of this fee is deemed to constitute full, complete, and adequate mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities.
Level 2: Level 2 fees allow a school district to impose developer fees above the statutory levels up to 50 percent of school construction costs under designated circumstances.
The State provides grant amounts for new school construction if funds are available.
Level 3: Level 3 fees apply if the State runs out of bond funds, allowing a school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation on the developer minus any local dedicated school monies. However, Senate Bill 1016 (Chapter 38, Statutes of 2012) suspended the ability of school districts to levy Level III fees.
To accommodate students from new development projects, school districts may alternatively finance new schools through special school construction funding resolutions and/or agreements Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-8 Public Services and Recreation
between developers, the affected school districts and, occasionally, other local governmental agencies. These special resolutions and agreements often allow school districts to realize school mitigation funds in excess of the developer fees allowed under SB 50.
Measure TT Master Plan
In 2008, voters in the PUSD service area approved Measure TT, authorizing PUSD to sell up to $350 million in bonds to be repaid through a property tax increase. Types of improvements to schools financed by Measure TT bonds include new, modernized, and reconfigured school buildings; upgrades to lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and electrical systems; seismic upgrades; new parking lots; and Americans with Disabilities Act access improvements.
Quimby Act
California allows a City or County to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, either the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes (Section 66477 of the California Government Code). This legislation, commonly called the “Quimby Act,” establishes a standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new subdivision development unless the municipality has already established a higher rate, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the city may adopt a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds.
California Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is California’s Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the Public Resources Code, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any nonpark use unless compensation, land, or both are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.
City
Pasadena Municipal Code
Chapter 4.17 et. seq. of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) establishes the City’s park acquisition fund and requires that moneys received from the sale of dedicated parkland be deposited in the fund for park acquisition and development. The City collects park impact fees for new residential development to offset the increased demand for parks and impact on existing parks. The fees are used to fund parkland acquisition and capital improvements while interest from the fees can be used to pay for maintenance. The ordinance requires that any person developing new housing units pay an impact fee, which is included as a condition of approval when subdividing a parcel or as a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit. Impact fees are paid into a special fund maintained by the City Director of Finance and disbursed to pay for park or recreational facility improvements, as outlined in the PMC. Impact fees are valuated based on the number of bedrooms in each new residential unit.
In 2000, the Pasadena City Council established three park impact districts: West, Central, and East. Marengo Avenue and Allen Avenue from the northern to the southern City limits serve as the dividing lines for the districts. A total of 90 percent of the residential impact fee collected in a park impact district must be spent on neighborhood and community parks in that district. The remaining 10 percent of the funds are distributed to the citywide parks, which include Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-9 Public Services and Recreation
Hahamongna, Central Arroyo, and Lower Arroyo. Interest earned on the funds collected may be used to maintain any park or any capital improvement located in any park.
Green Space, Recreation and Parks Master Plan
Pasadena’s Green Space, Recreation and Parks Master Plan (GSRPMP) was approved and adopted in November 2007. The plan was developed in tandem with the City’s previous General Plan Green Space Element and was the result of a three-year effort to determine the community’s goals and objectives for natural open space, parks, recreational facilities, and recreational programs. The vision statement for the plan is: “To create, maintain, protect, and restore an interrelated system of parks, trails, and natural open spaces. To provide recreational opportunities which sustain a vibrant and healthy community with an emphasis on ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education” (Pasadena 2015).
In addition to this vision statement, the GSRPMP identifies nine core principles, and all nine principles are meant to respond to challenges faced by the City related to the provision of recreational facilities and programs, which include high population densities and a “built out” community. The GSRPMP includes an extensive inventory of existing parks, open space areas, and recreational programs in the City. It also summarizes the public outreach process and feedback. Lastly, it provides a detailed community needs assessment. The community’s needs are compared against the City’s inventory of existing facilities and programs to establish gaps, deficiencies, priorities, and recommendations for recreation, parks, and open space.
Recommendations outline sources of funding for the provision of parks and services in Pasadena.
The GSRPMP is designed to be consistent with existing long-range plans for specific open space areas in the City.
3.8.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project would result in a significant adverse public services and recreation impact if it would:
Threshold 3.8a: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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; and/or
v) Other public facilities.
Threshold 3.8b: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Threshold 3.8c: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-10 Public Services and Recreation
3.8.4 METHODOLOGY
The public service providers were consulted for information regarding current services and to determine if the proposed Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would significantly impact the respective providers’ abilities to provide services such that new or physically altered facilities would be required, whose construction could result in an environmental impact. Other information presented in this section was derived from the City’s website and the adopted General Plan and related EIR.
3.8.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.8a: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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; and/or
v) Other public facilities.1
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Project
The PFD reports that the Project site is: (1) in an area serviced by a sufficient hydrant system as needed to achieve necessary fire flows, (2) the main thoroughfares running north-south and eastwest, provide adequate access for PFD vehicles, and (3) fire and emergency medical response to the area are within desired response times.
The PFD anticipates that the Project would result in an increased call for fire protection and emergency medical services because there would be larger development on the site than the existing conditions; however, the increase would not result in the need to construct new or expanded facilities whose construction may cause an environmental impact. The Project would be required to comply with regulations related to fire protection and be subject to the City’s routine construction permitting process. This includes a review by PFD for compliance with building and site design standards related to fire life safety and coordination with Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) to ensure that local fire flow infrastructure meets current code standards for the type and intensity of land uses involved. PFD did note that the addition of one rescue ambulance may be required due to the expected increase in medical-related calls. The new land uses would contribute to the City’s general fund through payment of taxes; the general fund is the primary source of PFD’s annual budget and would address the need for additional equipment. The potential need for additional equipment does not represent an environmental impact. There would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded PFD facilities, and no mitigation is required.
1 Parks is addressed further below
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-11 Public Services and Recreation
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The PFD indicates that analysis of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project. The only difference is that this scenario would result in a relatively greater increase in fire and emergency medical services because there would be a larger development on the site than the existing conditions. Like the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in the need to construct new or expanded PFD facilities whose construction may cause an environmental impact. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be required to comply with regulations related to fire protection and be subject to the City’s routine construction permitting process. This includes a review by PFD for compliance with building and site design standards related to fire life safety and coordination with PWP to ensure that local fire flow infrastructure meets current code standards for the type and intensity of land uses involved. PFD did note that the addition of one rescue ambulance may also be required for this scenario due to the expected increase in medical-related calls. The new land uses would contribute to the City’s general fund through payment of taxes; the general fund is the primary source of PFD’s annual budget and would address the need for additional equipment. The potential need for additional equipment does not represent an environmental impact. There would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded PFD facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Police Protection
Project
The PPD anticipates that the Project would result in an increase in calls for service in and around the site, primarily due to traffic (i.e., traffic stops, accidents), potential theft on the premises and in vehicles, and disturbances related to unhoused individuals. PPD states that whenever additional businesses and/or residents move into an area, there is a presumption that calls for service increase. To minimize the increase to the extent possible, PPD suggests consulting with their personnel specially trained in Crime Is Prevented through Environmental Design (CPTED) as part of Project design. However, the PPD does not indicate the Project would result in the need to construct new or expanded facilities to provide adequate police protection services. Generally, an increase in calls does not cause a need for new or expanded physical facilities because police called to a scene are typically out on the street and not at a police station and are on rotating shifts. This is consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIR, which states that although new officers (45) and new employees (20) would be required with buildout of the General Plan, “Given this level of staff increase, the field-nature of certain officers, the rotating daily shifts of police personnel, and the Department’s [PPD’s] existing facilities, no new or expanded police stations or other physical facilities are expected to be necessary” (Pasadena 2015). As such, implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded police facilities that may cause an environmental impact. There would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded PPD facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
According to PPD, the analysis of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not be different than the Project. Like the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in the need to construct new or expanded PPD facilities, the construction of which may cause an environmental impact. There would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded PPD facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-12 Public Services and Recreation
Schools
Project
The Project would not generate school-age children that would utilize PUSD schools or programs, as the only dwelling units proposed are for senior-age persons. Also, as allowed under the SB 50, school districts serving the City can assess school impact fees based on the floor area of new dwelling units and non-residential developments. These fees, to be remitted prior to issuance of building permits, are used to fund school services and facilities needed to provide the necessary school services. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a maximum of 197 residential units that could generate school-age children. As allowed under the SB 50, school districts serving the City can assess school impact fees based on the floor area of new dwelling units and nonresidential developments. These fees are used to fund school services and facilities needed to provide the necessary school services. These fees would be remitted prior to issuance of building permits. In addition to SB 50 fees, State and local bond measures have been passed, and may be passed in the future, to fund additional school facilities. As discussed above, the payment of statutory school fees is “full and complete mitigation of the impacts”. The California Education Code and California Government Code do not require the dedication of land or payment of fees in excess of statutorily established school fees. Thus, impacts on school services from future residential development under the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be less than significant with payment of required SB 50 fees, and no mitigation is required.
Other Public Facilities
Project
While the Project would result in an increase in the population being served by the PPL, as noted above, the PPL’s total collection exceeds national per capita standards at the time the General Plan EIR was prepared (Pasadena 2015). As such, the PPL concluded that the Project’s population would be adequately served by the existing facilities and related collections. The PPL indicates that implementation of the Project would not result in the need to construct new or expanded PPL facilities, the construction of which may cause an environmental impact. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
When compared to the Project, this scenario would result in a greater increase of the on-site resident population and, therefore, likely a greater use of library services. However, the PPL indicates that implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial also would not result in the need to construct new or expanded PPL facilities, the construction of which may cause an environmental impact. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.8a: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-13 Public Services and Recreation
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iv) Parks;
Threshold 3.8c: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Project
The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department does not have a minimum service ratio for parks. As discussed above, there are three community parks within a 0.5- to 0.7- mile radius of the Project site. It is noted that the furthest community park, Memorial Park, is situated adjacent to Memorial Station on the Gold (L) Line. Also, approximately 31,605 sf of open space, including public and private (solely for resident and staff use), would be provided across the site as part of the Project. The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department concluded that the small increase in population associated with the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded off-site park facilities. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded parks facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed, there are three community parks within a 0.7-mile radius of the site, with the furthest park being adjacent to the Memorial Gold (L) Line station. Also, approximately 31,605 sf of open space, including public and private (solely for resident and staff use), would be provided across the site as part of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although the resident population of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is higher than for the Project, the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department also concluded that the increase in population associated with the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in the need for new or expanded parks facilities. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to the need for new or expanded off-site parks facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.8b: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Project
The residents generated by up to 95 independent living senior units would likely use both existing and future parks and recreational facilities in the City, as well as facilities in the surrounding area.
These include County parks and recreational facilities, private recreational facilities, and recreational areas at the Angeles National Forest.
As discussed above, the City’s Pasadena Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department concluded that the increase in population associated with the Project would not drive the need for new or expanded park facilities. Also, as discussed previously, pursuant to Chapter 4.17 et. seq. of the PMC the City collects park impact fees for new residential developments to offset the increased demand for parks and impact on existing parks. The fees are used to fund parkland acquisition and capital improvements while interest from the fees can be used to pay for maintenance. The ordinance requires that any person developing new housing units pay an impact fee, which is included as a condition of approval when subdividing a parcel or as a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit. Therefore, the additional residents associated Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-14 Public Services and Recreation
with the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The residents generated by up to 197 units in Building A and up to 95 independent living senior units in Building B would likely use both existing and future parks and recreational facilities in the City, as well as facilities in the surrounding area. As discussed for the Project, the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department concluded that the contribution of residential growth from the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is considered small with regard to direct need for City parks. Also, as discussed for the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be required to pay a park impact fee whose purpose is to offset increased demand for parks and impact on existing parks. Therefore, the additional residents associated with the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
3.8.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
For fire protection and emergency medical services, the service area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the City, which is the PFD service area. For fire protection services, the PFD provides automatic aid as part of the VFCC. The PFD also participates in the State of California Master Mutual Aid program, which is used when all available local resources have been depleted or committed to an incident, allowing the State to coordinate resources available from neighboring counties, as necessary. Thus, future development with buildout of the City of Pasadena General Plan, and the VFCC participating agencies (for which PFD provides mutual aid), would increase the population and introduce structures that would create a demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. This cumulative demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would require additional personnel and resources at individual agencies to provide the same level of service and maintain existing response times. Conversely, the purpose of the VFCC is to provide a localized dispatch center with a borderless system among the participating agencies whereby the nearest available responder to the event, regardless of jurisdictional boundary, would provide the needed fire or emergency services. Essentially, each participating agency has the resources of all other participating agencies available for emergency response.
Individual developments in the City would be required to comply with pertinent provisions of the California Fire Code to prevent the creation of fire hazards, to promote fire safety, and to facilitate emergency response. Each project pursuant to General Plan buildout would be required to comply with regulations related to fire protection and be subject to the City’s routine construction permitting process. This includes a review by PFD for compliance with building and site design standards related to fire life safety and coordinating with PWP to ensure that local fire flow infrastructure meets current code standards for the type and intensity of land uses involved.
Future development in the City would generate revenues towards the City’s general fund (e.g., property taxes, sales tax, business tax) that could potentially be applied toward the funding of PFD fire protection and emergency services. These revenues would help offset the increased demand for PFD services with buildout of the General Plan. Construction and operation of new or expanded facilities, if necessary, as an allowed land use were evaluated throughout the General Plan EIR (Pasadena 2015).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-15 Public Services and Recreation
As discussed in the Initial Study, the development of the Project or the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to fire protection and emergency medical services, and no mitigation is required.
Police Protection Services
For police protection services, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the City, which is the PPD service area. As discussed, the PPD has mutual aid agreements with other police agencies that immediately surround the City and the LACSD is the lead agency in mutual aid area “C”.
Individual developments in the City would be reviewed by the PPD and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted. Future development in the City would generate revenues towards the City’s general fund (e.g., property taxes, sales tax, business tax) that could potentially be applied toward the funding of PPD fire protection and emergency services. These revenues would help offset the increased demand for PPD services with buildout of the General Plan. Construction and operation of new or expanded facilities, if necessary, as an allowed land use were evaluated throughout the General Plan EIR.
As discussed in the Initial Study, the development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to police protection services, and no mitigation is required.
School Services
For school services, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the PUSD service area, which includes the City and some adjacent areas. The General Plan EIR states that PUSD has capacity to accommodate the student population estimated for the City at General Plan buildout, with excess classroom capacity for all grade levels.
Individual developments in the City would be required to pay SB 50 fees as appropriate at the time that project is implemented. Additionally, PUSD can utilize Measure TT funds. As discussed in the Initial Study, the development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to school services, and no mitigation is required.
Library Services
For library services, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the City, as this is the PPL service area. The General Plan EIR states that the existing library system (in 2015) has adequate resources to serve the anticipated population increase with General Plan buildout.
As discussed in the Initial Study, the development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to library services, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-16 Public Services and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Services
For park services, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the City, as this is the City’s Pasadena Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department service area. For regional recreational facilities, such as the Angeles National Forest, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is primarily the San Gabriel Valley, although some users come from further distances to visit the forest.
Individual developments in the City would be required to pay the residential impact fee consistent with the park impact fee nexus study prepared in 2013 and updated every five years. Compliance with the residential impact fee program ensures that there is adequate parkland based on General Plan standards, and that there would not be substantial deterioration of existing facilities (Pasadena 2015).
In addition to City of Pasadena, the surrounding cities, County of Los Angeles, and National Forest Service have policies and programs to maintain and/or develop regional recreation facilities to meet increased demand. It is not expected that there would be regional growth, without some parallel growth of recreation facilities, such that the existing facilities would experience substantial physical deterioration.
As discussed in the Initial Study, the development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to parks and recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required.
3.8.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts related to public services and recreation would occur, and no mitigation is required.
3.8.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.8.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
Through consultation with PFD, PPD, PPL, and City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department, it was determined that implementation of the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection, police protection, library service, or parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable performance objectives. The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department also concluded that implementation of the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The new land uses would contribute, through payment of taxes, to the City’s general fund that can be applied toward the funding of PFD and PPD; and would be required to remit the residential park impact fee to be applied towards City parks and recreation facilities. There would be less than significant impacts related to fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection services, library services, and parks and recreation, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-17 Public Services and Recreation
The Project would not generate school-age children that would utilize PUSD schools or programs, as the only dwelling units proposed are for senior-age persons. There would be no impact to PUSD services, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of the need for new or expanded fire protection services, police protection services, library services, and parks and recreation for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project. However, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a higher resident population generation. Notwithstanding, the PFD, PPD, PPL, and City Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department concluded that, as with the Project, there would also be less than significant impacts from this scenario and no mitigation is required.
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate school-age children and would be required to remit SB 50 fees. Thus, impacts on school services from future residential development under the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be less than significant with payment of required SB 50 fees, and no mitigation is required.
3.8.10 REFERENCES
California Department of Education (CDE). 2021 (October 15, last accessed). California School Dashboard. Sacramento, CA: CDE. California School Dashboard (CA Dept of Education) (caschooldashboard.org).
Pasadena, City of. 2015 (January). Pasadena General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I. Pasadena, CA: the City. General-Plan_Draft-EIR_2015-01.pdf (cityofpasadena.net).
Pasadena Fire Department (PFD). 2020. Pasadena Fire Department FY2019 Information Sheet.
Pasadena, CA: PFD. pasadena-fire-department-fy2016-information-fact-sheet.pdf (cityofpasadena.net).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.8-18 Public Services and Recreation
This page intentionally left blank
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-1 Transportation
3.9 TRANSPORTATION
This section evaluates the impacts of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial with respect to all transportation modes, including vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian, and the effects related to freeway on- and off-ramps in the site vicinity.
Information in this section is derived primarily from the Transportation Impact Analysis, CEQA Evaluation, Category 2 (Project TIA), dated November 30, 2020; and the Transportation Impact Analysis, CEQA Evaluation (Project with Building A Residential/Commercial TIA), dated June 17, 2021, prepared by the Pasadena Department of Transportation (Pasadena DOT) and included as Appendices G-1 and G-2, respectively, to this Draft EIR.
3.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street System
The existing street system in the study area consists of freeways, primary, and secondary arterials, and collector and local streets that provide regional, sub-regional, and local access within the Project area. The classifications of the street system in both TIAs are provided below:
• Raymond Avenue is a north/south Neighborhood Connector between Corson Street to Del Mar Boulevard, and a City Connector between Del Mar Boulevard to Glenarm Street.
Raymond Avenue does not have bike lanes south of Maple Street. It has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) between California Boulevard and Glenarm Street, and 30 mph between California Boulevard and Green Street.
• Arroyo Parkway is a north/south Access Road between Holly Street to Colorado Boulevard, and a City Connector between Colorado Boulevard to the State Route (SR) 110 freeway. In the vicinity of the Project, Arroyo Parkway is a four-lane divided roadway with time limited parking on both sides of the roadway. It has a 35 mph speed limit in the project vicinity. Arroyo Parkway is not designated as a bike lane or route. • Marengo Avenue is a north/south City Connector between Orange Grove Boulevard and Del Mar Boulevard, and a Neighborhood Connector north of Orange Grove Boulevard to the northern City limits and south of Del Mar Boulevard to the southern City limits. Bike lanes are present south of Cordova Street to Glenarm Street. • Cordova Street is a four-lane, east/west Neighborhood Connector with two lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit on Cordova Street is 35 mph. A future road diet is proposed along a section of this roadway, which will include bike lanes. • Del Mar Boulevard is an east/west City Connector that generally offers two lanes in each direction. The speed limit is 35 mph. Del Mar Boulevard is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Saint John Avenue and Wilson Avenue, and a Class III Enhanced Bike Route east of Wilson Avenue.
• Bellevue Drive is an east/west Access Road between Arroyo Parkway and Marengo Avenue with parking on both sides of the street. The Arroyo Parkway at Bellevue Drive intersection is a signalized offset intersection.
• California Boulevard is an east/west City Connector posted with a 30 mph speed limit.
California Boulevard is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Marengo Avenue and Lake Avenue, and a Class III Enhanced Bike Route between Lake Avenue and Allen Avenue.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-2 Transportation
• Glenarm Street is an east/west oriented roadway that is classified as an Access Road between Pasadena Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue, a City Connector between Fair Oaks Avenue to Arroyo Parkway, and a Neighborhood Connector between Arroyo Parkway to El Molino Avenue. Glenarm Street is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Pasadena Avenue and Marengo Avenue, and a Class II Bike Lane east of Marengo Avenue.
Alternative Transportation Facilities
Transit
The Project area is currently served by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (Pasadena Transit). As shown in Table 3.9-1 below, the City identifies three hierarchical levels for transit facilities. Table 3.9-2 on the following page outlines the public transit service within the area.
TABLE 3.9-1
TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
Level Facilities Included
1 Includes all Gold (L) Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.
2 Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more at peak periods.
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021.
Transit facilities provided by these agencies within ¼-mile of the Project site include the following:
• Pasadena Transit bus routes 20, 51, 52;
• Metro bus routes 177, 256, 501, 686, and 687; and
• Metro Gold (L) Line (light rail).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-3 Transportation
TABLE 3.9-2
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE PROJECT AREA
Location Route
Raymond Ave at Del Mar Blvd
– East Side
Pasadena Transit bus routes 20, 51, 52
Metro bus routes 177, 256, 501, 686, 687
Metro Gold (L) Line (light rail)
Raymond Ave at California Blvd
– Northeast Corner
Pasadena Transit bus routes 51, 52
Metro bus routes 686, 687
Raymond Ave at Fillmore St
– East Side
Metro Gold (L) Line
Raymond Ave at Fillmore St
–Northeast Corner
Pasadena Transit bus routes 51,52
Metro bus routes 686, 687
Raymond Ave at Glenarm St
– Northeast Corner
Pasadena Transit bus routes 51, 52
Metro bus routes 686, 687
Arroyo Parkway at Del Mar Blvd
– West Side
Metro Gold (L) Line
Arroyo Parkway at Del Mar Blvd
– Southwest corner
Metro bus route 256
Arroyo Parkway at Bellevue Dr
– Southwest corner
Metro bus route 256
Arroyo Parkway at California Blvd
– Northside on California Blvd
Metro bus route 256
Arroyo Parkway at California Blvd
– Southwest corner
– Southeast corner
Pasadena Transit bus route 20
Arroyo Parkway at Fillmore St
– Northeast corner
– Southwest corner
Pasadena Transit bus route 20
Arroyo Parkway at Fillmore St
– West side at cul-de-sac
Metro Gold (L) Line
Arroyo Parkway at Glenarm St
– East side
– Northwest side
Pasadena Transit bus route 20
Marengo Ave at California Blvd
– Southeast corner
Pasadena Transit bus route 20
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021
Bikeways
Multimodal transportation is encouraged with the availability of bicycle racks on Metro, Pasadena Transit, and City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) buses and at each Metro Gold (L) Line Station. In addition, bicycles are allowed onto Metro Gold (L) Line trains. Currently,
31.7 percent of the Citywide service population (i.e., population + jobs) is located within ¼-mile of Level 1 and 2 bicycle facilities. As shown in Table 3.9-3 below, the City’s Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan (Bicycle Plan) identified three hierarchical levels for bicycle facilities.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-4 Transportation
TABLE 3.9-3
BICYCLE FACILITIES HIERARCHY
Level Description Facilities Included
1 Advanced Facilities Bike Paths
Multipurpose Paths
Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
2 Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes
Bike Boulevards
3 Basic Facilities Bike Routes
Enhanced Bike Routes
Emphasized Bikeways
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021.
Bikeway facilities within ¼-mile of the Project site include the following:
• Del Mar Boulevard is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Saint John Avenue and Wilson Avenue, and a Class III Enhanced Bike Route east of Wilson Avenue; • California Boulevard is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Marengo Avenue and Lake Avenue, and a Class III Enhanced Bike Route between Lake Avenue and Allen Avenue;
• Glenarm Street is designated as a Class III Bike Route between Pasadena Avenue and Marengo Avenue, and a Class II Bike Lane east of Marengo Avenue; and • Bike lanes are present south of Cordova Street to Glenarm Street.
Pedestrian
The pedestrian circulation system in the City is comprised of sidewalks, crosswalks, intersection and mid-block traffic controls, and signal technology. The City determines pedestrian accessibility based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric, which is discussed further below in Section 3.9.4. The current Pedestrian Accessibility score is 3.88.
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Trips
The City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines (TIA Guidelines) address two vehicular performance metrics: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita and Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita, as discussed further below in Section 3.9.4. The existing Citywide VMT per Capita is 22.6, and the existing Citywide VT per Capita is 2.8.
3.9.2 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
State
Senate Bill 743
With its passage in 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 reformed the analysis and evaluation of traffic impacts under CEQA. SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines and replace the Level of Service (LOS) metric (i.e., auto delay, congestion) with alternative criteria that encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-5 Transportation
multimodal transportation network-related development, and increased diversity of land uses (OPR 2021). In 2014, the OPR responded by publishing preliminary updates and identifying alternative criteria. The primary metric was identified as vehicle miles travelled (VMT). In 2016, the OPR published a revised proposal that adhered to VMT in evaluating transportation impacts.1 City
General Plan Mobility Element
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element was adopted in 2015 as an update to the 2004 Mobility Element. Based on the City’s Guiding Principle related to mobility, Pasadena envisions itself in the future as “a city where people can circulate without cars” (Pasadena DOT 2015). It is noted that this goal is not intended to mean a city where there is an absence of cars, but rather where one could navigate the City without a car if desired.
In addition, the Mobility Element addresses state regulations that have been designed to evaluate transportation needs within the context of the community and regional, and also presents a comprehensive plan to meet such needs. The Mobility Element addresses strategies to promote non-auto travel, public transit services, parking approaches, bicycle facilities, car-sharing programs, and pedestrian components that are coordinated and connected with a regional transportation system.
Pasadena Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
The City developed and adopted its Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines to ensure that transportation system improvements necessary to support new development while maintaining the quality of life within the community are identified prior to project approval and funded prior to construction (Pasadena DOT 2015). In supporting the City’s vision, the TIA guidelines promote an integrated and multimodal transportation system that provides choices and accessibility for everyone living in and working in the City (Pasadena DOT 2015).
For all proposed projects not categorically exempt, transportation impact analyses are an integral part of the environmental review process under CEQA. The City has adopted a set of performance measures and CEQA thresholds that are closely aligned with the Mobility Element objectives and policies. The mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development projects. Such measures include VMT per Capita, VT per Capita, Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle and Transit Network, and Pedestrian Accessibility. These performance measures align with the sustainable goals of the General Plan by evaluating the efficiency of project by analyzing the per capita length and number of trips associated with changes in land use. With the expanded emphasis on sustainability and a continued focus on livability, the performance measures inform decisions related to the balance of travel modes and provide further understanding on the community’s mobility needs.
The TIA Guidelines apply to all projects that require environmental review in accordance with CEQA and the City’s established Environmental Policy Guidelines, significance thresholds, and transportation review guidelines. The TIA Guidelines differentiate between projects that are exempt, within CEQA thresholds, and analyses to be evaluated outside of the CEQA process. As further discussed below, the City’s CEQA transportation thresholds determine a project’s expected level of impact on the transportation system and identify appropriate types of mitigation. 1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, January 20, 2016.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-6 Transportation
Pasadena Municipal Code
Congestion Management Program
Chapter 10.64 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) implements the requirements of Metro’s Congestion Management Program, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65089 and 65089.3 and provisions of Metro’s model trip-reduction ordinance.
Section 10.64.020 of the PMC requires that certain development project incorporate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program plan pursuant to Section 10.64.020 of the PMC. Such projects include mixed-use developments with 50 or more residential units or 50,000 sf or more on non-residential development, or non-residential projects that exceed 75,000 sf. TDM plans must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Pasadena DOT prior to the issuance of a building permit. Thereafter, updates on the implementation of the transportation plan are to be submitted for review and approval annually. TDM plans are required to include project description; site conditions that affect commute travel; and duties, responsibilities, and qualifications of a certified Employee Transportation Coordinator.
The demand for vehicle commute trips must be reduced by ensuring that the design of major residential and non-residential development projects will accommodate facilities for alternative modes of transportation. The TDM plan may include, but is not limited to, the strategies, such as promotional rideshare events, pay parking for employees, guaranteed ride home, private vanpool operations, bikeway linkages to established routes, transit pass and vanpool fare subsidies, reduced-parking fees for non-solo drivers, provision of a certified Employee Transportation Coordinator, and commuter matching service for all employees on an annual basis and new employees upon hiring.
Pedestrian Master Plan
The City’s Pedestrian Master Plan (Pedestrian Plan) was adopted in 2006. The plan is intended to increase livability and walkability in Pasadena. Among other goals, the plan provides guidance for improved connectivity between the green spaces. The plan seeks to develop pedestrianfriendly projects, better integrate pedestrian improvements into street maintenance and traffic management programs and implement public education and enforcement programs that improve pedestrian safety and increase levels of walking.
Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan (2000 Bicycle Plan) was adopted in 2000 and includes provisions that aim to increase overall recreation opportunities in Pasadena, particularly those related to bicycle lanes, trails, and bicycle infrastructure. An update to the Bicycle Plan is currently being developed by the City.
3.9.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project would result in a significant adverse transportation impact if it would:
Threshold 3.9a: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; Threshold 3.9b: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1); and/or
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-7 Transportation
Threshold 3.9c: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Threshold 3.9d: Result in inadequate emergency access.
The City of Pasadena has adopted transportation performance measures and thresholds of significance to determine transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA. The City’s transportation thresholds of significance applicable to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are presented in Table 3.9-4, City of Pasadena CEQA Transportation Thresholds. The City’s transportation analysis methodology is discussed further below.
TABLE 3.9-4
CITY OF PASADENA CEQA TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS
Metric Description CEQA Impact Threshold
1. VMT Per Capita VMT in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs)
An increase over existing Citywide VMT
per Capita of 22.6
2. VT Per Capita VT in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs)
An increase over existing Citywide VT
per Capita of 2.8
3. Proximity and Quality
of Bicycle Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of bicycle
facility types
Any decrease in existing citywide
31.7% of service population (population
+ jobs) within a ¼-mile of Level 1 & 2
bike facilities
4. Proximity and Quality
of Transit Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of transit
facility types
Any decrease in existing citywide
66.6% of service population (population
+ jobs) within a ¼-mile of Level 1 & 2
transit facilities
5. Pedestrian Accessibility The Pedestrian Accessibility Score uses the mix of destinations, and a network-based
walk shed to evaluate walkability
Any decrease in the Citywide
Pedestrian Accessibility Score
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021
3.9.4 METHODOLOGY
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Analysis
Pursuant to the TIA Guidelines, the Project was evaluated using the City’s transportation performance measures. Proposed projects are analyzed using the City’s calibrated travel demand forecasting (TDF) model built on SCAG’s regional model. The City’s TDF model uses TransCAD software to simulate traffic levels and travel patterns for the City of Pasadena. The TransCAD program consists of input files that summarize the City’s land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the number of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by the trip. To be deemed accurate for project transportation impact on the transportation system, a model must be calibrated to a year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are available and well documented. The Pasadena TDF has been calibrated to 2013 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, Census data, and land use data compiled by City staff with land uses’ associated population and job increase estimates. The methodology of the specific performance assessment is provided below.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-8 Transportation
Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita
The VMT per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena Transportation Demand Model (that is based on the SCAG regional model). The VMT total considers 100 percent of the mileage of trips that begin and end inside Pasadena and 50 percent of the distance travelled for trips with one end outside of Pasadena. The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
Vehicle Trips Per Capita
The VT per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City. The measure sums the trips with origins and destination within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the 2013 Trip-Based Citywide Travel Demand Model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within City boundaries, and 50 percent of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City but have one trip end outside of the City.
The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs. As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of each of each of three transit facility types, as defined in Table 3.9-1. For each facility level, a ¼-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified. The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of bicycle facility types. The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s Bicycle Plan categories as shown in Table 3.9-3. For each bike facility level, a ¼-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified. The City can improve measures of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.
Pedestrian Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility score provides a measure of the average walkability in the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric. The Pedestrian Accessibility metric is a simple count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a five-minute walk. The ten land use types considered are:
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-9 Transportation
1) Retail,
2) Personal Services,
3) Restaurant,
4) Entertainment,
5) Office (including private sector and government offices), 6) Medical (including medical office and hospital uses), 7) Culture (including churches, religious and other cultural uses), 8) Park and Open Space,
9) School (including elementary and high schools), and
10) College.
3.9.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.9a: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Threshold 3.9b: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1)?
The City’s TIA methodology assesses both the vehicular and non-vehicular (i.e., transit, bicycle, pedestrian) transportation facilities together. Therefore, for clarity of the analysis, these two thresholds are analyzed together, consistent with the TIA Guidelines.
Project
Those projects with proposed land uses that are consistent with the General Plan and complementary to their surrounding land uses are expected to reduce the trip length associated with adjacent land uses; and/or increase the service population access to pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities if the project is within ¼-mile of those facilities.
Table 3.9-5, Transportation Impact Analysis Summary for the Project, summarizes the analyses of the Project’s potential impacts on the City’s transportation system using the calibrated TDF model. The results are based on the Project’s vehicular and non-vehicular trip making characteristics, trip length, and its interaction with other surrounding/citywide land uses, and the City’s transportation network. The Project TIA is provided in its entirety in Appendix G-1 to this Draft EIR.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-10 Transportation
TABLE 3.9-5
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
FOR THE PROJECT
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant Impact Cap
(Existing)
Incremental Change
(Existing + Project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 19.5 No
VT Per Capita >2.8 2.0 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 32.0 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.8 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2020.
As shown in Table 3.9-5, using the City’s Transportation Demand Model, the Pasadena DOT determined that the Project would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines (Pasadena DOT 2020). As such, the Project would not conflict with the City’s plan addressing the circulation system under CEQA (i.e., TIA Guidelines), which includes transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; or conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Pasadena DOT prepared a TIA for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial using the same methodology as applied for the Project. Table 3.9-6, Transportation Impact Analysis Summary for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, summarizes the analyses of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial’s potential impacts on the City’s transportation system using the calibrated TDF model. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial TIA is provided in its entirety in Appendix G-2 to this Draft EIR.
TABLE 3.9-6
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT WITH
BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant Impact Cap
(Existing)
Incremental Change
(Existing + Project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 8.2 No
VT Per Capita >2.8 1.4 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 32.0 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.8 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021.
As shown in Table 3.9-6, using the City’s TDM, the Pasadena DOT determined that the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines (Pasadena DOT 2021). Compared to the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would have substantively lower VMT per Capita and somewhat lower VT per Capita. As such, the Project with Building A Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-11 Transportation
Residential/Commercial would not conflict with the City’s plan addressing the circulation system under CEQA (i.e., TIA Guidelines), which includes transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; or conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.9c: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Project
Based on comments related to traffic safety in response to the Notice of Preparation of the EIR, the above threshold has been included in the Draft EIR analysis after having been scoped out as part of Initial Study preparation.
The Pasadena DOT was consulted regarding the collision history for the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection. Pasadena DOT tracks the City’s intersection collision history, which is inclusive of all transportation modes. For the five-year period from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020, there were a total of 20 collisions at this intersection, broken down by year as follows: 3 in 2016, 7 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 3 in 2019, and 1 in 2020. Of the 20 collisions, 9 resulted in injuries and 0 resulted in fatalities. All but 2 incidents involved another motor vehicle; of these, 1 incident involved a fixed object and 1 incident involved a pedestrian.
Pasadena DOT generally considers the “top 10” intersections as typically having 8 or more collisions per year, and intersections that average 6 or more collisions per year could be considered high. The Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection averaged 4 collisions per year. In addition, the Pasadena DOT notes that when comparing the collision rate of this intersection with the Statewide average for signalized intersections controlled by traffic signals in an urban area, the crash rate for this intersection falls slightly below the Statewide average (Siques 2021a; Russo 2021).
The Pasadena DOT reports that they have worked closely with Metro in recent years to reduce delay at the intersection caused by the Metro L (Gold) Line operation and implemented an adaptive traffic control system to better manage operations along this corridor. There have been substantial changes to the signal operations at this intersection in the past approximately five years, and the changes have likely contributed to a reduction in collisions during this period. This intersection is not considered a high collision location, and Pasadena DOT continues to monitor operations at this intersection and along the corridor to address traffic signal operations and reduce the potential for collisions (Siques 2021a).
The Pasadena DOT concluded that the additional trips generated by the Project, on its own, are not expected to generate a safety concern at this intersection, especially with the traffic signal phasing/operations being proactively managed and the presence of raised median islands already provided at Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard that restrict turn movements into and out of the proposed driveways. Additionally, the number of driveways at the site would be reduced from four to two on Arroyo Parkway and from two to one on California Boulevard, which helps reduce non-vehicular conflicts (Siques 2021b).
Based on the intersection’s collision history, Pasadena DOT’s continuing proactive management of this intersection, and the less than significant transportation impact pursuant to Thresholds
3.9(a) and (b), it is concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in a traffic safety hazard at the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection. Moreover, the Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. No sharp curves or dangerous intersections are proposed, and the proposed uses are consistent and Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-12 Transportation
compatible with the existing uses onsite and in the vicinity. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed above, the Pasadena DOT was consulted regarding the accident history for the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection and the potential for the addition of trips from the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial to affect the safety of this intersection. As discussed above, based on the intersection’s collision history, Pasadena DOT’s continuing proactive management of this intersection, and the less than significant transportation impact, it is concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in a traffic safety hazard at the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection. Moreover, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
This conclusion would be the same for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial as this scenario would generate fewer daily trips than the Project.
Threshold 3.9d: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Project
As stated in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the site currently has seven points of access, including two on California Boulevard, one on Bellevue Drive, and four on Arroyo Parkway. All these access points except one are driveways leading to surface parking; the access point on Bellevue Drive leads into the subterranean parking structure serving Whole Foods Market. The ingress/egress on East Bellevue Drive to the 275-space Whole Foods Market parking structure would remain in place to continue serving the grocery store and would be entirely separated from the proposed parking structure. Additionally, there is a truck exit (only) from Whole Foods Market on Arroyo Parkway at the southern end of this structure.
As shown on Exhibit 2-5, First (Ground) Level Plan, in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the Project uses south of Whole Foods Market proposes three ingress/egress points: one on California Boulevard and two on South Arroyo Parkway. A circular drop-off area would be situated on the north side of each of the proposed buildings. The Project would not involve any alterations to existing public or private roadways and would not result in the elimination of a through-route or the narrowing of any roadways outside the boundaries of the site. All proposed ingress/ingress points and drive lanes on the site would be subject to Pasadena Fire Department and Pasadena DOT review and approval to ensure adequate access is available both for emergency vehicles, which are regularly expected with operation of Building B, and routine circulation. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the Project area. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of emergency access for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same as that of the Project. Although there would be 200 fewer parking spaces and a substantively lower VMT per Capita compared to the Project, the proposed circulation on the ground level for both development scenarios would be the same. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-13 Transportation
3.9.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Project
Cumulative transportation impacts within the City were recently evaluated in the Pasadena General Plan Draft EIR, which evaluated transportation impacts within the City associated with buildout of the General Plan in 2035 (City of Pasadena 2015). The General Plan EIR analysis considered impacts associated with the five transportation performance measures identified in the TIA Guidelines, namely VMT per Capita, VT per Capita, proximity and quality of the bicycle network, proximity and quality of the transit network, and pedestrian accessibility. The analysis found that transportation impacts associated with all five performance measures would be less than significant.
As the Project is consistent with the land use designation associated with the site that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the analysis of transportation impacts in the General Plan Draft EIR is representative of cumulative impacts associated with the Project. Also, as discussed above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts for all five transportation performance measures. Therefore, Project-related cumulative impacts were considered in the cumulative analysis conducted for the Pasadena General Plan Draft EIR. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to transportation, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As with the Project, cumulative impacts for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial were considered in the cumulative analysis conducted for the Pasadena General Plan Draft EIR as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is consistent with the site’s land use designation. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to transportation, and no mitigation is required.
3.9.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
3.9.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.9.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
The Pasadena DOT determined that the Project would not exceed any of the five CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines (Pasadena DOT 2020). As such, the Project would not conflict with the City’s plan addressing the circulation system under CEQA (i.e., TIA Guidelines), which includes transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; or conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the Project area. The Project would not result in a traffic safety hazard at the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection and would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.9-14 Transportation
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of transportation for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as the Project. Compared to the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would have substantively lower VMT per Capita and somewhat lower VT per Capita. The Pasadena DOT determined that the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines (Pasadena DOT 2021). As such, the Project would not conflict with the City’s plan addressing the circulation system under CEQA (i.e., TIA Guidelines), which includes transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; or conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the Project area. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a traffic safety hazard at the South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard intersection and would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
3.9.10 REFERENCES
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2021 (October 19, date accessed).
Alternative Transportation Metrics (SB 743), Updating the Analysis of Transportation Impacts under CEQA. Sacramento, CA: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/.
Pasadena, City of. 2015 (January). Pasadena General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I. Pasadena, CA: the City. General-Plan_Draft-EIR_2015-01.pdf (cityofpasadena.net).
Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT). 2021 (June 17). Transportation Impact Analysis, CEQA Evaluation. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT. Appendix G-1. ———. 2020 (November 30). Transportation Impact Analysis, CEQA Evaluation, Category 2.
Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT. Appendix G-2.
———. 2015. Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines. Pasadena, CA:
Pasadena DOT.
Russo, A. 2021 (December 21). Personal Communication. E-mail correspondence between Nader Asmar, TE (Principal Engineer, Pasadena Department of Transportation) and Lieutenant Anthony Russo (Pasadena Police Department) regarding Incident No. 17011147.
Siques, J. 2021a (October 14 through 21). Personal Communication. E-mail correspondence between Jason Van Patten (Senior Planning, City of Pasadena) and Joaquin Siques (Deputy Director, City of Pasadena Department of Transportation) regarding the Pasadena Department of Transportation intersection collision history for South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard.
———. 2021b (November 22). Personal Communication. E-mail correspondence between Jason Van Patten (Senior Planning, City of Pasadena) and Joaquin Siques (Deputy Director, City of Pasadena Department of Transportation) regarding Caltrans freeway safety analyses and Project-related trip generation and driveways relevant to traffic safety.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-1 Tribal Cultural Resources
3.10 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section addresses potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that could result from implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Information in this section is derived from consultation between the City and local tribal representatives consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Appendix H); an archaeological records search conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on July 24, 2020; the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) received on July 15, 2020; and the Native American consultation conducted by the City (Appendix C-2).
3.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Section 3.2 of this Draft EIR provides an evaluation of cultural resources. As noted in that section, a cultural resource record search and literature review was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), which maintains records and literature regarding cultural resources within California. The CHRIS office for Los Angeles County is located at the SCCIC.
No prehistoric archaeological sites or tribal cultural resources have been documented within the Project site or the ½-mile search radius. Nevertheless, the results from the NAHC Sacred Lands Files confirmed the presence of a sacred site (tribal cultural resource) important to the local Gabrielino/Tongva community. The resource is located nearby, but not within the Project site. The locations and other details of sacred sites are kept confidential in order to protect the sites.
3.10.2 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
State
Assembly Bill 52
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), which creates a new category of environmental resources that must be considered under CEQA: “tribal cultural resources.” The legislation imposes new requirements for offering to consult with California Native American tribes regarding projects that may affect a tribal cultural resource, emphasizes a broad definition of what may be considered to be a tribal cultural resource, and includes a list of recommended mitigation measures.
Recognizing that tribes may have expertise regarding their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. MMs agreed upon during consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document.
AB 52 became effective on July 1, 2015 and requires that the lead agency provide project notifications to California Native American tribes on the NAHC Tribal Consultation list that request notification in writing prior to a lead agency’s release of a NOP for an EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Negative Declaration (ND). Once Native American tribes receive a project notification, they have 30 days to respond as to whether they wish to initiate consultation regarding the project and specifically consultation regarding mitigation for any potential project impacts.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act
Established in 2002, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, establishes a misdemeanor for unlawfully and maliciously excavating upon, removing, destroying, injuring, or defacing a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The focus of this legislation was to provide additional legal protection for Native American historical and cultural sites, art, and other cultural artifacts found at those sites. The Act also encourages collaborative relationships for the protection of Native American cultural resources between Native Americans and landowners. Funding and other state assistance should be encouraged for support of voluntary agreements to conserve, maintain, and provide physical access for Native Americans to these cultural resources.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the [California Public Resources Code (PRC)]. These sections also address the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. Procedures to be implemented are established for (1) the discovery of Native American skeletal remains during construction of a project; (2) the treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation; and (3) reburial.
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code specifically provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98)
Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours. When the NAHC receives this notification from a County Coroner, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. This regulation also requires that, upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations and all reasonable options regarding their preferences for treatment. This section of the PRC has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
3.10.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project would result in a significant adverse tribal cultural resources impact if it would:
Threshold 3.10: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); and/or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
3.10.4 METHODOLOGY
Consistent with requirements of AB 52, on May 28, 2020, the City of Pasadena initiated government-to-government consultation with those tribes that have provided written requests to be notified of projects in the City to identify, protect, and/or mitigate potential impacts to cultural places/resources. Both tribes (Gabrieliño/Tongva Tribe and Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation) accepted the request for consultation and completed the AB 52 process for the Project with the City.
3.10.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.10: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); and/or
Project
In response to Threshold 3.10a, for the purposes of impact analysis, a tribal cultural resource is considered a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and is either eligible for the CRHR or a local register.
Psomas submitted a request to the SCCIC on July 24, 2020. As discussed above and in Section
3.2, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, based on the record searches and consultation with Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the area (see analysis under Threshold 3.10b below), there are no tribal cultural resources listed on the CRHR or a local register within the Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-4 Tribal Cultural Resources
Project site. There would be no impact related to documented tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of potential impacts to documented tribal cultural resources for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project, as the records search and Native American consultation are based on the site location and history. This is the same for both scenarios. As with the Project, there would be no impact related to documented tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.10: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Project
As noted above, on May 28, 2020, the City initiated government-to-government consultation with those tribes that have provided written requests to be notified of projects in the City. Letters requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 were sent to the following tribal organizations:
• Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe; and
• Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
Both tribes accepted the request for consultation and completed the AB 52 process for the Project with the City. The results of these consultations are summarized below.
Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe
The City consulted with tribal representatives from both the Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe and the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
Consultation between the Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe, represented by Mr. Sam Dunlap, and the City occurred on November 30, 2020. Mr. Dunlap indicated the Project site lies within an area where ancestral territories of Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe villages adjoined and overlapped, at least during the Late Prehistoric Period (i.e., before European contact) and the Protohistoric Periods (i.e., post European contact). Mr. Dunlap also mentioned several Native American burials and village sites are documented in Pasadena and nearby South Pasadena. However, Mr. Dunlap was unaware of these types of resources being present within the Project site.
On January 12, 2021, as requested by the City, Psomas had a follow-up conference call with Mr. Dunlap to revisit the Project and discuss the results of the SCCIC record search results for Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-5 Tribal Cultural Resources
the Project. After review of the record search results, Mr. Dunlap, speaking on behalf of the Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe did not see any reason to change his earlier position on whether documented tribal cultural resources exist on the Project site.
In summary, through consultation between Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe and the City, it was concluded that this area of Los Angeles County was inhabited by Native Americans, but existing site records do not indicate archaeological resources significant to Native Americans on the Project site.
However, there is always the possibility that undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, may be present below the surface in native sediments. Therefore, Mr. Dunlap indicated the tribe would appreciate the opportunity for the Gabrieliño Tongva and Gabrieliño representatives from other tribal councils that are recognized by the NAHC to be allowed the opportunity to bid on Native American monitoring if the City approves such as measure for the Project.
Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Consultation between the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) and the City occurred on October 15, 2020. The Kizh Nation followed up with submittal of an e-mail on November 4, 2020, summarizing the consultation, providing tribal archive information, and providing requested mitigation. The Kizh Nation provided documents and information regarding the potential sensitivity of cultural resources related to the Kizh Nation and asked that the documents and information be kept confidential. The follow up e-mail requested that the City provide written notification stating whether and to what extent the proposed mitigation would be included for the Project so that the parties may conclude consultation, or if the requested mitigation is not agreeable so that the consultation may continue. The City reviewed and considered the information provided and mitigation required by the Kizh Nation. On December 2, 2021–consistent with the request of the Kizh Nation to be notified regarding whether and to what extent the proposed mitigation would be required for the Project–the City e-mailed the Kizh Nation and provided a recommended mitigation measure, based on the measure provided by Kizh Nation, for review and concurrence. The City stated that it considered consultation complete and would assume concurrence with the measure, and associated conditions of approval based on the mitigation measure, unless a response was received by December 9, 2021. No response was received from the Kizh Nation by or subsequent to December 9, 2021.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources based on AB 52 consultation for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project. Although this scenario would have slightly less excavation due to inclusion of one fewer subterranean parking level and therefore somewhat less likelihood of encountering an unknown tribal cultural resource, the resulting potential impact and associated mitigation agreed upon with the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation would apply. With implementation of MM TCR-1, there would be a less than significant impact.
3.10.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Project
The cumulative impacts related to demographic growth are analyzed for the City of Pasadena.
Direct impacts to cultural resources are generally site specific. However, development throughout the City, could potentially result in the disturbance of prehistoric archaeological resource sites (including tribal cultural resources/Native American remains). The City participates in Native American consultation consistent with AB 52 and SB 18 (when applicable). This process, in combination with site-specific archaeological studies, and any resulting site-specific mitigation Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-6 Tribal Cultural Resources
measures (typically monitoring and processes to manage any unanticipated resources), would contribute to the reduction of potential tribal cultural resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Because there are no documented tribal cultural resources on the Project site and MM TCR-1 would be implemented, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to tribal cultural resources.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The cumulative impact analysis of tribal cultural resources for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project, as the records search and Native American consultation are based on the site location and history. This is the same for both scenarios. As with the Project, because there are no documented tribal cultural resources on the Project site and MM TCR-1 would be implemented, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to tribal cultural resources.
3.10.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project site, the Project Applicant shall accommodate a Native American Monitor (Monitor) culturally affiliated with the site as recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The Monitor contracted and retained shall be at the expense of the tribe(s) that consulted on this Project. The Tribal Monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities.
Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will 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 all ground-disturbing activities on the Project site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Tribal Monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe and a qualified Archaeologist (if one is present).
If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted, and the County Coroner shall be notified per Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the Health & Safety Code. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2) of the Public Resources Code. Work may continue in other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (Section 15064.5[f] of the State CEQA Guidelines).
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-7 Tribal Cultural Resources
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-Tribal Cultural Resource) shall be curated at a public, non-profit 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, it shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
3.10.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.10.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
Based on consultation with the Gabrieliño Tongva Tribe and Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation pursuant with AB 52 (Appendix H) and the results on an archaeological records search conducted by the SCCIC on July 24, 2020; and NAHC Sacred Lands File search received on July 15, 2020 (Appendix C-2), there are no tribal cultural resources listed on the CRHR or a local register within the Project site or otherwise known to the culturally affiliated Native American tribes. However, there is always the possibility that undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, may be present below the surface in native sediments.
Therefore, MM TCR-1 requires the Project Applicant to accommodate a Native American Monitor culturally affiliated with the site as recognized by the NAHC prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity on the site. MM TCR-1 also defines the role of the Tribal Monitor, if such an individual elects to be present during construction of the Project, and the steps required if a potential tribal cultural resource is encountered during ground-disturbing activities. With implementation of MM TCR-1, there would be a less than significant impact.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be essentially the same as that of the Project. Although this scenario would have slightly less excavation and therefore somewhat less likelihood of encountering an unknown tribal cultural resource, there is always the possibility that undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, may be present below the surface in native sediments. As such, the associated mitigation agreed upon with the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation would apply. With implementation of MM TCR-1, there would be a less than significant impact.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.10-8 Tribal Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-1 Utilities and Service Systems
3.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section addresses utilities and service systems that would be used with implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and analyzes potential impacts on the availability and capacity of the local providers for the following utilities and service systems (the service provider is noted parenthetically):
Water facilities (Pasadena Water and Power);
Wastewater facilities (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and City of Pasadena Department of Public Works);
Dry utilities (Southern California Edison [electric], Southern California Gas Company [natural gas], and various telecommunications companies); and Solid waste disposal (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Los Angeles County Public Works).
Information in this section is derived from the Affinity Project Water Supply Assessment (WSA), prepared for the Project by ESA and dated January 2022 (ESA 2022, Appendix I); the City of Pasadena’s and the utilities’ websites; the City of Pasadena General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the Central District Specific Plan; the Notice of Preparation comment letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County regarding wastewater and provided in Appendix A-2; and other sources as cited herein. It is noted that the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial do not qualify as a “project” under Senate Bill (SB) 610, which requires preparation of a WSA (Section 10912[a] of the Water Code).
Nonetheless, based on comments received on the Notice of Preparation of this Draft EIR and given that all of California’s 58 counties are under a drought emergency proclamation as of the preparation of this EIR (California 2021), a WSA was prepared for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial to inform the environmental analysis.
The Initial Study (provided in Appendix A-1) concluded that all thresholds related to hydrology and water quality, including storm drainage capacity, would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts and were not carried forward into the Draft EIR for further analysis.
3.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing utility infrastructure is located on site and in the surrounding roadways. Exhibits 2-17a and 2-17b, Conceptual Utility Plans, in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, of this EIR, show the locations of existing wet and dry utilities and the locations of proposed connections to utilities.
Water Supply
Infrastructure
Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) provides potable water to City residents and businesses.
There are 2, existing, PWP 8-inch diameter domestic water lines in Arroyo Parkway, a 6-inch diameter domestic water line in Bellevue Drive, and a 12-inch diameter domestic water line in California Boulevard.
Water Supply Sources
The City’s water supply is provided primarily through two sources: local groundwater from the Raymond Basin (RB) and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-2 Utilities and Service Systems
Southern California (MWD), which is a regional wholesaler in Southern California. MWD provides the City with water imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the State Water Project (SWP). Table 3.11-1, Pasadena Water Supply Sources and Quantities (AFY), summarizes water supply sources and estimated volumes available now and over the next approximately 25 years (ESA 2022).
TABLE 3.11-1
PASADENA WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND QUANTITIES (AFY)
Water Supply Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045a
Imported Water 19,248 19,362 19,454 19,527 19,579
Groundwater 11,830 11,830 11,830 11,830 11,830
Totals 31,078 31,192 31,284 31,357 31,409
a
The 2045 imported water is projected based on a second order polynomial extrapolation (e.g., curve of best fit) from year 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 data in the PWP Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The anticipated 2045 imported water projected in this table may differ from PWP’s official projection in future updates to its 2020 UWMP. afy = acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan).
Imported Water
The water supply for the City is imported from outside the region through the City’s membership in MWD, which delivers both treated and untreated water to Southern California via two sources (i.e., SWP and CRA). Water from Northern California is imported by way of the SWP, and water from the Colorado River reaches the region through the CRA. MWD has five treatment plants, which supply most of Southern California with treated water through their regional distribution system. PWP receives treated water via five turnouts from MWD’s Upper Feeder. Water served to PWP is treated at MWD’s Weymouth Water Treatment Plant (WTP). During outages at the Weymouth WTP, PWP can receive treated water from MWD’s Jensen WTP. Sufficient turnout capacity exists to meet existing and projected PWP demands. According to PWP’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), while connection capacity is sufficient, reliability of this supply is insufficient. As such, PWP would be unable to meet local demand solely from imported water supplies in the event of a service disruption from MWD. As shown in Table 3.11-2, PWP Imported Water Supplies (AFY), the City consistently obtains approximately 62 percent of its treated potable water from MWD (ESA 2022).
TABLE 3.11-2
PWP IMPORTED WATER SUPPLIES (AFY)
Water Supply Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045a
Potable Water Imported from MWD 19,248 19,362 19,454 19,527 19,579 Total PWP Water Supplies 31,078 31,192 31,284 31,357 31,409 Percent of Total PWP Water Supplies 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% a
The 2045 imported water is projected based on a second order polynomial extrapolation (e.g., curve of best fit) from year 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 data in the PWP Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The anticipated 2045 imported water projected in this table may differ from PWP’s official projection in future updates to its 2020 UWMP. afy = acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-3 Utilities and Service Systems
Local Groundwater
Groundwater production is obtained from the RB, which is an adjudicated basin. While PWP has groundwater pumping rights to extract groundwater based on the adjudication and decree, it is also credited with additional pumping rights for infiltrating surface water. PWP can use the RB for long-term supply storage as an emergency supply. PWP manages its pumping rights, spreading credits, and long-term storage in the RB to maintain a reliable source (ESA 2022).
Raymond Basin
Pasadena overlies the RB, which is an alluvial valley approximately 40 square miles in area underlain by deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The RB is in the northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley and is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Rafael Hills to the west, and the Raymond Fault to the south/southeast. RB is divided into three subareas: the Monk Hill subarea in the northwest, the Pasadena subarea in the central portion of the basin, and the Santa Anita subarea in the east. PWP has water rights in the Monk Hill and Pasadena subareas of the RB.
The base of the water-bearing strata of the RB is defined by bedrock material that is not considered to yield significant quantities of water. Overlying the bedrock are more than 1,200 feet of unconsolidated alluvial materials consisting of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. This alluvium is the principal water-bearing unit in the RB. Well yields in the alluvium range from a few hundred to several thousand gallons per minute (gpm). The alluvial aquifer system in the RB consists of many individual interconnected water-bearing zones.
Specific yield values in the RB are typical of alluvial sediments and range from approximately 5 percent to 18 percent. Groundwater generally flows southerly from areas of recharge at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains to areas of discharge along Raymond Fault at hydraulic gradients ranging from approximately 0.040 feet to 0.090 feet. The Raymond Fault acts as a leaky hydrologic barrier and defines the boundary between the RB and the main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin to the south. Currently, RB groundwater levels are relatively higher in the northern half of the basin and lower in the southern half of the basin compared with historical trends. Current sources of groundwater recharge to the RB include:
Natural infiltration and percolation of rainfall and surface water; Percolation of applied water from irrigation and other return flows; Subsurface inflow from adjacent groundwater basins, bedrock areas, and the San Gabriel Mountains;
Artificial recharge through surface water infiltration; and Percolation of water from septic tanks (ESA 2022).
Raymond Basin Judgement
In December 1944, the RB was the first groundwater basin adjudicated in California. The adjudication known as the Raymond Basin Judgement (RB Judgement) was needed to resolve conflicts between the groundwater pumping entities. Under the adjudication, it was determined that 16 parties had the right to extract water. The court allocated groundwater pumping rights to each party, and this decision is based on RB Judgement of “safe yield”. The safe yield was originally determined to be 21,900 acre-feet per year (afy) but was modified in 1955 to 30,662 afy.
These decreed rights were set in 1955 for recent wet weather conditions but were not reevaluated from time to time as then suggested. The authority to administer the RB Judgement, resolve future Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-4 Utilities and Service Systems
disputes, and make binding judgments is vested in the RB Watermaster. The Watermaster is the Raymond Basin Management Board, which is the representatives of the parties (pumping entities) of the RB Judgement.
PWP’s decreed groundwater pumping right was set at 12,807 afy; this is divided between the two underlying subareas: Monk Hill (4,464 afy) and Pasadena (8,343 afy). As suggested in the decree to reevaluate the RB groundwater conditions, the Raymond Basin Management Board implemented a resolution on July 1, 2009, that voluntarily reduced pumping from the Pasadena subarea to address declining water levels. As a result, PWP’s water pumping from the RB was decreased by 2,503 afy, or from 12,807 afy to 10,304 afy (ESA 2022).
Surface Runoff Spreading Credits
PWP has pre-1914 rights to divert up to 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface water from the Arroyo Seco and Millard Canyon streams and up to 8.9 cfs from the Eaton Wash. This surface water is currently used to recharge the RB. The RB Judgment allows each pumper to take the surface water directly to meet demand or use surface water to recharge the RB and then pump out a portion of the recharged volume in addition to their decreed groundwater pumping rights.
PWP receives a pumping credit of 60 to 80 percent of the surface water recharged at the Arroyo Seco Spreading Grounds, and a credit of 80 percent of the surface water recharged at the Eaton Wash Spreading Grounds. From 2001 to 2020, groundwater pumping credits from the infiltration of surface water provided PWP an average of 1,675 afy. In dry years this was as low as 300 acrefeet (af) and in wet years up to 5,115 af (ESA 2022).
Groundwater Production
For the past five years (2015–2020), PWP’s annual groundwater production has averaged approximately 11,000 afy, which includes decreed rights (10,304 afy) and annual surface water spreading credits. Currently PWP has 12 active wells and 6 wells are inactive due to contamination and other factors. Most of the operational wells are approaching 100 years, which reduces their capacity or reliability. Because of contamination issues, groundwater requires treatment or a sequence of blending with imported water to dilute contamination levels low enough to comply with State and federal drinking water requirements. Table 3.11-3, Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY), provides the pumping history for all PWP wells that produced groundwater between 2016 and 2020 (i.e., the five years prior to the publication of PWP’s 2020 UWMP) (ESA 2022).
TABLE 3.11-3
GROUNDWATER VOLUME PUMPED (AFY)
Groundwater Location or Basin Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Raymond Basin
(Monk Hill and Pasadena subareas) 10,650 11,150 10,690 7,481 11,230 Totals 10,650 11,150 10,690 7,481 11,230
afy = acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-5 Utilities and Service Systems
Historic Water Demands for Existing Land Uses
Historically, the Project site has been used for commercial uses. Table 3.11-4, Historic Project Site Water Demand, presents the estimated historic water demand for the existing on-site land uses.
TABLE 3.11-4
HISTORIC PROJECT SITE WATER DEMAND
Land Use Category
Square
Feet Generation Unit GPD GPY AFY
Existing Land Uses to Remain
Whole Foods Grocery 73,671 150 gpd/1,000 sf 11,051 4,033,487 12.38 Existing Land Uses to be Removed
Fitnessa (501 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 2,880 300 gpd/1,000 sf 864 315,360 0.97 Event Rentalsa (523 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 3,002 100 gpd/1,000 sf 300 109,573 0.34 Animal Hospital (491/495 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 12,676 100 gpd/1,000 sf 1,268 462,674 1.42 Event Rentals (523 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 21,437 100 gpd/1,000 sf 2,144 782,452 2.40 Restaurant (Fast Casual)
(541 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 7,493 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 7,493 2,734,945 8.39 Restaurant (Fast Casual)
(577 S. Arroyo Pkwy) 4,306 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 4,306 1,571,690 4.82 Subtotals 45,912 N/A 16,375 5,976,693 18.34
Totals 27,426 10,010,180 30.72
a The businesses at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway would change from retail to fast-casual restaurant with Project implementation. These two existing uses are included as land uses to be removed to capture the increased water demand of restaurants compared to retail.
gpd: gallons per day; gpy: gallons per year; afy: acre-feet per year; N/A: not applicable Source: ESA 2022.
Based on conservative water resources planning estimates for these existing uses, existing water demand at the Project site is estimated at 30.72 afy. Whole Foods would remain on the Project site and continue to generate water demands throughout construction and operation of the Project. Two existing buildings totaling approximately 5,882 square feet (sf) would also remain on the Project site; fast-casual restaurant uses are proposed to replace the existing retail uses and analyzed in these two buildings as part of the Project water demand analysis (ESA 2022).
Wastewater
Infrastructure
The City of Pasadena sewer system contains about 350 miles of pipelines. About 94 percent of these sewers are City-owned and 3 percent are owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ (LACSD), 2 percent by the Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW), and 1 percent are privately owned. Sewers range from 6-inch- to 42-inch-diameter pipes for LACSD trunk sewers; however, the majority are eight-inch-diameter pipes (Pasadena 2015).
As indicated above, the City operates and maintains most of the local sanitary sewer collection system. The City’s sanitary collection system consists of approximately 328 miles of gravity pipelines, serving most parcels within the City limits and conveys an annual average flow of approximately 14 million gallons per day (mgd). The City’s wastewater collection system conveys untreated wastewater to Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s (LACSD) trunk sewer system Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-6 Utilities and Service Systems
via 92 separate connections. The City’s sewer system operates under Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Order 2006-003-DWQ and Order 2013-0058-EXEC.
These LARWQCB orders require the City to take a proactive approach to ensure a Citywide operation, maintenance, and management plan is in place to reduce the number and frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) within the City and related monitoring and reporting requirements (Pasadena 2019).
Within the area of the Project, there are two existing City of Pasadena 8-inch diameter sewer lines in Arroyo Parkway and one 8-inch diameter sewer line in California Boulevard a 6-inch diameter domestic water line in Bellevue Drive, and a 12-inch diameter domestic water line in California Boulevard. The northern sewer line in Arroyo Parkway turns west at and connects to the line in California Boulevard; the southern line turns east. Wastewater flow in the local sewer lines serving the site discharge to either or both the LACSD’s Arroyo Seco Section 4 Trunk Sewer, located in the northern terminus of Garfield Avenue at Hardison Place, or Arroyo Seco Section 5 Trunk Sewer, also located in the northern terminus of Garfield Avenue at Hardison Place (LACSD 2021a; Appendix A-2).
Treatment
The Project site is within LACSD’s District 16 and wastewater from the site is treated either at the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located near the City of South El Monte or at the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos. The Whittier Narrows WRP has a capacity of 15.0 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 9.9 mgd, and the Los Coyotes WRP has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 21.3 mgd (LACSD 2021a). As shown in Table 3.11-5, Existing Wastewater Generation, based on the LACSD’s applicable wastewater generation rates, the existing uses on the Project site generate approximately 26,849 gpd of wastewater. Without including Whole Foods Market, the existing uses on the site generate approximately 15,798 gpd of wastewater.
TABLE 3.11-5
EXISTING WASTEWATER GENERATION
Existing Use Building Size
Wastewater Generation
Rate
Estimated Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Whole Foods Grocery 73,671 sf 150 gpd / 1,000 sf 11,051 K9 Loft 12,676 sf 100 gpd / 1,000 sf 1,268
Corporate Furniture Resource 21,437 sf 100 gpd / 1,000 sf 2,144 Gold Line Pilates 2,880 sf 100 gpd / 1,000 sf 288
Town & Country Event Rentals 3,002 sf 100 gpd / 1,000 sf 300 Little Lily’s Kitchen 7,493 sf 1,000 gpd / 1,000 sf 7,493 Guisado’s Restaurant 4,306 sf 1,000 gpd / 1,000 sf 4,306 Total Wastewater Generation with Whole Foods Market 26,849 Total Wastewater Generation without Whole Foods Market 15,798 sf: square feet; gpd: gallons per day
Source of generation rates: LACSD 2021b.
Dry Utilities
PWP provides electrical services and Southern California Gas (The Gas Company) provides natural gas services in the City of Pasadena. Telecommunications (i.e., telephone, television, and/or internet) services are provided by several companies, including, but not limited to, Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-7 Utilities and Service Systems
Spectrum, AT&T, and EarthLink. There is a backbone of dry utility infrastructure throughout the City, including adjacent to the Project site.
Solid Waste
Landfills Serving the City
According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) records, in 2019 (the most recent year data is available) the City of Pasadena disposed of approximately 291,584 tons of waste as follows: approximately 247,032 tons at in-State landfills, 10,043 tons was transformed to energy, and 34,509 tons was alternative daily cover (CalRecycle 2021a).
While the City’s post-diversion municipal waste was disposed at a total of 16 in-State landfills (in 2019), approximately 74 percent of the waste stream was disposed at Scholl Canyon Landfill in Glendale. The City’s per resident disposal rate target is 10.9 pounds per day (PPD) and the per employee disposal rate target is 15.3 PPD; in 2019, the City achieved disposal rates of 9.2 PPD per capita and 13.4 PPD per employee (CalRecycle 2021b).
Based on a solid waste generation rate for retail land uses of 0.006 pounds per day per sf, published in the City’s General Plan EIR and derived from CalRecycle, the 125,465 sf of existing uses on the Project site generate approximately 753 pounds (0.37 tons) of solid waste per day.
3.11.2 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Health and Safety Code, Sections 116350–116405) was passed in 1974 and is intended to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The Federal SDWA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national standards for drinking water to protect against contaminants. Amendments in 1996 expanded the focus of the SDWA from primarily water treatment to enhanced source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of protecting drinking water supplies. The SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States and sets the enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water supplies.
State
Safe Drinking Water Act
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act, with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) granted primary enforcement responsibility. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) established DHS authority and provides drinking water quality and monitoring requirements, which are equal to or more stringent than federal standards.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-8 Utilities and Service Systems
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended State law1 to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. Specifically, it requires land use planning entities (in this case, the City of Pasadena), when evaluating certain large development projects, to request a water supply availability assessment from the water supply entity that would provide water to the project. A water supply assessment (WSA) must be prepared in conjunction with the land use approval process associated with a project, and it must include an evaluation of the sufficiency of the water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands (including the demand associated with the project in question) over a 20-year horizon that includes normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-years. An SB 610 WSA is required for any “project” that is subject to CEQA and that proposes, among other things, residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) (California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6, Section 10610 et seq.) was enacted in 1983. The UWMP Act applies to municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 afy of water. The UWMP Act requires these suppliers to update their Urban Water Management Plan every five years to demonstrate an appropriate level of reliability in supplying anticipated short-term and long-term water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881) requires cities and counties, including charter cities and charter counties, to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) prepared an updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), as contained in California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. Cities and counties have the option to adopt DWR’s ordinance or to develop their own. DWR’s ordinance identifies the landscape documentation that needs to be submitted to the local agency, including a completed Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet that estimates total water use and compares it to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) based on the annual reference evapotranspiration value for the project area. The MAWA is considered the water budget and should not be exceeded by the estimated water use. Standards for soil management, landscape design, irrigation design and efficiency, grading design, irrigation scheduling, maintenance, audit and survey of water use, recycled water, storm water management, public education, and wastewater prevention are provided to reduce irrigation water demand. The City of Pasadena has incorporated DWR’s MWELO into its Municipal Code (Section 17.44.050).
Senate Bill 7
Senate Bill 7 (SBX7-7) was approved in November 2009 and requires urban water retail suppliers in California, which includes the City of Pasadena, to reduce per capita water use by at least 10 percent on or before December 31, 2015 and achieve a 20 percent reduction by December 31, 2020. An urban retail water supplier must have included in its urban water management plan for the 2010 update, the baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. Urban wholesale water suppliers shall 1 SB 610 amended section 21151.9 of the California Public Resources Code, and amended sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, repealed section 10913 of, and added and amended section 10657 of, the California Water Code.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-9 Utilities and Service Systems
include an assessment of their present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by this bill.
Urban retail water suppliers and agricultural water suppliers would not be eligible for State water grants or loans for surface water or groundwater storage, recycling, desalination, water conservation, water supply reliability, and water supply augmentation unless they comply with the water conservation requirements established by this bill.
Title 24 Green Building Standards
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California.
The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, such as heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.
Section 5.408 of the current CALGreen code requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
California Plumbing Code
Part 5 of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the Code of Regulations) is the California Plumbing Code, which provides standards for the design and construction of water and sewer systems, storm drains, and recycled water systems in buildings. It prohibits connection to a septic tank in areas served by a public sewer system and requires the proper abandonment of septic tanks, cesspools, and seepage pits.
AB 939 and California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1989 In 1989, the California legislature passed a bill (Assembly Bill [AB] 939), which requires jurisdictions to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills by 50 percent by the year 2000 and thereafter. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and reuse solid wastes generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible”. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Subsequent to AB 939, additional legislation was passed to assist local jurisdictions in accomplishing the required waste reduction goals. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 directs CalRecycle to draft a “model ordinance” relating to adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects.
Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 1016) The purpose of the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (SB 1016) is to make the process of goal measurement (as established by AB 939) simpler, timelier, and more accurate.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-10 Utilities and Service Systems
SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of jurisdictions’ performance. SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator—the per capita disposal rate—which uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment) and (2) its disposal as reported by disposal facilities.
Each year CalRecycle will calculate each jurisdiction’s per capita (per resident or per employee) disposal rates; the per capita disposal rate will be used for most jurisdictions. Each year’s disposal rate will be compared that jurisdiction’s 50 percent per capita disposal target. As such, jurisdictions will not be compared to other jurisdictions or the statewide average, but they will only be compared to their own 50 percent per capita disposal target. Among other benefits, per capita disposal is an indicator that allows for jurisdiction growth because as residents or employees increase, report-year disposal tons can increase and still be consistent with the 50 percent per capita disposal target. A comparison of the reported annual per capita disposal rate to the 50 percent per capita disposal target will be useful for indicating progress, or other changes, over time.
75 Percent Initiative
In 2011, Governor Brown signed AB 341, which sets a goal of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid wastes by 2020. It also mandated commercial recycling by 2012. The 75 percent goal will shift the focus from local diversion to a Statewide approach that would decrease reliance on landfills. CalRecycle has been holding workshops with stakeholders since May 2012 to identify existing programs and new ways to reduce the waste streams. A number of programs will be implemented under this initiative, including continued local jurisdiction diversion; commercial recycling; mattress recovery; greenhouse gas reduction grant and loan program; commercial organics recycling; potential packaging reduction activities; and other new programs that are under development.
Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling Bill (AB 1826)
In 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the State implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (AB 1383) In September 2016, Governor Brown signed AB 1383, which set methane emissions reduction targets for California in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants The AB 1383 targets are to:
Reduce organic waste disposal 50 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025. Rescue for people to eat at least 20 percent of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.
While the ultimate goal of this bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it also serves to help reduce landfill disposal of a segment of municipal waste.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-11 Utilities and Service Systems
Regional
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Wastewater Ordinance In 1972, the LACSD adopted a Wastewater Ordinance, which was most recently amended in 1998, for the operation and financing of the LACSD’s wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities. The Wastewater Ordinance applies to all direct and indirect discharges of wastewater to any part of the sewerage system and regulates industrial wastewater discharges to protect the public sewerage system. The LACSD also charges Connection Fees and Surcharges. The Surcharge program requires all industrial companies discharging to the LACSD’s sewerage system to pay their fair share of the wastewater treatment and disposal costs.
The Connection Fee program requires all new users of the LACSD’s sewerage system, as well as existing users that significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge, to pay their fair share of the costs for providing additional conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities. The LACSD uses the fees for the expansion and improvement of their facilities, as needed, to serve existing and anticipated developments.
City
Urban Water Management Plan
The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Pasadena was prepared to meet the mandates of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The 2020 UWMP identifies historic and projected water supplies available to the City of Pasadena; existing and projected water demand; available water rights; and programs to meet demand during an average year, single-dry year, and a five consecutive year drought. The UWMP is the foundational document for compliance with both the California Water Code and SB 610 and SB 221 documentation for applicable development projects in the City (PWP 2021a).
Water System and Resources Plan
The Water System and Resources Plan (WSRP) for the City of Pasadena, adopted by the City Council on October 4, 2021, is a 25-year strategy that integrates investments for sustainable water resources with the infrastructure necessary to ensure high quality water service continues to be provided now and in the future. This is the first time that PWP has combined a long-term resource plan and an infrastructure master plan, as these were previously two separate documents. The comprehensive WSRP document provides the programmatic view of the entire water operations from the source to the customers’ tap. The WSRP is proposed to be revisited every five years with an internal review every two to three years. This type of periodic review is intended to ensure that the WSRP addresses evolving issues and local, regional, State or federal considerations.
The WSRP evaluates the current and projected needs of the customers for potable and nonpotable water that provides risk-based screening of alternatives to meet future demands with necessary infrastructure within the reasonable operational and financial constraints. Major considerations include water quality, greater dependency on local water, groundwater basin stability, reliability of the distribution system, affordability, climate change uncertainties, and legislative and regulatory requirements (PWP 2021b).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-12 Utilities and Service Systems
Municipal Code
Chapter 13.10, Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plans, of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) establishes 13 permanent water conservation requirements. Section
17.44.050 et. seq. of the PMC establishes the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), consistent with State requirements.
Chapter 13.24 of the PMC includes sewer construction and maintenance standards and requirements. Chapter 4.52 of the PMC establishes sewer use rates; and Chapter 4.53 of the PMC ensures that new development pays its estimated cost for any capacity upgrades to the City sewer system through the payment of the sewer facility charge.
Chapters 8.60 of the PMC discusses City collection services, collection frequency and time, service fees, waste reduction, waste container, and bulky item pick up. Chapter 8.61 of the PMC addresses collecting, transporting, disposing, and/or recycling of solid waste to maintain the health, safety, public welfare, and quality of life in the City. It also addresses the franchisee recycling diversion rates for solid waste, and construction and demolition debris. Chapter 8.62 of the PMC requires all covered projects to divert a minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition debris pursuant to State and local statutory goals and policies. Additionally, specific waste management plans and final compliance reports are also required. The Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be a covered project.
3.11.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project would result in a significant adverse impact related to utilities and service systems if it would:
Threshold 3.11a: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;2 Threshold 3.11b: [Not] have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
Threshold 3.11c: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Threshold 3.11d: 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/or
Threshold 3.11e: [Not] comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
2 The Initial Study (provided in Appendix A-1) concluded that all thresholds related to hydrology and water quality, including storm drainage capacity, would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts and were not carried forward into the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-13 Utilities and Service Systems
3.11.4 METHODOLOGY
The wet and dry utility service providers were consulted for information regarding current infrastructure and/or capacity and to determine if the proposed Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would significantly impact the respective providers’ capacity such that relocation or construction of new or expanded wet or dry utilities would be required, whose construction could result in an environmental impact. Other information presented in this section was derived from CalRecycle’s website, City’s website, the adopted General Plan and related EIR, the NOP comment letter from the LACSD, and LACPW’s Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2019 Annual Report.
3.11.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.11a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3.11c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Project
As shown on Exhibit 2-17a and 2-17b, Conceptual Utility Plans, in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, all connections to water and wastewater utilities and all dry utilities would occur on the east side of the proposed buildings, either within the adjacent sidewalk or in South Arroyo Parkway.
Water Infrastructure
As discussed above, PWP provides potable water to City residents and businesses. The Project would include installation of new potable and fire water connections to the existing PWP water lines. As discussed in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, all connections to wet and dry utilities would occur to the east on South Arroyo Parkway. Refer to Exhibits 2-17a and 2-17b, Conceptual Utility Plans, in Section 2.0 to see the locations of existing wet and dry utilities and the locations of proposed connections to utilities. There would be a less than significant impact related to the need for new, expanded, or relocated water infrastructure, and no mitigation is required.
The proposed water infrastructure would be constructed within the Project site as defined in Section 2.0 and the potential for construction-related impacts are analyzed throughout this Draft EIR, including short-term air quality (Section 3.1) and noise (Section 3.7).
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
As shown on Exhibit 2-17a and 2-17b, Conceptual Utility Plans, the Project would tie into the existing 8-inch diameter City of Pasadena sewer line within the eastern portion of Arroyo Parkway and would flow east at the connection with the 8-inch-diameter line in California Boulevard. Sewer line capacity is part of the City’s standard plan check/project approval process. No relocation or construction of new or expanded City-owned sewer lines has been determined necessary with Project implementation.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-14 Utilities and Service Systems
Wastewater flow in the City’s local sewer lines serving the site discharge to either or both the LACSD’s Arroyo Seco Section 4 Trunk Sewer or Arroyo Seco Section 5 Trunk Sewer. The LACSD’s 21-inch-diameter Arroyo Seco Section 4 Trunk Sewer has a capacity of 69.0 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 2.1 mgd when last measured in 2015. The 16-inch-diameter Arroyo Seco Section 5 Trunk Sewer has a capacity of 4.3 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 0.4 mgd when last measured in 2015. As discussed above, LACSD indicates that wastewater from the Project would be conveyed and treated at either the Whittier Narrows WRP, which has a remaining capacity of
5.1 mgd, or the Los Coyotes WRP, which has a remaining capacity of 16.2 mgd (LACSD 2021a).
The LACSD estimates a total of 92,642 gpd of wastewater generation from both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (LACSD 2021a). The LACSD estimate does not include Whole Foods Market. As shown in Table 3.11-5 above, based on the LACSD’s applicable wastewater generation rates, all existing uses on the Project site (including those to be retained and those to be replaced but not including Whole Foods Market) generate approximately 15,798 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the Project would result in a net wastewater generation of approximately 76,844 gpd (0.076 mgd) from all uses on the site except Whole Foods Market.
Wastewater flows of approximately 0.076 mgd represent 0.1 percent of the Arroyo Seco Section 4 Trunk Sewer, 1.8 percent of the Arroyo Seco Section 5 Trunk Sewer, 1.5 percent of the Whittier Narrows WRP, and 0.5 percent of the Los Coyotes WRP remaining capacity. Therefore, there would be no relocation or construction of new or expanded LACSD-owned sewer lines or wastewater treatment facilities with Project implementation. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Dry Utilities (Electrical, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications) As shown on Exhibits 2-17a and 2-17b, in Section 2.0 of this EIR, the Project would tie into existing underground electric and telecommunications lines located in the sidewalk on the west side of Arroyo Parkway (adjacent to the site) and the existing natural gas line located along the east side of Arroyo Parkway. There are four existing natural gas meters within the eastern portion of the site; the Project proposes to tie in and reuse these gas meters and associated laterals crossing under Arroyo Parkway.
Electric and natural gas services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which requires that these utilities provide services as required by the public.
Telecommunications services are provided on demand in a free market system. The need for new, expanded, and/or relocated dry utilities would be determined as part of future individual projects and dependent on the conditions at each project site. There would be less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of dry utility infrastructure to serve the Project, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Water Infrastructure
The analysis of wet and dry utilities service for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the essentially the same as the Project. As with the Project, all connections to water and wastewater utilities and all dry utilities would occur on the east side of the proposed buildings, either within the adjacent sidewalk or in South Arroyo Parkway. The proposed water infrastructure would be constructed within the Project site as defined in Section 2.0, and the potential for construction-related impacts are analyzed throughout this Draft EIR, including short-term air quality (Section 3.1) and noise (Section 3.7). There would be a less than significant impact related to the need for new, expanded, or relocated water infrastructure, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-15 Utilities and Service Systems
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
There would be similar wastewater generation for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, as discussed for the Project, no relocation or construction of new or expanded City-owned sewer lines has been determined necessary.
As discussed above, the LACSD estimated the same wastewater generation for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (LACSD 2021a). With consideration of the estimated wastewater generation from the existing land uses, there would be a net wastewater generation of approximately 76,844 gpd (0.076 mgd) from all uses on the site except Whole Foods Market. This represents a nominal percentage of the LACSD’s trunk sewer or WRPs that serve the site. Therefore, there would be no relocation or construction of new or expanded LACSDowned sewer lines or wastewater treatment facilities with implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Dry Utilities (Electrical, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications) As with the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would tie into existing electric infrastructure bordering the site. As such, there would be less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of dry utility infrastructure, and no mitigation would be required.
Threshold 3.11b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Project
2020 Water Demand
PWP provides potable and non-potable water for a mix of urban uses that includes residential, commercial, and governmental uses. There are no agricultural water services in the PWP’s service area; however, a portion of water delivered is provided exclusively for landscape irrigation purposes. The gross water use entering PWP’s distribution system is the total volume of water produced by PWP from local groundwater, plus the water imported from MWD, plus the groundwater purchased from local water agencies, minus the water delivered to other suppliers.
The total PWP water demands are based on water use sectors by starting with 2020 records of water sales by customer class, then using projected growth numbers for housing units and employment. The water demands incorporate passive conservation (code-based and price-effect savings) and active conservation (for installed active devices through 2020). Losses are assumed to be equal to the five-year average of losses from 2015 to 2019, which is approximately 6 percent to 9 percent of potable direct use demand. It is assumed that existing codes and ordinances related to water conservation would remain in place. Table 3.11-6, PWP’s 2020 Water Demands, on the following page summarizes the calendar year 2020 water deliveries (ESA 2022).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-16 Utilities and Service Systems
TABLE 3.11-6
PWP’S 2020 WATER DEMANDS
Water Use Category Total Volume (af)
Single-family residential 13,593
Multi-family residential 5,190
Commercial 6,530
Institutional/Governmental 1,311
Other Potable 80
Losses 2,586
Total Direct Use Demand 29,290
af: acre-feet
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan).
Historic Water Demands for Existing Land Uses
As shown in Table 3.11-4 above, existing water demand for all uses at the Project site is estimated at 30.72 afy. Whole Foods Market, which has an estimated annual water demand of 12.38 afy, would remain on the Project site and continue to generate water demands throughout construction and operation of the Project. Two existing buildings totaling approximately 5,882 square feet (sf) would also remain on the Project site; fast-casual restaurant uses are proposed to replace the existing retail uses and are analyzed in these two buildings as part of the Project water demand analysis (ESA 2022). The estimated water demand for all land uses to be removed or replaced (i.e., retail businesses at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) is 18.34 afy. As a conservative assumption, landscape water is not included in the historical water demands, which results in a slight overestimation of the Project’s net increase in water demand relative to existing conditions (ESA 2022).
Projected Water Demand
Projected water use can be determined by examining past and current water use trends, along with consideration of land use planning data, climate change, and other factors relevant to sectorspecific water use.
The City consists of a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and open space, with residential and commercial being the dominating uses. The City is largely built-out, and there are few vacant sites available for new developments. As such, growth is expected to be due primarily to increases in housing density and land use intensity.
Past water use, as it relates to PWP’s service area, is detailed in its 2020 UWMP. MWD as the regional wholesale water supplier, prepares water resources reports, studies, and plans necessary to manage its regional water supplies based on current and future supply and demand scenarios. As part of its 2020 UWMP, MWD provided PWP and other member agencies with population and supply and demand calculations. Potable water demand for 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 are estimated by using the total retail demand projections provided by MWD as part of the regional planning process. Potable water demand for 2045 is sourced from the WSRP (Pasadena 2021b). Table 3.11-7, PWP Projected Water Demand (AF), presents the projected demand by water use classes. As shown, total demand is generally expected to increase, primarily due to the expected increase in housing units (ESA 2022).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-17 Utilities and Service Systems
TABLE 3.11-7
PWP PROJECTED WATER DEMAND (AF)
Water Use Category 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family 12,800 12,000 11,900 11,800
Not
Available
Multi-Family 4,800 4,550 5,000 5,250
Other 100 100 150 180
Commercial 6,500 5,900 5,850 6,000
Institutional/Governmental 900 850 870 900
Unaccounted-for Losses 1,650 1,600 1,550 1,500
Total 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950
af: acre-feet
Source: ESA 2022. (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System and Resources Plan)
Project Water Demand
Construction
Project construction activities are anticipated to commence in 2023 and be completed in 2026.
Over this period, water would be used for dust control purposes during demolition, excavation, grading activities, equipment cleaning, vehicle wash downs, washout basins, and re-compaction of backfill materials, concrete pouring, and other construction-related uses. Based on construction projects of similar size and duration, a conservative estimate of construction water use is up 50 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet (50 gpd/1,000 sf). Construction activities for the Project would occur on a site area of approximately 90,400 sf. Based on water use of 50 gpd/1000 sf of construction activities at the Project site, water use during construction is assumed to be 4,520 gpd. Water use during the 34-month (approximately 1,020 days) construction period would be up to approximately 4.61 million gallons (MG) or 14.1 af. Calculated annually, this would be approximately 1.63 MG/year or 4.99 afy for approximately 3 years of construction (ESA 2022).
Operation
Once fully operational, the expected water use of the Project is determined by analyzing demand based on planned uses. To determine the water demand factors of the Project, water use demand factors were formulated based on data from PWP’s 2020 UWMP as well as current and historical uses at similar facilities and information from similar mixed-use projects. The Project water demand includes all indoor uses and landscape irrigation in all water year types. Table 3.11-8, Project Water Demand, presents the estimated annual water demand for the Project. The calculated demand of 93.91 afy (approximately 94 afy) represents the worst-case scenario (conservative estimate) of the potential demand for the Project. When considering the existing land uses on the site that generate an annual water demand of 30.72 afy, the net water demand for the Project would be 75.57 afy (approximately 76 afy) (ESA 2022).
In all water year types, including single-dry and multiple-dry years, it is anticipated that the worst case (conservative estimate) Project demand of approximately 76 afy would remain unchanged, unless consumers within the City’s service area are specifically asked to reduce water use through active conservation measures described in PWP’s 2020 UWMP (ESA 2022).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-18 Utilities and Service Systems
TABLE 3.11-8
PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Proposed Land Use Amount Units Generation Rate GPD AFY
Project Land Uses
Medical Office Building (A)
Medical Office Building 151,000 sf 300 gpd/1,000 sf 45,300 50.74 Commercial
(Fast Casual Restaurant) 3,000 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 3,000 3.36 Assisted Living Facility (B)
Independent Living - Studios 28 du 156 gpd/du 4,368 4.89 Independent Living – 1 BR 53 du 156 gpd/du 8,268 9.26
Independent Living – 2BR 14 du 195 gpd/du 2,730 3.06
Assisted Living 113 beds 125 gpd/bed 14,125 15.82
Commercial
(Fast Casual Restaurant) 5,882 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 5,882 6.59 Landscapinga N/A N/A 170 gpd 170 0.19
Subtotals 83,843 93.91
Existing Land Use to Remain
Whole Foods Marketb 73,671 sf 150 gpd/1,000sf 11,051 12.38 Totals 94,894 106.29
Net Water Demand (Less 30.72 AFY for Existing Uses) 75.57 a
Landscaping water demand is based on estimated annual average daily water demand. b Existing structure and land use to be retained and continue operation in the existing condition du: dwelling units: sf: square feet; gpd: gallons per day; gpy: gallons per year; afy: acre-feet per year; N/A: not applicable Source: ESA 2022.
Water Supply Sufficiency
MWD’s Water Supply Sufficiency
MWD strives for a “diverse water portfolio” that allows it to meet demand even in years when its primary supplies would be inadequate. In fact, MWD has developed a water supply portfolio capable of meeting all demands in any given year. As documented in its 2020 UWMP, MWD plans for drought conditions and potential water shortages, and therefore has taken measures to have water in storage within its existing water supply systems and facilities to use during years when SWP and CRA supplies are curtailed. Using surplus water from normal and wet years, MWD’s large storage portfolio contains both dry-year storage and emergency storage that can be used to meet demand in case of shortages.
As documented in its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), scenario planning components are being used to predict a broader range of possible water supply and demand future scenarios.
MWD’s UWMP, its Water Shortage Contingency Planning (WSCP) and Drought Risk Assessments (DRA) use a similar approach to assess reliability of water supplies and sufficiency to meet demand. Operational studies used in the WSA demonstrate that MWD has sufficient water supply to meet the anticipated future demand for every hydrologic year on record.
Therefore, MWD does not anticipate any reductions in water supply availability, even if SWP and/or CRA supplies are curtailed due to drought and/or water quality concerns over the study period. In years of above-average rainfall, MWD can store more water throughout its storage system, effectively building up more supplies for single-dry or multiple-dry years (ESA 2022).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-19 Utilities and Service Systems
MWD’s and PWP’s UWMPs address climate change and its impact on supplies as required by DWR in their UWMP Guidelines. More recent actions, such as DWR’s initial SWP allocation of 0 percent for 2022 in December 2021 with planned reassessment in early 2022 (DWR 2021a), while not specifically mentioned in MWD’s UWMP, should not be a cause for alarm as their single dry year projections for supply addressed near zero supply and there is adequate supply in storage to cover the small difference. Additionally, the DWR’s initial SWP allocation is typically set low (conservative) and the Spring allocation is typically adjusted upwards, based on rainfall and snowpack figures. While the heavy December rainfall and the December 30, 2021, Sierra snowpack value of 202 percent of average for this time of year (DWR 2021b) do not guarantee an end to the current drought, it is positive news and could enable DWR to increase the SWP allocation in April.
CRA supplies are in the news recently and will be declining to all western states based on low reservoir levels on that system due to drought conditions. However, these reductions were also included in MWD’s scenario planning in their IRP, UWMP, WSCP, and DRA. Additionally, starting with 2022, DWR now requires each agency that prepares an UWMP (including MWD and PWP) to prepare an Annual Water Shortage Assessment to address current water supply and demand conditions and file a report with DWR beginning July 1, 2022, and by July 1st of each successive year. If a supply shortage is predicted, the agency is required to show what demand reduction measures will be undertaken to eliminate any shortfall as required by Section 10632.1 of the Water Code. This annual assessment and associated reporting are to be conducted based on the supplier’s procedures detailed in their WSCP. PWP will coordinate with their regional suppliers, MWD and the Watermaster to prepare this annual assessment.
PWP’s Water Supply Sufficiency
Table 3.11-9, PWP Normal-Year Potable Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY), summarizes the City’s projected supply and demand over an approximate 25-year planning horizon out to 2045 under normal water year conditions. As shown in Table 3.11-9, PWP can satisfy all customer demands.
TABLE 3.11-9
PWP NORMAL-YEAR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
COMPARISON (AFY)
Water Supply Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 31,087 31,192 31,284 31,537 31,409a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,328 6,192 5,964 5,907 5,459
a
The 2045 supply total is projected based on a second order polynomial extrapolation (e.g., curve of best fit) from year 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 data in the PWP Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The anticipated 2045 imported water projected in this table may differ from PWP’s official projection in future updates to its 2020 UWMP. b
PWP 2020 Water System and Resource Plan (Appendix A, p. A-6) afy: acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System and Resources Plan).
The future water demand for the City and the entire region has been estimated by MWD using its new Econometric Demand Model, which uses forecast data from SCAG for variables including population, housing units, and employment. Although the City is using lower demand projections, which consider the reductions to meet 20x2020 targets, these MWD projections provide the basis for dry-year reliability planning.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-20 Utilities and Service Systems
PWP’s 2020 UWMP projects that neither PWP nor its customers would experience supply deficits in normal or non-drought years through the year 2040. As a result, PWP does not expect critical shortages during the 20-year planning period. When taking dry and multiple dry years into account, PWP’s water supply and demand forecasting model projected that beginning in 2020 and extending to 2040, PWP can meet its service area water demand approximately 91 percent of the time without implementing conservation measures. While in the remaining 9 percent of this period, the projected water supply shortage could range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 afy.
Additionally, based on extrapolated data from PWP’s 2020 UWMP, critical shortages would not be expected through 2045. Chapter 8, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, of the PWP 2020 UWMP, explains how PWP intends to act in the case of an actual water shortage condition. The WSCP anticipates a water supply shortage and provides pre-planned guidance for managing and mitigating a shortage. Prior to invoking the WSCP, PWP can implement voluntary or mandatory demand management measures (DMMs), as described in detail in Chapter 9 of its 2020 UWMP.
Through planned implementation of DMMs, PWP forecasts that no critical shortages will take place during the 20-year planning period. PWP has continuously implemented a water conservation program since 1991. Voluntary and mandatory DMMs can reduce demand by 10 percent up to as much as 25 percent in some years.
PWP may also implement water conservation measures pursuant to Chapter 13.10 of the PMC when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. On August 16, 2021, the Pasadena City Council unanimously approved a proposal to implement the Level 2 Water Supply Shortage Plan and to establish a voluntary water reduction target of 15 percent, which aligns with the state’s reduction goal. Per Section 13.10.045 of the PMC, during a declared Level 2 water supply shortage, the following water conservation requirements apply:
1. Limits on Watering Days: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with water is limited to 2 days per week from April 1 through October 31, and no more than 1 day per week from November 1 through March 31, on a schedule established and posted by the department. This subsection does not apply to categories of use determined to be exempt under Section
13.10.037 of this chapter.
2. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system shall be repaired within 48 hours of notification by the department unless other arrangements are made with the department.
3. Limits on Filling Ornamental Lakes or Ponds: Filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds is prohibited, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, or for lakes and ponds that may be used for wildfire suppression.
The water conservation target and Level 2 Water Shortage Plan became effective immediately upon approval by the City Council and is in effect until such time as the City Council determines that a water supply shortage no longer exists or that another water supply shortage plan is necessary. The PMC also establishes water conservation measures for Level 3 and 4 water supply shortages where determined to exist by the City Council.
Table 3.11-10, PWP Single-Dry-Year Potable Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY), on the following page, and Table 3.11-11, PWP Multiple-Dry-Year Potable Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY), on page 3-22 provide a comparison of supply to demand during single-dry- and multiple-dry-year periods, respectively. As shown in these tables, water demand in the City would increase over the 25-year planning period. Water supplies provided by MWD Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-21 Utilities and Service Systems
and supplemented by groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet demand. PWP can meet existing demand, in addition to new demand created by the Project, and no shortfall would occur (ESA 2022).
Multiple-Dry Years
As shown in Table 3.11-11, the City’s water supply during a dry period could exceed the supplies used during a normal year given the ability to purchase additional imported supplies from its wholesaler, MWD. Furthermore, MWD projects sufficient supplies and storage to meet demands in future single- and multiple-dry-year scenarios. MWD’s contingency plan for responding to water shortages is the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP). The WSAP is based on a guiding principle for allocating shortages across MWD’s service area. The WSAP formula uses different adjustments and credits to balance impacts of water shortage at the retail level, where local supplies can vary dramatically, and provide equity on the wholesale level among member agencies. It also considers the following: growth in demand, local investments, change in local supply conditions, the reduction in potable water demand from recycled water, and the implementation of water conservation programs.
As shown in Table 3.11-12, Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment, on page 3-11-22, PWP has chosen to use the same dry-year hydrologic scenarios as MWD. This allows PWP to use information about imported water supply reliability derived from modeling completed through the 2015 IRP Update process. Due to MWD’s investments in continued reliability and sustainability programs that consider climate change issues, the projections shown in Table 3.11-12 do not vary. Therefore, the City’s supply is determined to be reliable in normal-, single-dry-, and multipledry-year scenarios, with additional supplies purchased from MWD to meet demands in dry years as needed (ESA 2022).
TABLE 3.11-10
PWP SINGLE-DRY-YEAR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
AND DEMAND COMPARISON (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 31,886 32,003 32,098 31,172 32,224a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 5,136 7,003 6,778 6,542 6,274
a
The 2045 supply total is projected based on a second order polynomial extrapolation (e.g., curve of best fit) from year 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 data in the PWP Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The anticipated 2045 imported water projected in this table may differ from PWP’s official projection in future updates to its 2020 UWMP.
B PWP 2020 Water System and Resource Plan (Appendix A, p. A-6) afy: acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System and Resources Plan).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-22 Utilities and Service Systems
TABLE 3.11-11
PWP MULTIPLE-DRY-YEAR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
AND DEMAND COMPARISON (AFY)
Years 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year 1
Supply Totals 31,533 31,943 32,047 32,130 31,978a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,783 6,943 6,727 6,500 6,028
Year 2
Supply Totals 31,533 31,943 32,047 32,130 31,978a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,783 6,943 6,727 6,500 6,028
Year 3
Supply Totals 31,533 31,943 32,047 32,130 31,978a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,783 6,943 6,727 6,500 6,028
Year 4
Supply Totals 31,533 31,943 32,047 32,130 31,978a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,783 6,943 6,727 6,500 6,028
Year 5
Supply Totals 31,533 31,943 32,047 32,130 31,978a
Demand Totals 26,750 25,000 25,320 25,630 25,950b
Difference 4,783 6,943 6,727 6,500 6,028
a
The 2045 supply total is projected based on a second order polynomial extrapolation (e.g., curve of best fit) from year 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 data in the PWP Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The anticipated 2045 imported water projected in this table may differ from PWP’s official projection in future updates to its 2020 UWMP. b
PWP 2020 Water System and Resource Plan (Appendix A, p. A-6) afy: acre-feet per year
Source: ESA 2022 (via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System and Resources Plan).
TABLE 3.11-12
FIVE-YEAR DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Water Use (afy) 28,500 28,065 27,625 27,200 26,750 Total Supplies (afy) 29,290 31,533 31,533 31,533 31,533 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 790 3,468 3,908 4,333 4,783 Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) WSCP – Supply Augmentation Benefit 182 182 182 182 182
WSCP – Use Reduction Savings Benefit 56 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129 Revised Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,028 4,779 5,219 5,644 6,094 Resulting Use Reduction from WSCP Action 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% afy: acre-feet per year; WSCP: Water Supply Contingency Plan Source: ESA 2022(via Pasadena Water and Power Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System and Resources Plan).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-23 Utilities and Service Systems
Even though Tables 3.11-10 and 3.11-11 show available MWD supply is sufficient to meet PWP’s demands, based on MWD’s IRP model simulations for the future under different hydrology conditions, it is possible that some extreme dry years could result in MWD shortage allocations.
MWD’s model does show some potential years in which shortage allocations would be applied, reducing supply to PWP. For the years in which MWD supply could be reduced, the WSCP is in place. Table 3.11-12 provides the data for a five-year drought risk assessment both with and without the WSCP in place.
The WSA concludes that the City has sufficient water supplies under all hydrologic conditions, through agreements with and provided by MWD and use of its existing groundwater pumping rights from the RB. Because of MWD’s long-term success of delivery of water to all customers and commitment to continue to serve treated water to all retailers, when SWP and CRA curtailments occur, MWD has supply flexibility through its vast network of water supply facilities and long-term water management programs to continue to meet all demands. In addition, PWP could pump additional local groundwater during drought, emergency, or other surface supply reductions to meet demands in the future. Furthermore, consumers and retailers could effectively reduce demands by 10 or 25 percent to relieve demand pressure on local and regional supplies.
It is reasonable to assume, based on the consumer demand reductions that PWP customers would continue to curb per-capita use and when necessary, based on water supply allocations, customers could reduce per capita demands by up to 25 percent (ESA 2022).
Project Water Supply Sufficiency
As discussed above, in normal years the Project would conservatively generate an estimated 76 afy of new water demand, or about 0.24 percent of the City’s anticipated total system supply of 31,078 afy in 2025, 0.24 percent of the supply of 31,537 afy in 2040, and 0.24 percent of the supply of 31,409 afy in 2045 (ESA 2022).
As stated previously, the 2020 UWMP aligns with Pasadena’s population and land use and is consistent with SCAG population and employment projections; and thereby includes potential water demands that would be generated by land use changes and new commercial and residential developments like the Project. Additionally, PWP staff reviewed the WSA for the Project and concluded that the WSA meets the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 and concurs that PWP would have sufficient water supplies to meet existing demands combined with the Project’s estimated demands of 76 afy and cumulative demands anticipated in the 2020 UWMP (PWP 2022). Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. There would be a less than significant impact related to water supplies, and no mitigation is required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Table 3.11-13, Project with Building A Residential/Commercial Water Demand, on the following page presents the estimated annual water demand for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial water demand includes all indoor uses and landscape irrigation in all water year types. The calculated demand of 86.20 (approximately 86 afy) represents the worst-case scenario (conservative estimate) of the potential demand for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. When considering the existing land uses on the site and which generate an annual water demand of 30.72 afy, the net water demand for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be 67.86 afy (approximately 68 afy) (ESA 2022).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-24 Utilities and Service Systems
TABLE 3.11-13
PROJECT WITH BUILDING A WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
WATER DEMAND
Proposed Land Use Amount Units Generation Rate GPD AFY
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial Land Uses Medical Office Building (A)
Residentiala 197 sf 195 gpd/du 38,415 43.03
Commercial
(Fast Casual Restaurant) 3,000 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 3,000 3.36 Assisted Living Facility (B)
Independent Living - Studios 28 du 156 gpd/du 4,368 4.89 Independent Living – 1 BR 53 du 156 gpd/du 8,268 9.26
Independent Living – 2BR 14 du 195 gpd/du 2,730 3.06
Assisted Living 113 beds 125 gpd/bed 14,125 15.82
Commercial
(Fast Casual Restaurant) 5,882 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 5,882 6.59 Landscapingb N/A N/A 170 gpd 170 0.19
Subtotals 76,956 86.20
Existing Land Use to Remain
Whole Foods Marketc 73,671 sf 150 gpd/1,000sf 11,051 12.38 Totals 88,009 98.58
Net Water Demand (Less 30.72 AFY for Existing Uses) 67.86 a
For conservative water resources planning purposes residential living units were assumed to be 2 bedroom units with associated water demand of 195 gpd/du. b
Landscaping water demand is based on estimated annual average daily water demand. c Existing structure and land use to be retained and continue operation in the existing condition du: dwelling units: sf: square feet; gpd: gallons per day; gpy: gallons per year; afy: acre-feet per year; N/A: not applicable
Source: ESA 2022.
An annual water demand of 68 afy represents 0.22 percent of the City’s anticipated total system supply of 31,078 afy in 2025, 0.22 percent of the supply of 31,537 afy in 2040, and 0.22 percent of the supply of 31,409 afy in 2045. The water demand for this scenario is approximately 8 afy lower than for the Project. Additionally, PWP staff reviewed the WSA for the Project and concluded that the WSA meets the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 and concurs that PWP would have sufficient water supplies to meet existing demands combined with the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial’s estimated demands of 68 afy and cumulative demands anticipated in the 2020 UWMP (PWP 2022). Therefore, as with the Project, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. There would be a less than significant impact related to water supplies, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.11d: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Project
Demolition required to construct the Project is estimated to generate approximate 4,200 cy of debris. In addition, there would be a limited volume of general construction debris during subsequent construction phases, such as packaging, excess construction materials, and food Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-25 Utilities and Service Systems
wrappers. For purposes of this analysis, a conservative estimate of 4,500 cy of construction waste is anticipated. As discussed above, the City’s C&D ordinance requires diversion of at least 75 percent of the construction waste stream from landfill disposal. Therefore, an estimated 1,125 cy of waste would be disposed in a landfill. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all construction-phase waste would be disposed at Scholl Canyon Landfill, as it received the majority of the City’s total waste stream in 2019 (the most recent publicly available data) and is the closest facility that accepts City waste. As of the end of 2019, the Scholl Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 3,400 tons and a remaining permitted capacity of approximately 6.5 million cubic yards (3.8 million tons) (LACPW 2020). The one-time disposal of approximately 1,125 cy would represent approximately 0.07 percent of Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining permitted capacity.
With implementation of the Project, based on the 2019 disposal rate of 9.2 PPD per capita (CalRecycle 2021b), up to 109 residents in the independent living units and up to 113 persons cared for in the assisted living facilities3 would generate approximately 2,042 PPD of solid waste, or approximately 373 tons per year.4 Based on the 2019 disposal rate of 13.4 PPD per employee, the estimated 737 employees would generate approximately 9,876 PPD of solid waste, or approximately 1,802 tons per year.5 As such, the Project would generate a total of approximately 2,175 tons per year (approximately 5.96 tons per day) of solid waste requiring disposal after diversion.
Solid waste would be collected by a private hauler and may be transported to any landfill in the State with capacity that can accept the municipal waste. The primary location that accepts City waste is Scholl Canyon Landfill, with approximately 74 percent of all waste generated after diversion going to this facility. Based on Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining permitted capacity of approximately 6.5 million cubic yards (3.8 million tons) (LACPW 2020), the Project’s annual solid waste disposal of 2,175 tons would represent approximately 0.06 percent of Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining permitted capacity. However, as in the existing conditions, waste from the City of Pasadena may be disposed of after diversion at any facility that accepts waste from the City, both within and outside the County of Los Angeles as well as out of State. For instance, in 2019, City-generated waste was disposed at a total of 16 different facilities (CalRecycle 2021a).
Because there is adequate remaining capacity to accommodate the estimated construction and annual operational solid waste to be generated by the Project, there would be a less than significant impact related to landfill capacity. Further, the Project is in a developed urban area and within the City's existing refuse collection area. As such, the Project would not result in the need for new or substantially altered systems of solid waste collection and disposal. There would be a less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Attainment of solid waste reduction goals is addressed in Threshold 3.11e below.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project, demolition and construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is estimated to generate approximate 4,500 cy of debris. After diversion of at least 75 percent of the construction waste stream consistent with the City’s C&D ordinance, an estimated 1,125 cy of waste would be disposed in a landfill. As discussed for the Project, this waste is assumed to be disposed in Scholl Canyon Landfill and this finite amount of waste would represent approximately 0.07 percent of Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining permitted capacity (LACPW 2020).
3 The per capita resident generation rate is applied to these persons as a conservative analysis 4 (2,042 PPD * 365 days)/2,000 pounds per ton = 373 tons per year 5 (9,876 PPD * 365 days)/2,000 pounds per ton = 1,802 tons per year Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-26 Utilities and Service Systems
With implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, based on the 2019 disposal rate of 9.2 PPD per capita (CalRecycle 2021b), up to 493 residents in Building A, up to 109 residents in the independent living units, and 113 persons cared for in the assisted living facilities in Building B would generate approximately 6,578 PPD of solid waste, or approximately 1,201 tons per year.6 Based on the 2019 disposal rate of 13.4 PPD per employee, the estimated 95 employees would generate approximately 1,273 PPD of solid waste; or approximately 232 tons per year.7 As such, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate a total of approximately 1,433 tons per year (approximately 3.9 tons per day) of solid waste requiring disposal after diversion. This is slightly less daily solid waste generation than the Project and would represent approximately 0.04 percent of Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining permitted capacity (LACPW 2020). Therefore, as with the Project, because waste from the City of Pasadena may be disposed of after diversion at any facility that accepts waste from the City and there is adequate remaining capacity to accommodate the estimated solid waste to be generated by the Project with Building A Residential Commercial, there would be a less than significant impact related to landfill capacity. Attainment of solid waste reduction goals is addressed in Threshold
3.11e below.
Threshold 3.11e: Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Project
In 1992, the City adopted the "Source Reduction and Recycling Element" to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. This act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through Section 8.61 of the PMC, which establishes the City’s “Solid Waste Collection Franchise System”.
As described in Section 8.61.175, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 75 percent for construction and demolition debris and 60 percent for other solid waste on a monthly and annual basis. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise’s recycling system and would therefore meet local and State solid waste diversion regulations. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Section 8.62 of the PMC), which includes preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan for new structures over 1,000 sf. As such, the Project would comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise’s recycling system and would therefore meet local and State solid waste diversion regulations. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Section 8.62 of the PMC), which includes preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan for new structures over 1,000 sf. As such, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
6 (6,578 PPD * 365 days)/2,000 pounds per ton = 1,201 tons per year 7 (1,273 PPD * 365 days)/2,000 pounds per ton = 232 tons per year Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-27 Utilities and Service Systems
3.11.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Project
Water
According to the requirements of Section 10910(c)(3) of the Water Code:
“The water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.”
As previously discussed, the Project would conservatively demand about 0.24 percent of the City’s anticipated total system supply of 31,078 afy in 2025, 0.24 percent of the supply of 31,537 afy in 2040, and 0.24 percent of the supply of 31,409 afy in 2045 (ESA 2022). As the Project is consistent with the Project’s land use designation in the General Plan as part of planned growth within the City’s Central District, potential demand for the Project was considered as part of the PWP 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the WSA finds that MWD, as the wholesale potable water supplier has sufficient water supplies available to serve its member agencies, including PWP, now and over a 20-year planning horizon. In addition, PWP’s groundwater, including its annual groundwater credits stored in the RB, are reliable in all water year types. With that understanding, the WSA concludes that PWP has sufficient water supplies in all water year types provided through MWD and supplemented with local groundwater to meet existing demands combined with the Project demands and cumulative demands through the 20-year planning horizon of the PWP 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to water supplies, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater
For wastewater conveyance and treatment services, the geographic area for consideration of cumulative impacts is the City of Pasadena (for locally owned sewer lines) and the LACSD service area (for regional facilities). The City manages its wastewater infrastructure through the Sewer Master Plan, prepared by the City’s Department of Public Works and based on forecasts of wastewater flows with buildout of the General Plan. Individual development projects in the City would be required to remit the appropriate sewer facility charge consistent with Chapter 4.53 of the PMC, which ensures that new development pays its estimated cost for any capacity upgrades to the City sewer system.
Regarding LACSD facilities, as discussed above, the Project would represent a nominal incremental contribution to regional wastewater flows requiring conveyance to and treatment at the LACSD’s WRPs. All future development projects in the LACSD’s service area would be subject to the LACSD’s Wastewater Ordinance, which includes the Connection Fee program. The Connection Fee program requires all new users of the LACSD’s sewerage system, as well as existing users that significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge, to pay their fair share of the costs for providing additional conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities. The LACSD uses the fees for the expansion and improvement of their facilities, as needed, to serve existing and anticipated developments. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project would be within the remaining development capacity of the General Plan for the Central District Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to wastewater conveyance or treatment facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-28 Utilities and Service Systems
Dry Utilities
Electricity and natural gas are provided on demand from CPUC-regulated utilities (i.e., PWP and The Gas Company) and telecommunications are provided from free-market providers (e.g., AT&T and Spectrum). The respective service areas for these utility providers, except for PWP, are large and all cover at least substantial portions of California. Because these utilities are provided on demand, including CPUC-regulated utilities, the expansion of services based on regional growth is part of each providers business strategy. Therefore, growth and development in the City is not expected to result in adverse impacts on dry utilities. The Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to the need for new or expanded dry utilities.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection services are provided on demand by private haulers, and cumulative impacts on their services from future development in the City are not expected to result in adverse impacts on solid waste collection services. Available landfill capacity is expected to decrease over time with future growth and development in the City. Waste reduction and recycling programs and regulations are expected to reduce this demand and extend the life of existing landfills. Also, CalRecycle is responsible for administering and monitoring State solid waste reduction initiatives, and individual jurisdiction’s ability to meet these requirements. It is assumed that CalRecycle’s role would continue in the future. Based on the available capacity of landfills in the region and the Project’s nominal contribution of additional solid waste requiring disposal–approximately 0.06 percent of Scholl Canyon Landfill’s remaining daily permitted capacity, as a conservative analysis–the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to landfill capacity or solid waste regulations.
Project with Building A Residential
Water
The cumulative impact analysis of water supply for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same as that provided for the Project. If the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is pursued, this development scenario would conservatively demand about 0.22 percent of the City’s anticipated total system supply of 31,078 afy in 2025,
0.22 percent of the supply of 31,537 afy in 2040, and 0.22 percent of the supply of 31,409 afy in 2045 (ESA 2022). While the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in slightly less water demand, this would not result in a difference in the cumulative impact finding for this scenario. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to water supplies, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater
The cumulative impact analysis of wastewater conveyance and treatment for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same that provided for the Project.
Dry Utilities
The cumulative impact analysis of dry utilities for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same as that provided for the Project.
Solid Waste
The cumulative impact analysis of dry utilities for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be the same as that provided for the Project. While the Project Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-29 Utilities and Service Systems
with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in slightly less solid waste generation, this would not result in a difference in the cumulative impact finding for this scenario.
3.11.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts related to utilities and service systems would occur, and no mitigation is required.
3.11.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3.11.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Project
The Project would result in less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater conveyance and treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities that could cause significant environmental effects, and no mitigation would be required. There would be a less than significant impacts related to water supplies, landfill capacity, and compliance with solid waste regulations.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The summary of findings for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be comparable to the findings for the Project. The only difference is that this scenario would result in a lower water demand and not generate as much solid waste as the Project. Similar to the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.
3.11.10 REFERENCES
California, State of. 2021 (December 20, last updated). California Drought Action: Latest Update:
December 20, 2021. Sacramento, CA: the State.
https://drought.ca.gov/media/2021/12/CA-Drought-Update-12-20-21.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021a (October 20, access date). Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility:
Year-2019: Los Angeles-Pasadena-Excel spreadsheet. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.
Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility (ca.gov). ———. 2021b (October 20, access date). Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary:
Pasadena. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (ca.gov).
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2021a (December 1). DWR Announces Initial State Water Project Allocation, Additional Actions to Prepare for Third Dry Year.
Sacramento, CA: DWR. DWR Announces Initial State Water Project Allocation, Additional Actions to Prepare for Third Dry Year.
———. 2021b (December 30). Early Winter Storms Provide Much-Needed Sierra Snowpack.
Sacramento, CA: DWR. Early Winter Storms Provide Much-Needed Sierra Snowpack (ca.gov).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
3.11-30 Utilities and Service Systems
ESA. 2022 (January). Affinity Water Supply Assessment. Los Angeles, CA: ESA Appendix I.
Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW). 2020 (September). Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2019 Annual Report. Alhambra, CA: LACPW. Microsoft Word - Draft 2019 Annual Report_Marked Up Copy (lacounty.gov).
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2021a (September 1). NOP Response for Affinity Project. Whittier, CA: LACSD. Appendix A-2.
———. 2021b (October 20, access date). Will Serve Program: Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use. Whitter, CA: LACSD. Microsoft Word - wilsrv_loadings_tbl1.doc (lacsd.org).
Pasadena, City of. 2019 (October 3). Predevelopment Plan Review Comments; PPR2019-00008.
Pasadena, CA, the City.
———. 2015 (January). Pasadena General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I.
Pasadena, CA: the City. General-Plan_Draft-EIR_2015-01.pdf (cityofpasadena.net).
Pasadena, City of, Department of Public Works (Pasadena Public Works). 2019 (November). City of Pasadena Sewer System Management Plan. Pasadena, CA: Public Works. SSMP (cityofpasadena.net).
Pasadena Water and Power (PWP). 2022 (January 6). Memorandum from Brad Boman (Engineering Manager, PWP) to Jason Van Patten (Senior Planner, City of Pasadena); 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway-Water Supply Assessment. Pasadena, the City: PWP. ———. 2021a (June). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Pasadena, the City: PWP.
Urban Water Management Plan | Pasadena Water and Power (cityofpasadena.net). ———. 2021b (September, revised). Final Water System and Resources Plan. Pasadena, the City: PWP. Report (cityofpasadena.net).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-1 Alternatives
SECTION 4.0 ALTERNATIVES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines addresses the discussion of alternatives in an EIR. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines are identified throughout this section to explain the basis for the alternatives evaluation in this Draft EIR. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following:
(a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The Lead Agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly.
4.1.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVES
Feasibility
When developing alternatives for evaluation in an EIR, the feasibility of implementing the alternative must be considered. Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
It has been recognized that, for purposes of CEQA, “feasibility” encompasses “desirability” to the extent that the latter is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. This balancing is harmonized with CEQA’s fundamental recognition that policy considerations may render alternatives impractical or undesirable.
Avoid or Substantially Lessen Significant Impacts
Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “[b]ecause an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-2 Alternatives
Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly”.
The Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, evaluated in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR, would result in a range of impacts but no significant and unavoidable impacts are expected after mitigation. Although the level of significance after mitigation (if any) may be the same for each threshold and/or environmental topic, the degree or severity of impact may be slightly different under each alternative and reduced or increased compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, which require mitigation, include:
Cultural Resources (historic resources [501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway] and unknown archaeological resources),
Noise (potential for vibration-related building damage to Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway), and
Tribal Cultural Resources (unknown tribal cultural resources).
Please refer to the Executive Summary and Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR for additional details regarding the environmental analysis of the Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
The ability of an alternative to meet most of a project’s objectives is an important component when evaluating alternatives. Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following:
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a statement of a proposed project’s objectives. The Affinity Project seeks to achieve the following key objectives:
1. Reinforce and strengthen Arroyo Parkway as a major commercial corridor and the Central District’s economic vitality through the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of complementary commercial and/or residential uses in underutilized areas with higher development capacity.
2. Provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities that will support Pasadena as an economically vital city and allow for continued fiscal health.
3. Develop assisted living facilities that have access to local commercial services, health care facilities, community facilities, and public transit.
4. Satisfy local and regional demand for varying levels of care (independent living, residential care, continuing care) to individuals, depending on need, that are transit-accessible and pedestrian-friendly.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-3 Alternatives
5. Improve Pasadena’s infrastructure and urban form through modernized buildings that are energy- and water-efficient.
6. Preserve and integrate Pasadena’s historic resources as part of a complementary development that reduces the risk of resource demolition, deterioration by neglect, and/or impacts from natural circumstances.
7. Invest sustainably by providing for the needs of existing and future residents and businesses while in proximity to transportation opportunities.
4.1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section summarizes the range of alternatives considered in the EIR. The following alternatives have been considered and eliminated from detailed consideration for the reasons identified in Section 4.2, below:
Alternative Site, and
Project with No Variance for Historic Resources.
Alternatives that are considered in detail in this Draft EIR include:
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development,
Alternative 2: Project Development with Existing Zoning, Alternative 3: All Residential Project with Variance for Historic Resources, and Alternative 4: All Medical Office Project with Variance for Historic Resources.
Table 4-1, Summary of Alternatives, presents the proposed land uses, amount of development (aboveground square feet [sf]), the maximum height above ground level, total parking spaces and subterranean levels required, and the floor area ratio (FAR) for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and Alternatives 2 through 4 (i.e., the “build” alternatives).
The alternatives in Table 4-1 include 79,553 sf of commercial land uses associated with Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway. It is assumed these existing land uses would operate as a grocery store and restaurants, respectively, same as the Project. As with the Project, the 275-space subterranean parking structure used by Whole Foods Market would remain and would not be connected to any new subterranean parking for all alternatives. The parking numbers listed in Table 4-1 refer only to new subterranean parking provided for the new development. Alternatives 3 and 4 are assumed to require a PD Plan, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. A complete description of each alternative is provided further below.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-4 Alternatives
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Land Uses
Total
SFa
Max
DU
Max
Heightb
New
Parkingc FAR
Project Scenarios
Project Assisted Living, Medical
Office, Commercial 417,929 95 93.5 ft 850 spaces/
5 levels 2.89
Project with Building A
Residential/Commercial Assisted Living, Residential,
Commercial 417,929 289 93.5 ft 650 spaces/ 4 levels 2.89 Alternatives
Alternative 2–Project
Development with Existing
Zoning
Assisted Living, Medical
Office, Commercial 217,280 159 50 ftd 387 spaces/ 3 levels 1.50 Alternative 3–All Residential
Project with Variance for
Historic Resources Residential, Commercial 417,929 289 93.5 ft 607 spaces/ 4 levels 2.89
Alternative 4–All Medical Office
Project with Variance for
Historic Resources Medical Office, Commercial 417,929 0 93.5 ft 1,218
spaces/
7 levels
2.89 SF: square feet; DU: dwelling units; Max: maximum; ft: feet; FAR: floor area ratio a Refers to total aboveground development including 79,553 sf of existing, on-site development to be retained (465, 501, and 523 S. Arroyo Parkway) a Refers to highest point, including parapet but not including appurtenances, of any proposed building on the site c Refers to subterranean parking structure levels d Or 65 feet with height averaging
4.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (1) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (2) infeasibility; or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE SITE
Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the following criteria for determining whether to identify an alternative site because “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative”.
Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states the following:
(A) Key question. The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. (B) None feasible. If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project which must be in proximity to natural resources at a given location.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-5 Alternatives
(C) Limited new analysis required. Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative.
Development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial on an alternative site was not carried forward for detailed consideration due to the lack of available alternate sites to accommodate a project of similar size, and inability to meet many of the objectives established for the Project.
The Project site is a 3.3-acre property that is presently owned by the Applicant. There are no vacant or underutilized sites of sufficient size along Arroyo Parkway and within walking distance of multiple transit facilities, both relevant to the Project objectives, that could feasibly accommodate the Project. Additionally, the Applicant does not own other feasible alternative sites and the City is not aware of any other feasible alternative location that would avoid or substantially lessen any potential significant impact of the Project. Further, the Applicant cannot be expected nor required to acquire, control, or have access to another site that could accommodate the Project. As noted above, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in no significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, due to lack of viable and comparable sites in the site vicinity that would allow for development of the Project in a manner that would avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts (before mitigation), development of the Project on an alternative site has been eliminated from consideration.
4.2.2 PROJECT WITH NO VARIANCE FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES
Based on comments received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), an alternative PD project without a variance for historic resources to increase the height of Buildings A and B was considered. This alternative would result in a total of 401,171 sf of aboveground development, including the 73,671-sf Whole Foods Market. To accommodate a project of this size, this alternative would involve demolition of 8 (of the 9) existing buildings, including the two historic buildings, totaling 51,794 sf, located at 491, 495, 499, 501, 503, 523, 541, and 577 South Arroyo Parkway, and construction of 327,500 sf of new development in 2 buildings representing a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.77. These buildings would have up to 5 stories and maximum heights, including parapets, of 65 feet (with height averaging). This alternative would have up to 709 parking spaces in 5 subterranean levels.
As discussed above, there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Furthermore, the significant impacts that require mitigation to avoid or reduce to a less than significant level are all construction related.
This alternative would result in a new significant impact due to demolition of two historic buildings that would be considered significant and unavoidable. The introduction of a significant and unavoidable impact due to an alternative, when there are no such impacts associated with either the Project or the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, resulted in the elimination of this alternative from detailed consideration by the City.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-6 Alternatives
4.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED CONSIDERATION The analysis of each of the Project alternatives identified below includes the following:
A description of the alternative.
An analysis of environmental impacts in comparison to the possible impacts of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the Project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. An assessment of the alternative’s ability to meet the Project objectives.
The comparison of impacts between each alternative and the proposed Project assumes that the general nature and types of (1) existing regulations and (2) mitigation measures (MMs) identified in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR would also be applicable to each of the alternatives, where appropriate. No MMs are applied to the No Project/No Development Alternative, which assumes that the existing conditions on the Project site would remain unchanged.
4.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
Description of the Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative in order to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan and (2) when the project is not a land use/regulatory plan, such as a specific development on an identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development occurs). In addition, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that the “No Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services”.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing environmental setting would remain unchanged. The City would not approve a PD Plan and rezone the site to a PD zone nor would the City approve the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This Alternative assumes the Project site would continue to remain in its existing state without demolition of any existing structures and site improvements and would continue the use and operation of the existing land uses present at the time the NOP was distributed in August 2021.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Alternative 1 would not involve any construction activities (including demolition, excavation, and building construction) or operation of a greater amount of development on the site. In the absence of construction activities and no increase in traffic generation, this alternative would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions beyond existing conditions. Although the air quality related impacts Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-7 Alternatives
of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to air quality would be comparatively less.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative 1 would not result in the adaptive reuse of the historic buildings (501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) that would be integrated in the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, the potential significant impact related to alterations to these buildings associated with integration into the Project and occupation by new tenants, requiring implementation of MM CUL-1, would not occur.
In the absence of any construction activities, Alternative 1 would not result in the potential for impacts to unknown historic (buried), archaeological, or paleontological resources that may be encountered during grading activities. As such, the potential for impacts to cultural resources resulting from implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not occur under Alternative 1 and implementation of MM CUL-2 would not be required.
Although impacts related to historic and archaeological resources with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant with mitigation, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to cultural and paleontological resources would be comparatively less without mitigation.
Energy
Alternative 1 would not involve any construction activities or operation of a greater amount of development on the site. In the absence of construction activities, no increase in on-site land use and related activity, and no increase in traffic generation, this alternative would not result in any change in energy use. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to energy would be comparatively less.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 1 would not involve any construction activities or operation of a greater amount of development on the site. In the absence of construction activities and no increase in traffic generation, this alternative would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beyond existing conditions. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to GHG emissions would be comparatively less.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 1 would not involve the use, transport, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials associated with the proposed Project. However, continued use of common hazardous materials related to the existing land uses on the site (e.g., cleaning supplies, paints, solvents) would occur.
All transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials under this alternative would continue to be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and would not result in significant impacts.
In the absence of construction activities, Alternative 1 would not have the potential to expose construction personnel or other individuals to asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) or leadbased paint (LBP) that could potentially occur with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial associated with the demolition activities. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to hazards and hazardous materials would be comparatively less.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-8 Alternatives
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in the existing conditions on the Project site and no change in zoning from CD-6 to PD-39. Alternative 1 would not involve any new development and would not conflict with any local or regional planning programs; however, development on the site permissible on the site under existing zoning would also not be implemented and would leave the site in its current underutilized condition, thereby failing to reinforce and strengthen Arroyo Parkway as a major commercial corridor. While the impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial related to land use and planning are less than significant, it is acknowledged that some may prefer to have the site remain in its existing land use configuration. However, Alternative 1 would not support regional and local planning policies related to reducing vehicle trips per capita by increasing density, including housing, near transit.
Nor would the existing condition, even if fully occupied by commercial uses, provide as many jobs near transit as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, while Alternative 1 would avoid any physical land use changes, the Project’s land use benefits would not be achieved.
Noise
Alternative 1 would not involve any construction activities or operation of a greater amount of development on the site. In the absence of construction activities, Alternative 1 would not result in construction noise or vibration. Therefore, the potential significant impact related to vibration affecting the on-site buildings to be retained, requiring implementation of MM NOI-1, would not occur.
Although the increase in vehicle trips would not result in a perceptible change in noise levels, there would not be a change in operational noise under Alternative 1. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant with mitigation, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to noise and vibration would be comparatively less without mitigation.
Public Services and Recreation
Under Alternative 1, there would be no increase in the amount of development on the site.
Therefore, the impact of Alternative 1 relative to the demand for public services and recreation would be less than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to public services and recreation would be comparatively less.
Transportation
In the absence of construction activities, Alternative 1 would not result in construction-related traffic. Also, under Alternative 1, there would no increase in vehicle trips associated with new land uses. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to transportation–including circulation system policies, the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, traffic safety, and emergency access–would be comparatively less. At the same time, the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) per capita would be higher under Alternative 1 than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, because of the lower service population present on the site that drives the vehicle trips.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-9 Alternatives
Tribal Cultural Resources
In the absence of any construction activities, Alternative 1 would not result in the potential for impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during excavation activities.
As such, the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources resulting from implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not occur under Alternative 1, and implementation of MM TCR-1 would not be required. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant with mitigation, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to tribal cultural resources would be comparatively less without mitigation.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 1, there would be no increase in the amount of development on the site.
Therefore, the impact of Alternative 1 relative to the demand for utilities and service systems would be less than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 1 related to utilities and service systems would be comparatively less.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1 would not attain Project objectives 1 through 7.
Conclusion
Alternative 1 would avoid all potential impacts from the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, which are less than significant for each environmental topic addressed in this Draft EIR with adherence to applicable regulations and mitigation. However, in the absence of the Project or Project Building A Residential/Commercial, no land use benefits would be achieved.
4.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WITH EXISTING ZONING Description of the Alternative
Alternative 2 assumes the site is developed with the same land uses as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial but with application of existing zoning (i.e., no PD Plan). The site is zoned CD-6 (Central District, Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks subdistrict). Alternative 2 is analyzed with two scenarios, where appropriate based on the results of the comparative analysis, same as the Project. As shown in Table 4-1 above, Alternative 2 would result in a total of 217,280 sf of aboveground development, including the 79,553 sf of existing development to be retained (i.e., Whole Foods Market and the historic buildings at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway). This amount of total aboveground development reflects the 1.5 FAR consistent with CD-6 zoning.
This alternative would involve demolition of 6 (of the 9) existing buildings totaling 45,912 sf, located at 491, 495, 499, 503, 541, and 577 South Arroyo Parkway, and construction of 2 new buildings with 137,727 sf of new development. Based on the same proportions of proposed land uses with the Project and Project with Building A Residential, Alternative 2 would result in the following:
Building A: a 62,682-sf, 5-story (aboveground) medical office building with 3,000 sf ground-floor commercial uses;
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-10 Alternatives
Building B: a 75,045-sf, 5-story (aboveground) assisted living building with 34,922 sf of assisted living uses and 40,123 sf of independent living uses including up to 511 senior housing units; and
Up to 387 parking spaces in 3 subterranean levels.2
Alternative 2 would represent an approximately 59 percent reduction in the total new development on the site (i.e., when considering only Building A and Building B) and an approximate 48 percent reduction in overall development on the site (i.e., when including Whole Foods Market and 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway) compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Like the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 2 could result in the following in Building A (referred to herein as Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial):
3,000 sf of commercial and a sales/leasing management office on the ground floor; Up to 108 residential dwelling units3; and
Up to 282 parking spaces in 2 subterranean levels (1 fewer levels than Alternative 2 as proposed above)2.
Regarding senior living and market-rate housing units, Alternative 2 would represent an approximately 45 percent reduction in the maximum number of units allowed consistent with CD6 zoning (i.e., 48 DUs/acre) compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Alternative 2 would have maximum building heights, including parapets, of 50 feet or 65 feet with height averaging. This alternative assumes the historic resources would be retained and incorporated into the design, but with no variance proposed. Alternative 2 assumes the retained historic buildings would operate as restaurants, same as the Project. Because the same building footprints are assumed under Alternative 2 as the Project, the same number and locations of trees would be removed, and the planting of two new street trees would be required. The points of ingress/egress and on-site circulation would be the same as the Project.
Alternative 2 would involve the same construction phases and overall schedule as the Project, with construction beginning in 2023 over approximately 34 months. While the overall scope of this alternative is reduced compared to the Project, it would remain a substantial building effort.
Because there would be fewer levels of subterranean parking, based on a proportional reduction in grading per level for the Project, this alternative would involve the following volumes of excavation and export:
Alternative 2: approximately 110,406 cy of soil generating an estimated 7,886 one-way truck trips over the course of 4 months (103 workdays); and 1 Based on the same proportion of housing units with implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (68 percent market rate residential and 32 percent senior living units) to the max dwelling units that would be permitted with 48 du/ac (159). In other words, 159 * 0.68 = 108 residential units; 159 – 108 = 51 senior units. 2 Based on off-street parking requirements specified in Chapter 17.46 of the PMC. For building B assisted living where parking is determined through the entitlement process, the allocation is based on the same proportion of parking spaces with implementation of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. 3 Based on the same proportion of housing units with implementation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (68 percent market rate residential and 32 percent senior living units) to the max dwelling units that would be permitted with 48 du/ac (159). In other words, 159 * 0.68 = 108 residential units; 159 – 108 = 51 senior units.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-11 Alternatives
Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial: approximately 73,604 cy of soil, generating an estimated 5,257 one-way truck trips over the course of 4 months (103 workdays).
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a reduced scope of construction activities, although demolition activities would be the same, and a reduced scope of operational activities that would generate stationary criteria air pollutant emissions. As shown in Table 4-2, Alternative 2 Transportation Analysis Comparison, below under “transportation”, this Alternative would result in a reduced number of daily vehicle trips (VT) and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, compared to both the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to air quality would be comparatively less for the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in similar impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This alternative would also integrate the historic buildings (501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway). Therefore, this Alternative would result in the potential significant impact related to alterations to these buildings associated with integration into the Project and occupation by new tenants, requiring implementation of MM CUL-1. This Alternative would result in less excavation than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial commensurate with the reduction in subterranean parking levels; however, the potential for impacts to unknown historic (buried) and archaeological resources is associated with any excavation in both disturbed and native soils. Therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result less than significant impacts with implementation of MM CUL-2, and less than significant impacts related to paleontological resources.
Energy
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in less construction-related energy use and long-term mobile (i.e., vehicle) and stationary (i.e., not transportation/mobile) energy demand than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. However, when taking into consideration that this Alternative would result in the same amount of demolition to redevelop an underutilized site and the resulting development would be approximately half as dense as the Project, energy use during construction would be less efficient than for the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As discussed above, this Alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to energy use would be comparatively less for the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Nonetheless, on balance, it is anticipated that this Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy; and less than significant impacts related to conflict with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result less than significant impacts related to energy.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-12 Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate reduced GHG emissions from construction and operation of the reduced development intensity compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. However, this alternative would result in reduced VT and VMT per capita than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. A lower VMT reflects a lesser relative contribution of the site per capita and per service population to GHG emissions. As this Alternative is based on the existing zoning for the site, development of this alternative would also be considered consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to GHG emissions would be comparatively less.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same potential to expose construction personnel or other individuals to ACMs or lead-based paint LBP that could occur with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this impact is associated with demolition activities. Construction of this alternative would result in the transport and handling of the same hazardous materials typical of construction activities and would also result in less than significant impacts through compliance with applicable regulations. Similarly, because this alternative proposes the same land uses as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, operation of this Alternative would result in the use and generation of the same hazardous materials. As with the Project, all transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials under this alternative, including biomedical waste, would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and would result in less than significant impacts. Like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial, there would be no change in zoning on the site from CD-6 to PD-39 and the development would be consistent with the existing zoning and applicable goals and policies of the City of Pasadena General Plan (General Plan). However, as discussed in Section 3.6, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, adoption of a PD zone simultaneously establishes applicable land use regulations and development standards specific to that zoning district. Also, PD Plans are developed in consideration of existing zoning requirements that are applicable to a project site while also providing flexibility in site usage and building design. However, when taking into consideration that this Alternative would result in the same amount of demolition to redevelop an underutilized site and the resulting development would be approximately half as dense as the Project, this represents a less efficient use of the land than for the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Regarding land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, for the City of Pasadena these are focused on historic resources, GHG emissions/sustainability, and trees/open space. This Alternative would result in the same potential impact on historic resources and require implementation of MM CUL-1, as discussed above, as the Project. Alternative 2 would be less consistent with Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), as the reduced amount of redevelopment on an underutilized site, particularly near transit, would result in a land use pattern that contributes less towards the GHG emissions reduction targets compared to the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This alternative would provide less mixed-use development near transit Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-13 Alternatives
and other existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, services). As discussed above, this Alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT per capita compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. A lower VMT reflects a lesser relative contribution of the site per capita and per service population to GHG emissions. This Alternative would support regional and local planning policies related to reducing vehicle trips per capita by increasing density, including housing, near transit, although not to the same degree as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This Alternative would result in the same number of tree removals and the same requirement for planting of two new street trees as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
Noise
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate the same level of construction noise and vibration as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and require implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce potential vibration impacts to the remaining on-site buildings to a less than significant level. Although the increase in vehicle trips with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a perceptible change in noise levels, this Alternative would generate less traffic. The noise generated from stationary uses from this alternative would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and would also be less than significant. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant with mitigation, the impacts of this Alternative related to noise and vibration would be comparatively less due to the reduction in operational noise generation.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a reduced demand for public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries) and recreational facilities than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, commensurate with the reduction in development, including a reduction in resident population.
Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to public services and recreation would be comparatively less.
Transportation
The Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT) calculated the transportation metrics for each of the “build” alternatives (i.e., all but the No Project Alternative), where some redevelopment would occur on the site. As shown in Table 4-2, Alternative 2 Transportation Analysis Comparison, this Alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT per capita compared to the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The City’s transportation metrics related to bicycle and transit networks and pedestrian accessibility are similar to the Project, as this is related mainly–though not solely–on location rather than type of development.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-14 Alternatives
TABLE 4-2
ALTERNATIVE 2 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS COMPARISON
Transportation Performance
Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(Existing)
Incremental
Change
(Existing +
Alternative 2/
Exchange
Alternative 2)
Incremental
Change (Existing +
Project / Exchange
Project)
Significant
Impact for
Alternative?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 16.5 / 6.4 19.5 / 8.2 No
VT Per Capita >2.8 1.8 / 1.2 2.0 / 1.4 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle
Network
<31.7% 31.8% / 31.8% 32.0% / 32.0% No
Proximity and Quality of Transit
Network
<66.6% 66.7% / 66.7% 66.8% / 66.8% No
Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 / 3.9 3.9 / 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2022a.
Therefore, this Alternative would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines. This Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to conflict with the City’s TIA Guidelines. This Alternative would result in the same ground-level circulation pattern; therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to circulation system policies, traffic safety, and emergency access. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to transportation would be comparatively less.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This Alternative would result in less excavation than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial commensurate with the reduction in subterranean parking levels; however, the potential for impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources is associated with any excavation in both disturbed and native soils. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impact and require implementation of MM TCR-1 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a reduced demand for utilities and service systems, including water supply, water and wastewater infrastructure, wastewater treatment, dry utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, telecommunications), and solid waste generation, commensurate with the reduced amount of redevelopment. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of this Alternative related to utilities and service systems would be comparatively less.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-15 Alternatives
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would only partially meet Project objectives 1 through 7, as this Alternative would provide the same mix of land uses, with a potential exchange of residential for medical office; would retain and integrate the on-site historic structures; develop multi-story buildings with complementary uses in an underutilized area with transit and pedestrian accessibility; and provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities to support the City’s fiscal health. However, as discussed above, this Alternative would provide approximately half the density and development as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial while resulting in the same amount of demolition to redevelop an underutilized site, which overall is an undesirable outcome. Additionally, as discussed above, because of the reduced density under this Alternative, especially on a transit-accessible site, this Alternative would be a less energy-efficient use of the site compared to the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Conclusion
Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in comparatively reduced impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would result in similar impacts related to cultural and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources. Regarding energy, while this Alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, it would also represent a less efficient use of the site. As discussed above, this Alternative would result in the same amount of demolition to redevelop an underutilized site and the resulting development would be approximately half as dense as the Project. Notably, this Alternative would not reduce any of the impacts identified for the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial that would require mitigation during construction to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
4.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: ALL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH VARIANCE FOR HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Description of the Alternative
Alternative 3 assumes the demolition of 6 (of the 9) existing buildings totaling 45,912 sf, construction of 2 new buildings totaling 338,376 sf, and 79,553 sf of existing development to be retained (i.e., Whole Foods Market and the historic buildings at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway), same as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. However, Alternative 3 assumes the new buildings would include up to 289 market-rate residential units (i.e., apartments and/or condominiums) except for ground-floor commercial in Building A.
As shown in Table 4-1 above, Alternative 3 would result in a total of 417,929 sf of aboveground development, including the existing buildings to be retained, as follows:
Building A: a 154,000-sf, 7-story (aboveground) residential building and ground-floor commercial uses;
Building B: a 184,376-sf, 7-story (aboveground) residential building; and Up to 607 parking spaces in 4 subterranean levels.
Alternative 3 would have maximum building heights, including parapets, of 93.5 feet, the same as the Project. This alternative assumes the historic resources would be retained and incorporated into the design with a variance for historic resources proposed. Alternative 3 assumes the retained Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-16 Alternatives
historic buildings would operate as restaurants, same as the Project. Because the same building footprints are assumed under Alternative 3 as the Project, the same number and locations of trees would be removed, and the planting of two new street trees would also be required as a planned condition of approval. The points of ingress/egress and on-site circulation would be the same as the Project.
Alternative 3 would involve the same construction phases and overall schedule as the Project, with construction beginning in 2023 over approximately 34 months. Because there would be one fewer level of subterranean parking, like the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial that has one less subterranean level than the Project, Alternative 3 would involve excavation and export of an estimated 147,211 cy of soil, generating an estimated 10,515 one-way truck trips, over the course of 4 months (103 workdays). This would equate to an average of 102 one-way trips per workday.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would result in the same estimated construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this alternative would involve the same amount of aboveground development and levels of subterranean parking. As shown in Table 4-3, Alternative 3 Transportation Analysis Comparison, below under “transportation”, this alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT per capita compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to air quality would be comparatively less.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative 3 would result in the same potential impacts to cultural resources as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This alternative would also integrate the historic buildings (501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway). Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in the potential significant impact related to alterations to these buildings associated with integration into the Project and occupation by new tenants, requiring implementation of MM CUL-1. This alternative would have the same amount of excavation as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in the same potential impact and require implementation of MM CUL-2 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This Alternative would less than significant impacts related to paleontological resources, same as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Energy
Alternative 3 would result in the same construction-related energy use as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As discussed above, this alternative would result in a reduction in both VT and VMT per capita compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As such, Alternative 3 would result in reduced long-term mobile (i.e., vehicle) energy demand; however, stationary (i.e., not transportation/mobile) energy demand would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Accordingly, it is expected that Alternative 3 would also result in less than significant impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or conflicts with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to energy would be comparatively less.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-17 Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would generate the same construction related GHG emissions as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, because Alternative 3 would have the same amount of excavation. As discussed above, this alternative would result in a reduction in both VT and VMT per capita compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Vehicle trips are a major driver of GHG emissions. As such, Alternative 3 would result in reduced longterm mobile (i.e., vehicle) GHG emissions. A lower VMT reflects a smaller relative contribution of the site per capita and per service population to GHG emissions. However, stationary (i.e., not transportation/mobile) GHG emissions would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial because there would be a similar amount of land uses. As Alternative 3 would have the same construction GHG emissions and reduced operational emissions, development of this Alternative would also be considered consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to GHG emissions would be comparatively less.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would result in the same potential to expose construction personnel or other individuals to ACMs or lead-based paint LBP that could occur with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this impact is associated with demolition activities.
Construction of this alternative would result in the transport and handling of the same hazardous materials typical of construction activities and would also result in less than significant impacts through compliance with applicable regulations. Alternative 3 would not result in the generation of biomedical waste but would still use hazardous materials common to commercial uses, such as cleaners and solvents. As with the Project, all transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials under this alternative would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and would result in less than significant impacts. Like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 3, there would be a change in zoning to a PD zone and adoption of a PD Plan.
Also, a variance for historic resources would be requested to implement these land uses, the same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Because a PD zone simultaneously establishes applicable land use regulations and development standards specific to that zoning district and is developed in consideration of existing zoning requirements, with approval of the zone change to a PD zone and approval of this alternative, including Design Review, Alternative 3 would be considered compatible with the City’s zoning designations.
However, as this alternative would provide only market-rate residential units (with a small amount of ground-floor) commercial uses, there would be less mixed-use development near transit and other existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, services) and no provision of senior care or housing facilities that are needed in the region. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would support regional and local planning policies related to reducing vehicle trips per capita by increasing density, including housing, near transit.
Regarding land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, for the City of Pasadena, these are focused on historic resources, GHG emissions/sustainability, and trees/open space. Alternative 3 would result in the same potential impact on historic resources and require implementation of MM CUL-1, similar to the Project.
Alternative 3 would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, as this alternative would place multi-family housing with some commercial uses in an underutilized site near transit, Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-18 Alternatives
thereby resulting in a land use pattern that contributes towards the GHG emissions reduction targets. Alternative 3 would result in the same number of tree removals and the same requirement for planting of two new street trees as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 3 would result less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
Noise
Alternative 3 would generate the same level of construction noise and vibration as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and require implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce potential vibration impacts to the remaining on-site buildings to a less than significant level.
Like the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, although Alternative 3 would generate a higher volume of vehicle trips than the existing conditions, it would also not result in a perceptible change in noise levels. This is because it generally takes a doubling (or a halving) of traffic volumes to generate a change in noise levels that is perceptible to human hearing. The noise generated from stationary uses from this alternative would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and would also be less than significant. Therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 3 would result less than significant impacts related to noise with implementation of MM NOI-1.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 3 would result in a similar demand for police protection, schools, libraries, and recreational facilities as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, because this alternative would result in the same amount of aboveground development and number of residential dwelling units (289). However, without the provision of assisted living facilities, it is expected this alternative would result in slightly less demand for Pasadena Fire Department (PFD) services than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This is because PFD services associated with more frequent ambulance calls related to the assisted living facility would be eliminated. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to public services and recreation would be comparatively less.
Transportation
Pasadena DOT calculated the transportation metrics for each alternative. As shown in Table 4-3, Alternative 3 Transportation Analysis Comparison, this alternative would result in reduced VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The Alternative 3 metrics related to bicycle and transit networks and pedestrian accessibility are similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Alternative 3 would not result in any significant transportation impacts.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-19 Alternatives
TABLE 4-3
ALTERNATIVE 3 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS COMPARISON
Transportation Performance
Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(Existing)
Incremental
Change
(Existing +
Alternative 3)
Incremental
Change (Existing +
Project / Exchange
Project)
Significant
Impact for
Alternative?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 4.6 19.5 / 8.2 No
VT Per Capita >2.8 1.7 2.0 / 1.4 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle
Network <31.7% 31.8% 32.0% / 32.0% No
Proximity and Quality of Transit
Network <66.6% 66.7% 66.8% / 66.8% No
Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 3.9 / 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2022b.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would not exceed any of the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines. Although impacts with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to the City’s TIA Guidelines would be comparatively less due to the reduction in both VT and VMT per capita.
Alternative 3 would result in the same ground-level circulation pattern; therefore, like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to circulation system policies, traffic safety, and emergency access.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this alternative would have the same amount of excavation.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in the same potential impact and require implementation of MM TCR-1 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Utilities and Service Systems
Although Alternative 3 would result in the same number of residential dwelling units as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this alternative would not include assisted living facilities that would demand utilities. Alternative 3 would generate approximately 723 residents associated with up to 289 units4 and approximately 9 employees associated with the commercial uses on the ground floor of Building A. As shown in Table 4-4, Alternative 3 Utility Comparison, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this alternative would result in reduced water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation based on the applicable demand/generation rates for each utility.
4 Based on a rate of 2.5 persons per household derived from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2019 Profile for the City of Pasadena (SCAG 2019).
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-20 Alternatives
TABLE 4-4
ALTERNATIVE 3 UTILITY COMPARISON
Scenario
Net Water Demand
(afy)
Net Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Solid Waste Generation
(tpy)
Alternative 3 36a 38,168b 1,236c
Project 76 76,844 2,175
Project with Building A
Residential/Commercial 68 76,844 1,433
a Based on water demand of 195 gpd/du (same as Project with Building A Residential/Commercial) plus 3.36 afy for commercial uses and 0.19 afy for landscaping less 30.72 afy for existing uses to be replaced (see Table 3.11-8 in Section
3.11, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR) b Based on Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts wastewater loading rates of 156 gpd/du for residential of five units or more and 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf for 8,882 sf of restaurant less 15,798 gpd for existing uses to be replaced c Based on the City’s 2019 disposal rate of 9.2 PPD per capita and 13.4 PPD per employee afy: acre-feet per year; gpd: gallons per day; tpy: tons per year; du: dwelling unit; sf: square feet; PPD: pounds per day Electric and natural gas services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which requires that these utilities provide services as required by the public.
Telecommunications services are provided on demand in a free market system. Although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 3 related to utilities and service systems would be comparatively less.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 3 would not meet objectives 3 and 4 because this alternative would not provide assisted living facilities or otherwise provide for varying levels of housing for seniors. As such, this Alternative would not provide assisted living facilities with nearby access to local commercial services, health care facilities, community facilities, and public transit. Nor would this Alternative contribute to satisfying local and regional demand for varying level of care to individuals.
Alternative 3 would partially meet objectives 1 and 2. The ground floor commercial uses proposed in Building A under this alternative would provide jobs, services, and revenues, in a mixed-use setting in an underutilized site; thereby contributing to the fiscal health of the City and the Central District. However, Alternative 3 would result in a net reduction in commercial land uses on the site compared to the existing conditions.
Alternative 3 would meet objectives 5, 6, and 7. The buildings constructed under this alternative would comply with State and local energy- and water-efficiency requirements and would retain and integrate the historic resources on the site. Also, as discussed above, this alternative would result in reduced VT and VMT per capita and reduced water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As such, Alternative 3 would result in a sustainable investment in land uses providing for the needs of residents and businesses in proximity to transit opportunities.
Conclusion
Alternative 3 would result in comparatively reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. For all other topics, including cultural and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and tribal cultural resources, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts. Notably, this alternative would not reduce any of the impacts identified for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial that would require mitigation during construction to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-21 Alternatives
4.3.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: ALL MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT WITH VARIANCE FOR
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Description of the Alternative
Alternative 4 assumes the demolition of 6 (of the 9) existing buildings totaling 45,912 sf, construction of 2 new buildings totaling 338,376 sf, and 79,553 sf of existing development to be retained (i.e., Whole Foods Market and the historic buildings at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway), the same as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. However, Alternative 4 assumes the new buildings would include solely medical office uses except for ground-floor commercial in Building A.
As shown in Table 4-1 above, Alternative 4 would result in a total of 417,929 sf of aboveground development, including the existing buildings to be retained, as follows:
Building A: a 154,000-sf, 7-story (aboveground) medical office building and ground-floor commercial uses;
Building B: a 184,376-sf, 7-story (aboveground) medical office building; and Up to 1,218 parking spaces in 7 subterranean levels.
Alternative 4 would have maximum building heights, including parapets, of 93.5 feet, the same as the Project. This alternative assumes the historic resources would be retained and incorporated into the design with a variance for historic resources proposed. Alternative 4 assumes the retained historic buildings would operate as restaurants, the same as the Project. Because the same building footprints are assumed under Alternative 4 as the Project, the same number and locations of trees would be removed, and the planting of two new street trees would be required. The points of ingress/egress and on-site circulation would be the same as the Project.
Alternative 4 would involve the same construction phases and overall schedule as the Project, with construction beginning in 2023 over approximately 34 months. Because Alternative 4 would propose two additional levels of subterranean parking, based on a proportional increase in grading per level for the Project, Alternative 4 would involve the excavation and export of approximately 257,614 cy of soil generating an estimated 18,401 one-way truck trips over the course of 4 months (103 workdays). This alternative would result in approximately 40 percent more excavation (or 73,604 cy) than the Project and approximately 75 percent more excavation (or 110,406 cy) than the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Alternative 4 would result in greater construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this alternative would involve a total of seven levels of subterranean parking. This alternative would result in approximately 40 percent more excavation (or 73,604 cy) than the Project and approximately 75 percent more excavation (or 110,406 cy) than the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, there would be a greater amount of excavation activity with off-road equipment and a greater number of truck trips for soil export. Similarly, as shown in Table 4-5, Alternative 4 Transportation Analysis Comparison, below under “transportation”, this alternative would result in an increased VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to air quality would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-22 Alternatives
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative 4 would also integrate the historic buildings (501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway).
Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in the potential significant impact related to alterations to these buildings associated with integration into the Project and occupation by new tenants, requiring implementation of MM CUL-1. Although Alternative 4 would require a greater depth of excavation than the Project and the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 4 would result in the same potential impacts to cultural resources as the potential for impacts to unknown historic (buried) and archaeological resources is associated with any excavation in both disturbed and native soils. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in the same potential impact as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and require implementation of MM CUL-2 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to paleontological resources, the same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Energy
Alternative 4 would result in greater construction-related energy use than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this alternative would involve a total of seven levels of subterranean parking. This alternative would result in approximately 40 percent more excavation (or 73,604 cy) than the Project and approximately 75 percent more excavation (or 110,406 cy) than the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, there would be a greater amount of excavation activity with off-road equipment and a greater number of truck trips for soil export.
Similarly, as shown in Table 4-5, Alternative 4 Transportation Analysis Comparison, below under “transportation”, this alternative would result in an increased VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As such, Alternative 4 would result in greater long-term mobile (i.e., vehicle) energy demand; however, stationary (i.e., not transportation/mobile) energy demand would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, Alternative 4 would be less energy efficient in construction and operation than the same amount of above-ground development as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to energy use would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 4 would result in greater construction related GHG emissions than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this alternative would involve a total of seven levels of subterranean parking. This alternative would result in approximately 40 percent more excavation (or 73,604 cy) than the Project and approximately 75 percent more excavation (or 110,406 cy) than the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, there would be a greater amount of excavation activity with off-road equipment and a greater number of truck trips for soil export. Similarly, as shown in Table 4-5, Alternative 4 Transportation Analysis Comparison, below under “transportation”, this alternative would result in an increased VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Vehicle trips are a major driver of GHG emissions, and a higher VMT reflects a greater relative contribution of the site’s GHG emissions. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to GHG emission would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-23 Alternatives
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 4 would result in the same potential to expose construction personnel or other individuals to ACMs or lead-based paint LBP that could occur with the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, as this impact is associated with demolition activities.
Construction of this alternative would result in the transport and handling of the same hazardous materials typical of construction activities and would also result in less than significant impacts through compliance with applicable regulations. Alternative 4 would result in the generation of biomedical waste and other hazardous materials common to commercial and medical uses. As with the Project, all transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials under this alternative would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and would result in less than significant impacts. Like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 4 would result less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 4, there would also be change in zoning to a PD zone and adoption of a PD Plan. Similarly, a variance for historic resources would be requested to implement these land uses, the same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Because a PD zone simultaneously establishes applicable land use regulations and development standards specific to that zoning district and is developed in consideration of existing zoning requirements, with approval of the zone change to a PD zone and approval of this alternative, including Design Review, Alternative 4 would be considered compatible with the City’s zoning designations.
However, this alternative would provide less mixed-use development near transit and other existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, services), and would provide no senior care or housing facilities that are needed in the region.
Regarding land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, for the City of Pasadena, these are focused on historic resources, GHG emissions/sustainability, and trees/open space. Alternative 4 would result in the same potential impact on historic resources and require implementation of MM CUL-1, as the Project. Alternative 4 would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, as this alternative would place a higher density land use on an underutilized site near transit. However, the provision of solely medical office with limited commercial, and no mix of housing and/or senior care and housing, would result in a land use pattern that contributes to higher GHG emissions than the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Also, this alternative would result in an increased VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Alternative 4 would result in the same number of tree removals and the same requirement for planting of two new street trees as the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to land use and planning would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Noise
Alternative 4 would generate the same level of construction noise and vibration as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and require implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce potential vibration impacts to the remaining on-site buildings to a less than significant level.
Although there would be a greater amount of excavation associated with this Alternative, this would not affect the noise generation on a daily basis during the excavation phase of construction.
Like the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, although Alternative 4 would generate a higher volume of vehicle trips than the existing conditions, it would also not result in a perceptible change in noise levels. This is because it generally takes a doubling of traffic volumes to generate a change in noise levels that is perceptible to human hearing (i.e., about 3 dBA). The Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-24 Alternatives
noise generated from stationary uses from this alternative would be similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial and would also be less than significant. Like the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts related to noise with implementation of MM NOI-1.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 4 would result in a reduced demand for public services tied to resident population (i.e., schools and/or libraries) and recreational facilities as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, because this alternative would not include any housing. Alternative 4 would result in a similar demand for fire protection and police protection services, because these services are tied to all land development regardless of type. Therefore, although impacts with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are less than significant, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to public services and recreation would be comparatively lesser than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Transportation
Pasadena DOT calculated the transportation metrics for each alternative. As shown in Table 4-5, Alternative 4 Transportation Analysis Comparison, this alternative would result in an increased VT and VMT per capita, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Additionally, the VT and VMT per capita would exceed the significance threshold for these metrics. The Alternative 4 metrics related to bicycle and transit networks and pedestrian accessibility are similar to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
TABLE 4-5
ALTERNATIVE 4 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS COMPARISON
Transportation Performance
Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(Existing)
Incremental
Change
(Existing +
Alternative 4)
Incremental
Change (Existing +
Project / Exchange
Project)
Significant
Impact for
Alternative?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 28.6 19.5 / 8.2 Yes
VT Per Capita >2.8 2.9 2.0 / 1.4 Yes
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle
Network <31.7% 32.1% 32.0% / 32.0% No
Proximity and Quality of Transit
Network <66.6% 66.9% 66.8% / 66.8% No
Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 3.9 / 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2022c.
Therefore, Alternative 4 would exceed the CEQA transportation thresholds defined in the City’s TIA Guidelines, resulting in a new significant impact compared to the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to transportation would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, although this alternative would have a greater amount of excavation.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-25 Alternatives
The potential for impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources is associated with any excavation in both disturbed and native soils. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in the same potential impact and require implementation of MM TCR-1 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the employee generation per square foot of the Project, Alternative 4 would generate approximately 1,435 employees associated with the medical office uses and approximately 9 employees associated with the commercial uses on the ground floor of Building A. As shown in Table 4-6, Alternative 4 Utility Comparison, compared to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, this alternative would result in higher water demand and solid waste generation based on the applicable demand/generation rates for these utilities. For wastewater generation, Alternative 4 would result in a lower generation than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
TABLE 4-6
ALTERNATIVE 4 UTILITY COMPARISON
Scenario
Net Water Demand
(afy)
Net Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Solid Waste Generation
(tpy)
Alternative 4 86a 60,159b 3,531c
Project 76 76,844 2,175
Project with Building A
Residential/Commercial 68 76,844 1,433
a Based on water demand of 300 gpd/1,000 sf for 335,376 sf of medical office uses plus 3.36 afy for commercial uses and 0.19 afy for landscaping less 30.72 afy for existing uses to be replaced (see Table 3.11-8 in Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR) b Based on Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts wastewater loading rates of 200 gpd/1,000 sf of professional building and 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf for 8,882 sf of restaurant less 15,798 gpd for existing uses to be replaced c Based on the City’s 2019 disposal rate of 13.4 PPD per employee to a total of 1,444 employees afy: acre-feet per year; gpd: gallons per day; tpy: tons per year; du: dwelling unit; sf: square feet; PPD: pounds per day Electric and natural gas services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which requires that these utilities provide services as required by the public.
Telecommunications services are provided on demand in a free market system. Based on the substantive increase in water demand and solid waste generation, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to utilities and service systems would be comparatively greater than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial but would remain less than significant.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 4 would not meet objectives 3 and 4 because this Alternative would not provide assisted living facilities or otherwise provide for varying levels of housing for seniors. As such, this Alternative would not provide assisted living facilities with nearby access to local commercial services, health care facilities, community facilities, and public transit. Nor would this Alternative contribute to satisfying local and regional demand for varying level of care to individuals.
Alternative 4 would partially meet objective 5. The buildings constructed under this Alternative would comply with State and local energy- and water-efficiency requirements, same as the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. However, as discussed above, this Alternative would result in greater VT and VMT per capita and result in a new significant impact related to transportation. Additionally, Alternative 4 would result in substantively higher water Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-26 Alternatives
demand and solid waste generation, while wastewater generation would be lower than the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Alternative 4 would meet objectives 1, 2, 6, and 7. This Alternative would provide jobs, services, and revenues, on an underutilized site and in proximity to transit opportunities; thereby contributing to the fiscal health of the City and the Central District. Alternative 4 would retain and integrate the historic resources on the site.
Conclusion
Alternative 4 would result in comparatively increased impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and utilities and service systems. For transportation, the impacts of Alternative 4 related to conflict with the City’s TIA Guidelines would be comparatively greater and impacts related to all other transportation issues (circulation system policies, traffic safety, and emergency access) would be similar. For public services and recreation, Alternative would result in comparatively reduced impacts. For all other topics, including cultural and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources, Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts. Notably, this Alternative would not reduce any of the impacts identified for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial that would require mitigation during construction to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Table 4-7, Comparison of Alternative Impacts, on page 4-28 provides a summary comparison of impacts resulting from all alternatives to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Table 4-8, Ability of Project Alternatives to Meet Objectives, on page 4-29 provides a summary of each alternatives relative ability to meet the Project objectives.
As shown in Table 4-7, only Alternative 1 would comparatively reduce all environmental impacts of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Of the build alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 4), Alternative 2/Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial and Alternative 3 would comparatively have a similar reduction in impacts, with all topics either reduced (six topics reduced for each alternative) or equal compared to both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Alternative 2/Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial and Alternative 3 both have comparatively reduced impacts related to the same topics except energy and noise. Alternative 2/Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would have similar impacts related to energy and reduced impacts related to noise. Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts related to energy and similar impacts related to noise. Alternative 4 would comparatively increase environmental impacts for several topics.
The comparatively reduced noise impact for Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial is related to reduced operational traffic generation. However, this change in traffic would not result in an audible change in noise levels (i.e., 3 dBA or more).
The comparative increased energy impact for Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial is related to these scenarios being a less efficient use of land. While this Alternative would not be considered to result wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, this Alternative would result in the same amount of demolition to redevelop an underutilized site and the resulting development would be approximately half as dense as Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-27 Alternatives
Alternative 3 or the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As discussed previously, although this Alternative would result in a reduced VT and VMT per capita, it would not support regional and local planning policies related to reducing vehicle trips per capita by increasing density (including housing) near transit to the same degree as Alternative 3 or Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Critically, Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial would be less consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS than Alternative 3 or the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This is because of the reduced amount of redevelopment on an underutilized site, particularly near transit, would result in a land use pattern that contributes less towards the GHG emissions reduction targets compared to Alternative 3, the Project, and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. This Alternative would also provide less mixed-use development near transit and other existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, services).
On balance, when considering that the difference in comparative impacts between Alternative 2/Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial and Alternative 3 ties into overriding land use policies adopted for the purposing of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, the higher intensity development represented by Alternative 3 would be a preferable scenario.
None of the build alternatives would reduce or eliminate the significant impacts of the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial with or without mitigation. This is because these impacts are related to construction activity and would occur regardless of the scope of construction. Specifically, potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources are associated with any excavation in both disturbed and native soils. The potential impact related to vibration damage to the existing on-site buildings to remain would occur with any of the alternatives because the same type(s) of construction activity and equipment that could result in this impact would be used.
Alternative 3 is concluded to be the environmentally superior alternative because of (1) reduced comparative impacts, (2) the extent of the reduction in VT and VMT per capita compared to both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial while maximizing the redevelopment of an underutilized site near transit, and (3) a greater consistency with local, regional, and State policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-28 Alternatives
TABLE 4-7
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PEIR Section &
Environmental Issue
Comparison of Each Alternative to Project/Project with Building A Residential/Commercial Impacts
Alternative 1
(No Project/
No Development)
Alternative 2
(Project Development
with Existing
Zoning)a
Alternative 3
(All Residential
Project with Variance
for Historic
Resources)
Alternative 4
(All Medical Office
Project with Variance
for Historic
Resources)
3.1 Air Quality < < < >3.2 Cultural and Paleontological Resources < = = =3.3 Energy < = < >3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions < < < >3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials < = = =3.6 Land Use and Planning < = = >3.7 Noise < < = =3.8 Public Services and Recreation < < < <3.9 Transportation < < < >3.10 Tribal Cultural Resources < = = =3.11 Utilities and Service Systems < < < >a Reflects analysis of both Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Building A Residential/Commercial; if one comparative impact finding is shown it applies to both scenarios
Legend: > – Impact Greater than Project/Project with Building A Residential/Commercial < – Impact Less than Project/Project with Building A Residential/Commercial < / > – Impact Less than Project / Greater than Project with Building A Residential/Commercial = – Impact Same as Project/Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (with mitigation if applicable) Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-29 Alternatives
TABLE 4-8
ABILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TO MEET OBJECTIVES
Project Objectives
Comparison of Each Alternative to Project Objectives
Alternative 1
(No Project/
No Development)
Alternative 2
(Project
Development with
Existing Zoning)
Alternative 3
(All Residential
Project with
Variance for
Historic
Resources)
Alternative 4
(All Medical Office
Project with
Variance for
Historic
Resources)
1. Reinforce and strengthen Arroyo Parkway as a major commercial corridor and the Central District’s economic vitality through the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of complementary commercial and/or residential uses in underutilized areas with higher development capacity.
2. Provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities that will support Pasadena as an economically vital city and allow for continued fiscal health
3. Develop assisted living facilities that have access to local commercial services, health care facilities, community facilities, and public transit
4. Satisfy local and regional demand for varying levels of care (independent living, residential care, continuing care) to individuals, depending on need, that are transit-accessible and pedestrian-friendly
5. Improve Pasadena’s infrastructure and urban form through modernized buildings that are energy- and water-efficient
6. Preserve and integrate Pasadena’s historic resources as part of a complementary development that reduces the risk of resource demolition, deterioration by neglect, and/or impacts from natural circumstances.
7. Invest sustainably by providing for the needs of existing and future residents and businesses while in proximity to transportation opportunities
Legend: – Fully Meets – Partially Meets – Does Not Meet Affinity Project Draft EIR
4-30 Alternatives
4.5 REFERENCES
Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT). 2022a (January 14). Alternative_2_wcalcs.pdf.
Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT.
———. 2022b (January 14). Alternative_3_wcalcs.pdf. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT. ———. 2022c (January 14). Alternative_4_wcalcs.pdf. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena DOT.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-1 Other Required CEQA Considerations
SECTION 5.0 OTHER REQUIRED CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. An EIR must identify the following for the project being analyzed (the location of the required information in this Draft EIR is presented in parentheses):
a) Significant environmental effects of the proposed Project (see Table ES-1 and Sections 3.1 through 3.11);
b) Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed Project is implemented (see Table ES-1, Sections 3.1 through 3.11, and Section 4.0); c) Significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed Project should it be implemented (see Section 5.1);
d) Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project (see Section 5.2); e) The mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects (see Table ES-1 and Sections 3.1 through 3.11); and,
f) Alternatives to the proposed Project (see Section 4.0)
5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Project. Section 15126.2(c) states:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impact and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current compensation is justified.”
As such, a project would generally result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involved the wasteful or inefficient use of energy);
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; or • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
The environmental effects related to the implementation of the proposed Project are analyzed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR and in the Initial Study (Appendix A-1). Implementation of the Project would convert all but two of existing commercial buildings to a medical office building, commercial uses, and an assisted living building with subsurface parking and related improvements. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would convert the site into a residential building, commercial uses, and an assisted living building. Because the proposed uses would be a redevelopment of the site, neither the Project nor Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is considered a new long-term commitment of land resources.
Nevertheless, construction activities would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-2 Other Required CEQA Considerations
energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment. However, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not be creating a need for jobs or housing. The resulting growth under either scenario would fulfill an existing and anticipated future need that is based on estimates of local and regional population growth. Therefore, the non-renewable resources used in construction would be expected to be consumed by housing and employment-generating land uses that are anticipated, and are unfulfilled, in the City and the wider region. Additionally, the land uses proposed are not unusually wasteful or excessive in terms of construction materials and fossil fuel use.
Over the long term, operation of the new land uses would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures). Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by long-term implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (e.g., air quality through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases, and water supply through the increased potable water demands for drinking, cooking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs). However, the proposed uses would be required to meet Title 24 energy efficiency standards and applicable CALGreen requirements. As such, operation of the proposed uses would be more energy efficient than any existing use on the site. Additionally, the land uses proposed are not unusually wasteful or excessive in terms of fossil fuel use. This is in part because of the higher density development for the Project site. Nonetheless, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.
Regarding the potential for irreversible damage caused by environmental accidents, while construction and operation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes typical of urban areas, such as associated with medical/health care facilities, dry cleaners, restaurant and office cleaning/maintenance, and landscape maintenance, as described in Section 3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all activities would comply with applicable State and federal laws related to hazardous materials transport, use, and storage. This would significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage, and such an accident resulting in irreversible damage is not considered reasonably foreseeable.
In summary, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would reduce the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other future uses. However, the use of such resources are anticipated and accounted for in the State, regional, and local regulations, which generally prohibit wasteful practices and require environmentally conservative actions, as summarized in the “Relevant Programs and Regulations” discussion within Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR. Therefore, although irreversible changes would result from implementation of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, such changes would not be considered significant, and no mitigation is required.
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this analysis examines ways in which the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional development, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, this section discusses whether the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number of Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-3 Other Required CEQA Considerations
ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Although growth inducement itself is not considered an environmental effect, it could potentially lead to environmental effects.
Accordingly, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Removal of an obstacle to growth (e.g., construction or extension of major infrastructure, providing new access to an area);
2. Foster population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or indirectly;
3. Foster economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion);
4. Establish a precedent-setting action that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, general plan amendment); and/or
5. Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an in-fill project).
The potential growth-inducing impacts associated with the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are evaluated below against these criteria. It should be noted that growthinducing effects are not necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (Section 15126.2[d] of the State CEQA Guidelines). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
1) Would this Project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? As discussed in Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems, no major new infrastructure facilities are required to support the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial beyond the new connections to existing utilities that would be constructed on the site. Existing utility facilities are available adjacent to the Project site; however, new service connections to these existing lines (including water, sewer, electric, telecommunication systems, and storm drain lines) would be needed. There are existing roadways that serve the site and no new roadways or extension of existing roadways would be necessary.
As discussed in Section 2.7, Intended Uses of the EIR, approval of the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District and PD Plan (this includes approval of the Affinity Project, zoning map amendment to rezone the property from CD-6 to PD-39, and variance for Historic Resources for Building Height) would be required to allow for development of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. But these changes would be specific to the Project site and would not remove obstacles to growth in the surrounding area. The proposed uses under either scenario are in line with the collective uses and growth within the area and part of the development in the City that has been trending toward greater density development. As such, this type of growth is consistent with the general uses in the Project area.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-4 Other Required CEQA Considerations
2) Would this Project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As discussed in Section 3.8, Public Services and Recreation, none of the public service agencies consulted—Pasadena Fire Department; Pasadena Police Department; Pasadena’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department; and Pasadena Public Library—during the preparation of this Draft EIR indicated that the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would necessitate the immediate expansion of their existing resources in order to maintain desired levels of service. While Pasadena Unified School District was consulted, there was no response. However, as discussed in Section 3.8, Senate Bill 50 establishes developer fees that are considered full and complete mitigation for school facilities. If any public service agency’s resources do need to be expanded because of Citywide growth, funding mechanisms are in place through existing regulations to accommodate such growth. The Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not, therefore, have significant growth-inducing consequences with respect to public services.
3) Would this Project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During construction of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created at the site.
This would be a temporary situation, lasting until construction is completed. The construction crew would obtain commercial goods and services from existing businesses near the site. This would provide economic stimulus in the area; however, these jobs are typically filled by existing residents of the region and would not be substantial enough to foster other activities (e.g., new real estate development) that would have significant effects on the environment.
As discussed in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, operation of the Project would result in up to 222 residents, 737 employees, and up to 694 visitors per day. Operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in up to 715 residents, 95 employees, and up to 128 visitors per day. This would represent an increased demand for economic goods and services in the Project area and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses, the expansion of existing businesses, or investment in commercial uses near the site that address these economic needs.
At any given time, there are a variety of vacant commercial buildings for sale or lease available throughout the City that can accommodate future business. New commercial or mixed-use development not utilizing existing buildings at the respective site would generally involve site redevelopment. With regard to expansion of commercial uses in the City resulting in environmental impacts, both the use of existing buildings (and related updates) or redevelopment of a site are generally relatively low impact activities compared to development on greenfields and/or locations without existing utility and transportation infrastructure. While there could be an indirect, growth-inducing effect caused by the Project (or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial), such development would be within the growth anticipated for the City. As noted in Section 2.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, there is over 3.3 million commercial square feet of remaining development capacity throughout the City pursuant to the City’s General Plan (refer to Table 2-5) (Pasadena 2021).
Demand for housing from on-site employees not already living in the City may also increase occupancy in the City’s vacant dwelling units (estimated at 11,479 dwelling units Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-5 Other Required CEQA Considerations
in May 2021) (DOF 2021). Additionally, any demand for housing from employees would also be within the growth anticipated for the City, as there are 2,483 residential units in the City’s remaining development capacity as of October 2021 (Pasadena 2021). The environmental impacts of future development near the site would have to be considered by the City of Pasadena as part of individual environmental reviews, in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in significant impacts with regards to indirect growth due to encouragement of economic effects.
4) Would approval of this Project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
The Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not require a General Plan amendment, but approval of a PD district and PD Plan (includes zoning map amendment to rezone the property from CD-6 to PD-39, and variance for Historic Resources for Building Height). Adoption of a PD zoning district would reclassify the Project site from CD-6 to PD-39, while simultaneously establishing applicable land use regulations and development standards that are specific to the newly established zoning district. The regulations and standards that dictate permitted and conditionally permitted land uses and development would be prescribed in the accompanying PD Plan. This ensures the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is developed as intended. PD Plans are developed in consideration of existing zoning requirements that are applicable to a project site while also providing flexibility in site usage and building design. As noted previously, this change in zoning would be specific to the Project site.
Also, development of the Project site using a PD Plan is not precedent setting because it is an existing, accepted part of the Pasadena Zoning Code.
No changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this Project.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 to require that Project implementation complies with all applicable federal, State, regional, and City standards and ordinances to ensure that there are no conflicts with applicable land development regulations and that environmental impacts are minimized. Finally, creation of commercial, medical, assisted living, and/or residential facilities is not unique, such that its implementation would set a precedent, facilitating other activities and resulting in significant impacts to the environment.
While the Project may induce development or redevelopment at parcels within the Project area, the potential for reuse of unutilized commercial structures and the (re)development of lands in the surrounding area are subject to property owner discretion and often largely influenced by regional economic conditions and market demands that may have limited or major links to the Project. Site improvements may make adjacent areas more attractive to investors and promote redevelopment. These future projects would require independent environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, the impacts of subsequent proposals would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to avoid or minimize their potential subsequent impacts.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
5-6 Other Required CEQA Considerations
5.3 REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021 (May). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento, CA: DOF. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark (ca.gov).
Pasadena, City of. 2021 (November 3, last updated). Development Cap Tracking WorksheetSummary. Pasadena, City of. GP DEV CAP WORKSHEET Oct2021.xlsx (cityofpasadena.net)https://www.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/LandUse-Element-2016-01-25.pdf?v=1626398951978.
Affinity Project Draft EIR
6-1 Document Preparers and Contributors
SECTION 6.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
6.1 CITY OF PASADENA PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Director ............................................................................................................ David Reyes Deputy Director ............................................................................................ Jennifer Paige Senior Planner ........................................................................................ Jason Van Patten Planning Manager ............................................................................................. Luis Rocha Environmental Coordinator/Contract Planner .................................................. John Bellas
6.2 CITY OF PASADENA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
6.3 CONSULTANTS
Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)
QA/QC Manager ..................................................................................... Alia Hokuki, AICP Project Manager .............................................................................................. Jillian Neary Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise Manager ........................................... Tin Cheung Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist/Environmental Planner ................. Daria Sarraf Environmental Planner .................................................................................. Megan Larum Biological Resources Manager .......................................................................... Marc Blain Senior Archaeologist ...................................................................... Charles Cisneros, RPA GIS/Graphics .................................................................................................... Mike Deseo Technical Editor ........................................................................................ Danae Overman Senior Word Processor .................................................................................. Sheryl Kristal PaleoWest (Architectural Historian)
Office Principal/Historical Resources Program Manager ................................. Garret Root Architectural History Program Manager–Western United States ................. Justin Castells Senior Preservation Planner ........................................................................ Daniel Herrick Senior Archaeologist .................................................................................. Robbie Thomas
Affinity Project Draft EIR
6-2 Document Preparers and Contributors
This page intentionally left blank
#QZP2RZXL0DB2NJv1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETINGS
TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with Title 14, Section 15082(a) of the California Code of Regulations
The City of Pasadena is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below.
AGENCIES: The City requests your agency’s views on the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b).
ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City requests your comments and concerns regarding the environmental issues associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Affinity Project
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site consists of an approximately 3.3-acre site located between 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway, City of Pasadena, within the County of Los Angeles. The site encompasses five parcels developed with a total of nine commercial buildings with seven businesses. The site is bound by East Bellevue Drive on the north, South Arroyo Parkway on the east, East California Boulevard on the south, and the Metro Gold Line on the west. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route (SR) 110 located approximately 0.6-mile due south on Arroyo Parkway (see Exhibit 1, Regional Location and Local Vicinity).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project Applicant requests approval to rezone the Project site from CD-6 (Central District Specific Plan [CDSP], Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks subdistrict), to a Planned Development (PD) zone, and approval of a PD Plan. The Project involves demolition of six (of the nine) existing buildings totaling 45,912 square feet (sf), located at 491, 495, 499, 503, 541, and 577 South Arroyo Parkway and construction of two new buildings: (1) a 154,000-square foot (sf), 7-story (aboveground) medical office building with ground-floor commercial uses (Building A); and (2) a 184,376-sf, 7-story (aboveground) assisted living building with 85,800 sf of assisted living uses and 98,576 sf of independent living uses including up to 95 one- and two-bedroom senior housing units (Building B). As proposed, there would be five subterranean levels providing up to 850 parking spaces. Approximately 31,605 sf of open space, including public and private (for solely resident and staff use) space would be provided across the Project site.
Alternatively, the proposed PD Plan would provide the flexibility to exchange the uses in Building A from medical office and ground floor commercial for the following:
• 3,000 sf of commercial and a sales/leasing management office on the ground floor; • Up to 197 residential dwelling units; and
• Up to 650 parking spaces in four subterranean levels (one less than the Project as proposed).
Although the Project described is anticipated to reflect the Project to be constructed, the flexibility to exchange uses in Building A would enable the Project to respond to the economic needs and demands of the City at the time of Project implementation. The proposed site layout and the aboveground height, mass, and other parameters of the Building A design would remain the same. The PD Plan would define all aspects of site design and provide caps on the types and amounts of allowable land uses, regardless of whether Building A is developed with medical office or residential dwelling units. It is noted that based on the development cap of 87 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), a total of 289 units could be constructed. Therefore, if a total of 197 units were constructed in Building A, only 92 independent living units could be constructed in Building B. Conversely, if 95 independent living units were constructed in Building B, only 194 units could be constructed in Building A. Exhibit 2, Affinity Project Site Plan, illustrates a plan view layout of the proposed Project.
A total of approximately 79,553 sf of the existing development on site would be retained and integrated into the Project, including the Whole Foods grocery store and associated 275-space subterranean parking structure at 465 South Arroyo Parkway and the two historic structures at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway. The Applicant anticipates that restaurant uses would occupy the approximately 5,882 sf of space in the existing buildings to be retained at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway.
A total of five levels of subterranean parking spanning both proposed buildings would also be constructed to serve the new development as well as the existing structures at 501 and 523 Arroyo Parkway under the Project. For the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, a total of four levels of subterranean parking spanning both proposed buildings with up to 650 parking spaces would be constructed. The Project uses south of Whole Foods Market would have three ingress/egress points–one on California #QZP2RZXL0DB2NJv1
Boulevard and two on South Arroyo Parkway. Whole Foods Market would retain the entrance on East Bellevue Drive and the exit onto South Arroyo Parkway.
The Project would result in the removal of 23 non-protected non-native trees on the Project site and 2 protected, non-native street trees. The Project would include a total of 25 trees in above-grade planters within the site. The 15 remaining street trees on site, which are protected by the City of Pasadena’s City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, would be preserved in place.
The Project site is situated within the Central District Specific Plan and zoned CD-6 (Central District Specific Plan, Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks subdistrict). The City of Pasadena General Plan land use designation is High Mixed Use. As mentioned, the Applicant seeks approval to rezone the site as a PD district. The Applicant is also requesting a zoning variance for historic resources related to building height. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting an increase in allowable building height to offset the reduction in developable area due to preserving the two historic structures on the Project site.
The Project is anticipated to be constructed beginning in 2023 over a period of approximately 34 months. Project construction would occur from Monday through Saturday, without activity on Sundays or holidays, between the hours defined in Section 9.36.070 (Construction Projects) of the City of Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday). The Project is anticipated to be opened to the public in 2026.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: An EIR will be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts on the environment and analyze alternatives. Based on the analysis in the IS, the topics anticipated to be discussed in the EIR include: Air Quality, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study will be available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b), beginning on August 5, 2021 and ending on September 3, 2021.
RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: The City requests the public’s careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies and persons regarding the preparation of the EIR. Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses and comments to: Jason Van Patten, Senior Planner; Phone: (626) 744-6760; E-mail: [email protected]; Mailing Address: City of Pasadena, Planning and Community Development Department, 175 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101.
SCOPING MEETING: Two scoping meetings will be held for the Project, as detailed below. The first scoping meeting will be held with the Planning Commission to receive comments on the proposed Affinity Project Initial Study and contents of the proposed EIR.
A second scoping meeting will also be held. You are welcome to attend either scoping meeting and present environmental information that you believe should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meetings will be held as allowed by applicable health orders because of the COVID-19 pandemic; based on the current pandemic conditions, the two scoping meetings are scheduled as follows in a fully virtual format:
Scoping Meeting #1 (Planning Commission) Scoping Meeting #2 Date: August 11, 2021 Date: August 26, 2021
Time: 6:30 P.M. Time: 6:30 P.M.
Please refer to https://www.cityofpasadena.net/planning/planned-development-39-affinity-project/ for Zoom links to participate in each scoping meeting.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The NOP and Initial Study are available online at https://www.cityofpasadena.net/planning/planneddevelopment-39-affinity-project/. If eventually allowed by health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, the documents may be made available during regular business hours (8:00 A.M. through 5:00 P.M. Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays; 9:30 A.M. through 5:00 P.M.
Wednesdays; 8:00 A.M. through 3:30 P.M. alternate Fridays as of July 19, 2021) at the City of Pasadena, Permit Center, 175 N.
Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA, 91101.
If you require additional information, please contact Jason Van Patten at (626) 744-6760 or submit questions and comments by email at [email protected].
UV134
UV710
UV110
Fair Oaks Ave
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pkwy
California Blvd
Orange Grove Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Colorado Blvd
Saint John Ave
Glenarm St
Del Mar Blvd
Corson St
Pasadena Ave
Los Robles Ave
Saint John Ave
At and SF Railroad
Central Park
Pasadena Mem Park
Allendale Park
Singer Park
Blair High School
Westridge Elementary School
Fuller Theological Seminary
Rose City High School
Art Center College of Design
Allendale Elementary School
Mayfield Jr SCH of Holy Child
D:\Projects\3PAS\012100\MXD\NOP\ex_LV_RL_20210720.mxd
²
San Gabriel
Reservoir
Project Location
§¨405
§¨210
§¨105
§¨10
§ §¨710
¨110
§¨605
ST19
ST170
ST107
ST72
ST134
ST110
ST60
ST213
ST57
ST710
ST91
Los Angeles
Orange
Glendale
West
Hollywood West Covina
Carson
Buena Park
Hawthorne
Lakewood
Downey
Whittier
Anaheim
Regional Location and Local Vicinity
Affinity Project
Exhibit 1
(Rev: 07/20/2021 MMD) R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Graphics\NOP\ex_LV_RL.pdf 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Map not to scale
Source: Adept 2021
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - MEDICAL HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - ASSISTED HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - ASSISTED 10’-0”
Sidewalk
5’-2”
Setback
19’-0”
Driveway
2’-0”
Setback
842’-9” SITE LENGTH
No Setback No Setback
10’-0”
Sidewalk24’-0” Driveway
P.L.
28’-2”
Driveway
41’-8”
R=30’-4”
20’-9”
Driveway
10’ Setback
P.L. P.L.
P.L.
P.L. P.L. P.L.
S ARROYO PKWY
MEDICAL BUILDING
7 LEVELS / 90 FT HT.
TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
154,000 FAR SF
BUILDING A
HISTORIC
COMMERCIAL
BLDG TO BE
RETAINED
3,00 FAR SF
HISTORIC
COMMERCIAL
BLDG TO BE
RETAINED
2,880 FAR SF
E CALIFORNIA BLVD
E BELLEVUE DR Loading Loading
Parking Access
167’-0”
307’-0”
158 0” 158’-0” 158’-0” 158’ 0”-
158’-0”
Parking Access Parking A Parkin Pg Access
ASSISTED BUILDING
7 LEVELS / 87 FT HT.
TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
184,376 FAR SF
ASSISTED BUILDING
GARDEN
ASSISTED BUILDING BUILDING
GARDEN
BUILDING B
METRO GOLD LINE
2 LEVELS / ~60 FT HT.
TYPE II CONSTRUCTION
73,671 FAR SF
WHOLE FOODS
MARKET
oa
Commercial
(07/27/2021 MMD) R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Graphics\NOP\ex_project_site_plan.pdf D:\Projects\3PAS\012100\GRAPHICS\NOP\ex_project_site_plan_20210727.ai Exhibit 2
Affinity Project
Project Site Plan
Initial Study
Affinity Project
City of Pasadena, California
Prepared for City of Pasadena
Planning and Community Development Department
175 North Garfield
Pasadena, California 91101
Prepared by Psomas
225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
T: 626.351.2000
August 2021
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Project Information........................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2.0 Environmental Checklist Form ........................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................... 2-3
2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 2-6
2.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................. 2-9
2.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 2-15
2.6 Energy .................................................................................................. 2-17
2.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 2-18
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 2-26
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 2-27
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 2-34
2.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 2-41
2.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 2-43
2.13 Noise .................................................................................................... 2-45
2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................ 2-47
2.15 Public Services ..................................................................................... 2-49
2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................ 2-51
2.17 Transportation....................................................................................... 2-53
2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 2-56
2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 2-58
2.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................. 2-61
2.21 Earlier Analysis ..................................................................................... 2-62
2.22 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................... 2-63 Section 3.0 Initial Study Reference Documents ................................................................ 3-1 Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx ii Table of Contents TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary of Project Data ............................................................................................... 1-3 2-1 Tree Inventory Summary .............................................................................................. 2-13 2-2 Pre- and Post-Development Storm Water Discharges ................................................. 2-35
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity ............................................................................. 1-1 2 Existing Project Site ....................................................................................................... 1-2 3 Affinity Project Site Plan ................................................................................................. 1-2
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Geotechnical Investigation
B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
C Hydrology/LID Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-1 Project Information
CITY OF PASADENA
100 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101
INITIAL STUDY
In accordance with the Environmental Policy Guidelines of the City of Pasadena, this analysis, the associated “Master Application Form,” and/or Environmental Assessment Form and supporting data constitute the Initial Study (IS) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Affinity Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). This IS provides the assessment for a determination whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Affinity Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena
Planning and Community Development Department
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Van Patten, Senior Planner 626.744.6760
4. Project Location: 465–577 South Arroyo Parkway
Pasadena, California 91105
(See Exhibit 1)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: The Arroyo Parkway, LLC 716 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
6. General Plan Designation: High Mixed-Use
7. Zoning: CD-6 (Central District, Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks Sub- District)
8. Description of the Project:
The Affinity Project (Project) proposes partial redevelopment of an approximate 3.3-acre site encompassing nine commercial buildings on five parcels located between 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway with medical office, commercial, and assisted living facilities. Exhibit 1, Regional Location and Local Vicinity, illustrates the Project site location. The discussion below provides further details of the Project.
Project Components
The Project Applicant requests approval to rezone the Project site from CD-6 (Central District Specific Plan [CDSP], Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks subdistrict), to a Planned Development (PD) zone, and approval of a PD Plan. The Project involves demolition of six (of the nine) existing buildings totaling 45,912 square feet (sf), located at 491, 495, 499, 503, 541, and 577 South Arroyo Parkway and construction of two new buildings:
(1) a 154,000-square foot (sf), 7-story (aboveground) medical office building with ground-floor commercial uses (Building A); and (2) a 184,376-sf, 7-story (aboveground) assisted living building with 85,800 sf of assisted living uses and 98,576 sf of independent living uses including up to 95 one- and two-bedroom senior housing units (Building B). As proposed, there would be five subterranean levels providing up to 850 parking spaces. Approximately 31,605 sf of open space, including public and private (for solely resident and staff use) space would be provided across the Project site.
UV134
UV710
UV110
Fair Oaks Ave
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pkwy
California Blvd
Orange Grove Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Colorado Blvd
Saint John Ave
Glenarm St
Del Mar Blvd
Corson St Pasadena Ave
Los Robles Ave
Saint John Ave
At and SF Railroad
Central Park
Pasadena Mem Park
Allendale Park
Singer Park
Blair High School
Westridge Elementary School
Fuller Theological Seminary
Rose City High School
Art Center College of Design
Allendale Elementary School
Mayfield Jr SCH of Holy Child
D:\Projects\3PAS\012100\MXD\IS\ex_LV_RL_20210720.mxd
²
San Gabriel
Reservoir
Project Location
§¨405
§¨210
§¨105
§¨10
§ §¨710 ¨110
§¨605
ST19
ST170
ST107
ST72
ST134
ST110
ST60
ST213
ST57
ST710
ST91
Los Angeles
Orange
Glendale
West
Hollywood West Covina
Carson
Buena Park
Hawthorne
Lakewood
Downey
Whittier
Anaheim
Regional Location and Local Vicinity
Affinity Project
Exhibit 1
(Rev: 07/20/2021 MMD) R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Graphics\IS\ex_LV_RL.pdf 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-2 Project Information Alternatively, the proposed PD Plan would provide the flexibility to exchange the uses in Building A from medical office and ground floor commercial for the following:
3,000 sf of commercial and a sales/leasing management office on the ground floor; Up to 197 residential dwelling units1; and
Up to 650 parking spaces in four subterranean levels (one less than the Project as proposed).
Although the Project initially described is anticipated to reflect the Project to be constructed, the flexibility to exchange uses in Building A would enable the Project to respond to the economic needs and demands of the City at the time of Project implementation. The proposed site layout and the aboveground height, mass, and other parameters of the Building A design would remain the same. The PD Plan would define all aspects of site design and provide caps on the types and amounts of allowable land uses, regardless of whether Building A is developed with medical office or residential dwelling units. It is noted that based on the development cap of 87 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), a total of 289 units could be constructed. Therefore, if a total of 197 units were constructed in Building A, only 92 independent living units could be constructed in Building B. Conversely, if 95 independent living units were constructed in Building B, only 194 units could be constructed in Building A.
Throughout the CEQA documentation, these two development scenarios will be referred to as:
Project (development of Building A with medical office/commercial) and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (development of Building A with residential/commercial).
Table 1-1, Summary of Project Data, on the following page summarizes the existing and proposed uses for the Project. Exhibit 2, Existing Project Site, illustrates the addresses and locations of the nine existing buildings and other on-site uses; and Exhibit 3, Affinity Project Site Plan, provides an overview of the proposed uses.
Approximately 79,553 sf of existing development would be retained and integrated into the Project. This includes the Whole Foods Market and associated 275-space subterranean parking structure at 465 South Arroyo Parkway, and the two historic structures at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway. The Applicant anticipates that restaurant uses would occupy approximately 5,882 sf of space in the existing historic buildings to be retained at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway.
A total of five levels of subterranean parking spanning both proposed buildings with up to 850 parking spaces would be constructed to serve the new development as well as the existing structures at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway under the Project scenario. When including the new subterranean parking, the Project would consist of approximately 753,439 sf of new construction. For the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, a total of four levels of subterranean parking spanning both proposed buildings with up to 650 parking spaces would be constructed to serve the new development as well as the existing structures at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway. For both scenarios, the land uses south of Whole Foods Market would have three ingress/egress points—one on California Boulevard and two on South Arroyo Parkway. Whole Foods Market would retain the entrance on Bellevue Drive and the exit onto South Arroyo Parkway.
1 Anticipated to be market-rate condominiums or apartments of various sizes Map not to scale
Source: Adept 2021
(07/20/2021 MMD) R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Graphics\IS\ex_exisiting_project_site.pdf D:\Projects\3PAS\012100\GRAPHICS\IS\ex_existing_project_site_20210720.ai Affinity Project
Existing Project Site Exhibit 2
EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED
Map not to scale
Source: Adept 2021
(07/20/2021 MMD) R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Graphics\IS\ex_project_site_plan.pdf D:\Projects\3PAS\012100\GRAPHICS\IS\ex_project_site_plan_20210720.ai Affinity Project
Project Site Plan Exhibit 3
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - MEDICAL HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - ASSISTED HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POINT - ASSISTED 10’-0”
Sidewalk
5’-2”
Setback
19’-0”
Driveway
2’-0”
Setback
842’-9” SITE LENGTH
169’-8” SITE DEPTH
No Setback No Setback
10’-0”
Sidewalk24’-0” Driveway
P.L.
28’-2”
Driveway
41’-8”
R=30’-4”
20’-9”
Driveway
10’ Setback
P.L. P.L.
P.L.
P.L. P.L. P.L.
S ARROYO PKWY
MEDICAL BUILDING
7 LEVELS / 90 FT HT.
TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
154,000 FAR SF
BUILDING A
HISTORIC
COMMERCIAL
BLDG TO BE
RETAINED
3,00 FAR SF
HISTORIC
COMMERCIAL
BLDG TO BE
RETAINED
2,88 FAR SF
S RAYMOND AVE
E CALIFORNIA BLVD
E BELLEVUE DR Loading Loading
Parking Access
167’-0”
307’-0”
158 0” 0 158’-” 0 5
158’-0”
Parking Access Parkin Pg Access
ASSISTED BUILDING
7 LEVELS / 87 FT HT.
TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
184,376 FAR SF
ASSISTED BUILDING
GARDEN
ASSISTED BUILDING
GARDEN
BUILDING B
METRO GOLD LINE
2 LEVELS / ~60 FT HT.
TYPE II CONSTRUCTION
73,671 FAR SF
WHOLE FOODS
MARKET
Commercial Commercial Residential
Commercial Commercial Commercial
Commercial
CommercialCommercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial Commercial
Commercial Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
SITE PLAN AND VICINITY MAP
SCALE FOR SITEPLAN
Commercial
California Blvd
E Del Mar Blvd
E Bellevue Dr
S. Arroyo Parkway
Marengo Ave
S Euclid Ave
Los Robles Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
S Raymond Ave
South Pasadena Ave
9 1.8.2021
THE AFFINITY 555 S ARROYO PKWY PASADENA CA 91101
|
D. SITE PLAN
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-3 Project Information TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT DATA
Existing Buildings to Remain
Address Use Floor Area (Gross sf)
465 South Arroyo Parkway Whole Foods Market 73,671 sf
501 South Arroyo Parkway (historic) Gold Line Pilates 2,880 sf 523 South Arroyo Parkway (historic) Town & Country Event Rentals 3,002 sf Total Square Footage 79,553 sf
Parking (Whole Foods Structure) 275 spaces / 2 loading spaces Project Development
Floor Area (Gross sf)
Medical Office Building (A) Assisted Living Facility (B) Basement/Subterranean Levels 415,063
Ground 14,635 25,377
2nd 23,028 31,269
3rd 26,671 29,107
4th 26,671 29,107
5th 26,671 29,107
6th 21,162 21,299
7th 21,162 19,110
Total Gross Square Footage 154,000 (Aboveground) 184,376 (Aboveground) 753,439 (Including five subterranean levels spanning both buildings) Parking Up to 850 spaces
Total Aboveground Built Area
(Existing + Proposed) 417,929
Building Outline/Site Coverage 99,224 sf / 68 percent
Proposed FAR 2.89
Open Space 8,676 22,929
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial Development Floor Area (Gross sf)
Residential/Commercial Building (A) Assisted Living Facility (B) Differences from Project Scenario Up to 197 dwelling units & 3,000 sf of ground-floor commercial Same as Project
Total Square Footages 154,000 (Aboveground) 184,376 (Aboveground) 670,427 (Including four subterranean levels spanning both buildings)a Parking Up to 650 spaces
Total Aboveground Built Area
(Existing + Proposed) 417,929
Building Outline/Site Coverage 99,224 sf / 68 percent
Proposed FAR 2.89
Open Space 8,676 22,929
a Reflects one less subterranean parking level, all other floor area sizes are the same sf: square feet; N/A: not applicable; FAR: floor area ratio Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-4 Project Information Construction Activities
The Project would be constructed beginning in 2023 over a period of approximately 34 months and would be completed in a single phase. Project construction would occur from Monday through Saturday, without activity on Sundays or holidays, between the hours defined in Section 9.36.070 (Construction Projects) of the City of Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday).
Construction would involve demolition, site preparation, excavation and grading, and building construction phases that would involve varying amounts and types of waste streams requiring export. Demolition of the six existing buildings and other on-site improvements, such as paving, light fixtures, and signage, would generate an estimated 4,200 cubic yards (cy) of debris; and excavation to accommodate the subterranean parking structure would generate up to an estimated 184,013 cy of soil for the Project with five levels of subterranean parking. Chapter 8.62 (Waste Management Plan for Certain Construction and Demolition Projects within the City of Pasadena) et. seq. of the PMC is the City’s construction and demolition waste management ordinance (C&D ordinance), which requires at least 75 percent of the construction waste stream to be diverted from landfill disposal. Construction and demolition debris, after diversion, would be disposed at Scholl Canyon Landfill, located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the site, at 3001 Scholl Canyon Road in Glendale. Construction and demolition debris being diverted from landfill disposal may be directed to many different facilities in the region that reuse or recycle this type of material.
Project Operation
The Project is anticipated to be opened to the public in 2026. The medical office building would operate with hours typical of the land use—generally between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM on Saturdays. However, operational hours of individual tenants of the medical office building would vary and may be longer or shorter than the typical hours. The medical office uses within the medical office building are expected to result in approximately 523 visitors per day and 646 employees. The ground floor commercial uses within the medical office building are expected to result in approximately 43 visitors per day and 9 employees.
If the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is constructed, Building A would generate up to 493 residents associated with up to 197 units2. As with the Project, the commercial uses on the ground floor of the medical office building are expected to result in approximately 43 visitors per day and 9 employees.
The assisted living building (Building B) would also operate with hours typical of the land use. The assisted living uses are generally operational 24 hours per day with visitation hours anticipated to be daily (Monday through Sunday) between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The assisted living building is expected to result in up to approximately 66 employees, 113 persons cared for, and 109 residents associated with the up to 95 independent living units.
Discretionary Actions by the City
Implementation of the Project would require the following discretionary approvals by the City of Pasadena:
Adoption of the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District and PD Plan (this includes approval of the Affinity Project and rezoning of the property from CD-6 to PD-39); Certification of the Affinity Project Environmental Impact Report; Variance for Historic Resources for Building Height;
2 Based on a rate of 2.5 persons per household derived from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2019 Profile for the City of Pasadena (SCAG 2019).
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-5 Project Information Public Street Tree Removal Approval;
Design Review;
Vesting Tentative Tract Map or Tentative Tract Map Approval (only if residential units for sale); and Other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be deemed necessary, including but not limited to: master sign plan, temporary street closure permits, encroachment permits, grading permits, excavation permits, foundation permits, and building permits (including lot tie agreement).
Probable Environmental Impacts of the Project
Based on the analysis presented in this IS, the Project would have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts related to one or more environmental checklist questions in the environmental topics listed below. The relevant checklist questions for the following topics will therefore be carried forward for additional analysis in the Draft EIR:
Air Quality
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the analysis presented in this IS, the Project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the environmental checklist questions for the topics listed below. The following topics have therefore been scoped out of the Draft EIR:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Wildfire
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
As illustrated on Exhibit 1, the site is bound by East Bellevue Drive on the north, South Arroyo Parkway on the east, East California Boulevard on the south, and the Metro Gold Line (now referred to as the L Line) railroad right-of-way on the west. The Project area is an urban environment, and the site and surrounding area are fully built out with a mix of land uses. The Project site is surrounded by commercial land uses and surface parking to the north, northeast, east, and south. Other land uses to the north include medical offices; Pasadena Humane Society, located approximately 0.1 mile to the northwest; and Central Park, located approximately 0.2-mile northwest of the site. Single- and multi-family residential land uses located, at the nearest, approximately 0.2 mile to the north on Del Mar Boulevard; approximately 0.1 mile to the northnortheast on Bellevue Drive; and less than 0.1 mile to the east along Marengo Avenue. Land uses to the south include a mix of commercial, medical office, and single- and multi-family residential land uses; the latter is located along Marengo Avenue and California Boulevard to the southeast. To the west, there is a mix of commercial and non-profit (i.e., npr/KPCC and Union Station Homeless Services) uses. Further from the site, land uses include a mix of commercial, medical, light industrial, single- and multi-family residential, and public (e.g., schools, churches, parks). Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 110 located approximately 0.6-mile due south on Arroyo Parkway. Local access is provided by adjacent surface streets and Metro’s Del Mar Station located approximately 0.2 mile to the north.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-4 Project Information
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permitting) and
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (for construction within 100 feet of a Metro light rail line).
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was initiated and is ongoing with the California Native American tribes affiliated with the City of Pasadena and who have requested consultation and the consultation process is ongoing. Refer to Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS for further information.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-5 Project Information 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (to be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment., but at least effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards , and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date
Printed Name Printed Name
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 1-6 Project Information EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 21, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 21 at the end of the checklist.
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier documents and the extent to which address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-1 Environmental Checklist Form SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
2.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, 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?
WHY?
Project
Pursuant the Senate Bill (SB) 743, the Project site is an infill project and is located within a transit priority area. SB 743, via Section 21099(d) of the Public Resources Code, defines criteria for evaluating certain transit-oriented infill projects under CEQA, as follows:
“Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”
As discussed in Section 1.0, the Project site is zoned CD-6, which is defined in Section 17.30.020 of the PMC as “…intended to provide for a broad mix of uses at the periphery of the urban core, including employment generating uses that are adaptable to changing economic conditions, as well as to establish Arroyo Parkway as a visually important and attractive gateway to Downtown”. Pursuant to the CDSP, employment-generating uses including commercial, service, office, and certain industrial uses are permitted or conditionally permitted in the CD-6 zone. High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) are areas within one-half mile of a fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours. Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned (SCAG 2020). The floor area ratio (FAR) for the Project would be 2.89 (refer to Table 1-1), and SCAG has identified the site as within both a TPA and a HQTA. Specifically, the Metro’s Fillmore Station is located approximately 0.15 mile to the south of the site and the Del Mar Station is located approximately 0.2 mile to the north. Arroyo Parkway along the east side of the Project site is a Metro bus corridor for lines 177 and 256, with bus stops situated at the northeast and southwest corners of the site.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-2 Environmental Checklist Form Accordingly, the City has concluded the Project qualifies as an employment center project, which is defined in Section of the Public Resources Code as “… a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area” as well as a mixeduse project. Therefore, consistent with Section 21099(d) of the Public Resources Code, the aesthetic effects of the Project are not considered significant environmental impacts, and this issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
If the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is constructed, the development would qualify as both a residential and mixed-use project pursuant to SB 743. Therefore, consistent with Section 21099(d) of the Public Resources Code discussed above, the aesthetic effects of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial are not considered significant environmental impacts, and this issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-3 Environmental Checklist Form
2.2 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 Department 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? WHY?
Project
The City is a developed urban area surrounded by hillsides to the north and northwest. The City contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the most recent maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (FMMP 2017). Therefore, the Project would not impact agriculture resources. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project analysis above, there is no Farmland within the City. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not impact agricultural resources. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
WHY?
Project
The City has no land zoned for agricultural use other than commercial growing areas and land within certain specific plan areas. The Project site is zoned CD-6 (Central District Specific Plan, Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-4 Environmental Checklist Form subdistrict), which is not one of the zones that permits commercial growing areas. Accordingly, there are no conflicts with agricultural zoning, and Williamson Act contracts are not applicable to the Project site. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there is no conflict with agricultural zoning on the Project nor are there Williamson Act contracts applicable to the site. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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])?
WHY?
Project
There is no forest land, timberland, or any Timberland Production Zones in the City; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production areas. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there is no forest land, timberland, or any Timberland Production Zones in the City. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
WHY?
Project
There is no forest land in the City; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land. No part of the Project site includes forest land as defined by the State, including forest land (Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-5 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there is no forest land in the City. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
As discussed in Threshold 2.2(a), there is no designated Farmland in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Likewise, as discussed in Thresholds 2.2(c) and 2.2(e), there are no forestry resources that would be converted to non-forest use by the proposed Project. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there is no Farmland or forestry resources in the City and there would be no indirect conversion of agricultural or forestry resources. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-6 Environmental Checklist Form
2.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
WHY?
Project
The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). On March 3, 2017, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board, Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG], and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]). The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2016– 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.
Short-term construction and long-term operation of the Project would result in a net increase in stationary and mobile source criteria air pollutants emissions in the SCAB compared to the existing uses on the site.
Therefore, consistency with the 2016 AQMP will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Short-term construction and long-term operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a net increase in stationary and mobile source criteria air pollutants emissions in the SCAB compared to the existing uses on the site. Therefore, consistency with the 2016 AQMP will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
WHY?
Project
The SCAB is an airshed that is designated a non-attainment area for selected criteria pollutants. As stated in Threshold 2.3(a), construction and operation of the Project would result in a net increase in air pollutants.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-7 Environmental Checklist Form The Project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in those pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment, when considered in combination with other development planned in the SCAB, will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the potential for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in those pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
WHY?
Project
Land uses surrounding the Project site are commercial, with the Metro L (Gold) Line railroad right-of-way abutting the site to the west. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential land uses located on South Marengo Avenue approximately 250 feet (ft) to the east. While it is unlikely that construction and operation of the Project would adversely affect these receptors due to distance, the potential to expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the potential for construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial to expose any nearby receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, though unlikely, will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
WHY?
Project
According to the SCAQMD’s 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 (SCAQMD 1993). The Project does not Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-8 Environmental Checklist Form propose to operate any of these land uses and would not otherwise be expected to produce objectionable odors.
Short-term construction equipment and activities would generate odors, such as diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment and paving activities. However, these odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term and would not be objectionable to a substantial number of people. There would be a less than significant impact, and this topic will not be further evaluated in Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial does not propose any land uses identified in the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Handbook as associated with odor complaints (SCAQMD 1993). Short-term construction activities for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be nearly identical to the Project’s construction activities, except for differences associated with the interior buildout of Building A.
Therefore, as for the Project, odors from construction activities would be temporary and dissipate rapidly.
This topic will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-9 Environmental Checklist Form
2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is currently developed with several buildings, parking lots, and other disturbed/developed areas. Existing groundcovers, shrubs, and trees within the site would be removed during Project construction. Due to the urbanized and disturbed nature of the Project site, the site does not support habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, no impact on sensitive species would occur with the Project. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR. Tree removals are discussed further below under Threshold 2.4(e).
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project site is in an urbanized area and is fully developed. No impact on sensitive species would occur and this issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
As discussed above in Threshold 2.4(a), the Project site is in a highly urbanized area. Review of aerial photographs by qualified biologists shows that there are no natural drainage streams or open channels on the Project site. There are no riparian or other sensitive natural vegetation communities located on the site.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an adverse impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and no impact would occur. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-10 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project site is in an urbanized area, and there are no sensitive natural vegetation communities on the site. No impact on sensitive natural communities would occur and this issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
As discussed above in Threshold 2.4(a), the Project site is located in a highly urbanized area. There are no drainages, including jurisdictional waterways, located on the site, and no impact would occur. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project site is in an urbanized area and there are no drainages on the site. No impact on jurisdictional waterways would occur, and this issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
Wildlife corridors and habitat linkages are features that promote habitat connectivity and are generally characterized as undisturbed canyon and riverine stream habitat areas. The Project site does not serve as a key wildlife movement corridor due to its disturbed and developed nature and the presence of roads, railroad tracks, and urban development around the Project site. The Project site is developed with several buildings, with the Metro L (Gold) Line tracks located adjacent and parallel to the western Project boundary.
South Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard, bordering the eastern and southern site boundaries, Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-11 Environmental Checklist Form respectively, are major arterials in the City. The developed and disturbed character of the Project site and major transportation corridors on three site boundaries impede wildlife movement through the Project site.
As a result, the Project site supports the movement of almost exclusively local, urban-adapted wildlife, that also readily use surrounding areas.
Construction activities would create dust and noise within and adjacent to the work areas. During active construction, wildlife movement may be deterred by noise and human activity; however, most wildlife movement in the Project area would occur at night while construction activities would occur during the day.
Direct and indirect impacts, such as noise pollution and human activity, are considered adverse but less than significant since the inability to use the site or immediately surrounding areas for local movement during construction activities would affect a small number of individuals representing an extremely small percentage of the overall regional populations. As a result, there would not be a substantial adverse effect on regional wildlife movement or regional wildlife populations. Therefore, the Project would not substantially affect the movement of any native resident or land-based wildlife species.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. Additionally, Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code make it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nests and eggs of birds of prey. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds and prohibits the taking and possession of any migratory non-game bird, as designated in the MBTA. To ensure that construction activities comply with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the City of Pasadena would apply the following condition of approval to the Project.
If construction is initiated during the breeding season for nesting birds (i.e., March 1–September 15) and nesting raptors (i.e., January 1–July 31), the Project Applicant shall perform, or direct the performance of, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds and/or raptors shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist within three days prior to any construction activities on the Project site and in the immediately surrounding area (i.e., perform survey within 300 ft for nesting birds and within 500 ft for nesting raptors). A qualified Biologist shall be knowledgeable and experienced in conducting nesting bird surveys within Southern California and in determining appropriate buffer size to prevent bird nesting failure. If the Biologist does not find any active nests in or immediately adjacent to the Project site, construction work shall be allowed to proceed and no further action is required.
If the Biologist finds an active nest in or immediately adjacent to the Project site and determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted due to planned construction activities, the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. The active nest shall be protected until nesting activity has ended. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) construction limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 25–100 ft for nesting birds and 300–500 ft for nesting raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants. Construction in a buffer area can proceed when the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest or the nest has failed.
If construction activities are initiated during the non-breeding season, there would be no potential impact to nesting birds and raptors. Therefore, with implementation of the Project feature described above, which would be ensured as a condition of approval, potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors during Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-12 Environmental Checklist Form their breeding seasons due to Project construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the developed and disturbed character of the Project site and major transportation corridors on three site boundaries impede wildlife movement through the Project site. As a result, the Project site supports the movement of almost exclusively local, urban-adapted wildlife, that also readily use surrounding areas. Short-term construction activities for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be nearly identical to those of the Project, except for differences associated with the interior buildout of Building A. Therefore, as with the Project, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not substantially affect the movement of any native resident or land-based wildlife species. The same steps to ensure that construction activities comply with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code described for the Project would apply to construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. With implementation of the above described above, potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors during their breeding seasons due to Project with Building A Residential/Commercial construction would be less than significant. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
WHY?
Project
The only local ordinance protecting biological resources in the City of Pasadena is “City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance” (codified in Chapter 8.52 of the PMC). This ordinance was set forth with the goal of protecting landmark, native, and specimen trees so that the tree canopy cover in the City is preserved and expanded. A City of Pasadena Tree Inventory (Tree Inventory) was prepared for the Project by Carlberg Associates (Carlberg Associates 2021). As summarized in Table 2-1, Tree Inventory Summary, on the following page, a total of 40 trees were inventoried on the Project site and the adjacent public right-of-way (ROW). Of these, 17 trees located in the ROW are protected under the City Ordinance. The remaining 23 trees are located within the Project site and are not protected. The proposed Project would result in the removal of 23 trees on the Project site and 2 street trees (ST32 and ST38). The remaining 15 protected streets trees in the ROW would be protected in place during construction and remain after the Project is implemented.
The Urban Forestry section of the City’s Public Works Department typically requires a fee, dependent on the size of the tree(s) being removed, to be remitted into the City’s street tree fund. For the Project, a planned condition of approval calls for planting of one new street tree along both Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard. The Project would also include a total of 25 trees in above-grade planters within the site. With compliance with the Project’s conditions of approval, the Project would not conflict with the applicable local ordinance. There would be a less than significant impact. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-13 Environmental Checklist Form TABLE 2-1
TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY
Tree ID
Tree Species Protected
Common Name Scientific Name Tree? Disposition
Trees on Private Property
1 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
2 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
3 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
4 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
5 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
6 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
7 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
8 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
9 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
10 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
11 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
12 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
13 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
14 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
15 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
16 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
17 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus No Remove
18 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
19 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
20 queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana No Remove
21 Canary island pine Pinus canariensis No Remove
22 Canary island pine Pinus canariensis No Remove
23 pecan Carya illinoinensus No Remove
Trees in Public Right-of-Way
ST24 camphor Cinnamomum camphora Yes Preserve and Protect ST25 weeping fig Ficus benjamina Yes Preserve and Protect ST26 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect ST27 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST28 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST29 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect ST30 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect ST31 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect ST32 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Remove
ST33 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect ST34 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST35 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST36 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST37 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST38 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Remove
ST39 African fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus Yes Preserve and Protect ST40 date palm Phoenix dactylifera Yes Preserve and Protect Source: Carlberg Associates. 2021 (February 3). City of Pasadena Tree Inventory, 555 South Arroyo Parkway, Pasadena, California 91105. Sierra Madre, CA: Carlberg Associates.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-14 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in removal of the same existing trees and installation of the same proposed landscaping, including a requirement to plant two new street trees, as with the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project, above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not conflict with the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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? WHY?
Project
The proposed Project does not conflict with any Significant Ecological Areas, Wildflower Reserve Areas, or Sensitive Environmental Resource Areas, as none exists within the Project site. Neither the Project site nor the City proper is within or adjacent to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any regional or State plans protecting biological resources and there would be no impact. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there are no regional or State plans protecting biological resources within the City. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not conflict with any such plans. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-15 Environmental Checklist Form
2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
WHY?
Project
Two of the nine existing buildings on the site, located at 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway, are previously recorded as historic resources. Five of the remaining buildings on the site are more than 45 years old.
Therefore, a historic resources assessment will be conducted as part of the EIR to (1) evaluate the significance of the five historic-period structures and (2) determine whether the Project would indirectly impact the two known historic resources. Potential impacts to historical resources will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts to historic resources due to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is a developed area and has been previously graded and disturbed. Therefore, no surface archaeological resources are expected to be present. However, excavation into underlying native (i.e., undisturbed) soils to accommodate the subterranean parking levels has the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources. A cultural resources study will be conducted as part of the EIR to determine whether the site has the potential to contain archaeological resources. Potential impacts to archaeological resources will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources due to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-16 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.5(b) above, Project construction would involve excavation into native soils.
Project-related earth disturbance in native soils always has the potential to unearth previously undiscovered remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. If human remains are encountered during Project construction, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Sections 7050.5 through 7055 of the California Health and Safety Code describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code describes the protocols to be followed if human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. In addition, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented. Specifically, if human remains are found during excavation, construction activities must stop in the vicinity of the find and in any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been notified; the remains have been investigated; and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, potential impacts would be less than significant. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts related to encounter of unanticipated human remains due to construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be addressed through compliance with applicable State regulations. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-17 Environmental Checklist Form
2.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
WHY?
Project
The Project would result in a net increase in energy demand compared to the existing condition, and construction of the Project would require use of energy as fuel and electricity. The Project’s short-term and long-term use of energy will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a net increase in energy demand. This issue will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
WHY?
Project
As discussed in Threshold 2.6(a), the Project would result in new demands for energy. The Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies related to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the consistency of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial with the applicable plans and policies related to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-18 Environmental Checklist Form
2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Information in this section is derived from the Geotechnical Investigation, 465-577 South Arroyo Parkway, Pasadena, California (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Geocon West, Inc. and dated July 2021 (Geocon 2021). The Geotechnical Investigation is provided in its entirety in Appendix A of this IS.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
WHY?
Project
The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program. An active fault is defined as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.
The County of Los Angeles and the City of Pasadena are both affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (Alquist-Priolo Zones). The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Zone nor is there a known active fault traversing the site (Geocon 2021). Therefore, the surface rupture of a known fault within the Project site that would result in substantial adverse effects is not considered reasonably foreseeable. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Zone nor is there a known active fault traversing the site (Geocon 2021). Therefore, the surface rupture of a known fault within the Project site that would result in substantial adverse effects is not considered reasonably foreseeable. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-19 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is located in the seismically active southern California region and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active or potentially active faults. The closest surface trace of a potentially active fault is the Eagle Rock Fault, located approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest (Pasadena 2002b). The closest surface trace of an active fault to the site is the Raymond Fault located approximately 1.2 miles to the south. Other nearby active faults are the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, Verdugo Fault, and Hollywood Fault located approximately 4.0 miles to the northeast, 4.4 miles to the west-northwest, and 5.6 miles to the west-southwest, respectively. The active San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 28 miles northeast of the site (Geocon 2021, Pasadena 2002b).
Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3.0 kilometers.
Thrust faults are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard at the site; however, these deep thrust faults are considered active features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to significant ground shaking at the site. The Project site is underlain at depth by the Los Angeles segment of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust (Geocon 2021).
Consistent with its location in a seismically active region, the site may be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from a major earthquake on one or more faults in the area within the lifetime of the Project. Seismic ground shaking from major earthquakes in the region is not anticipated to be greater than at any other sites in Southern California. The potential for strong ground shaking is an existing seismic hazard that affects the site, and the Project would not exacerbate this condition. Based on the site-specific seismic analysis, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the effects of ground shaking on the Project can be minimized if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. Conformance to the seismic design criteria calculated for the Project does not constitute a guarantee or assurance that substantive structural damage or ground failure would not occur if a large earthquake occurs; the primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded the Project is feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into its design and construction (Geocon 2021).
Earthquake-resistant design and materials used in new construction must meet the current seismic engineering standards of the California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4 requirements (incorporated by reference in the PMC), in effect at the time of design and construction of the Project. Compliance with these standards would reduce the risk to people and structures to the maximum extent practicable under current engineering practice. The Geotechnical Investigation outlines the site- and Project-specific requirements to meet CBC standards. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-20 Environmental Checklist Form due to strong seismic ground shaking. There would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, consistent with its location in a seismically active region, the site may be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from a major earthquake on one or more faults in the area within the lifetime of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded the Project, and by extension the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, is feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into its design and construction (Geocon 2021). As discussed above, compliance with applicable CBC requirements would reduce the risk to people and structures to the maximum extent practicable under current engineering practice. The Geotechnical Investigation outlines the site- and Project-specific requirements to meet CBC standards. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects due to strong seismic ground shaking. There would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? WHY?
Project
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. The Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Pasadena Quadrangle indicates that the site is not within an area designated as having a potential for liquefaction. Groundwater was not encountered in on-site borings drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 91 feet below ground surface (bgs). Additionally, the historic high groundwater level in the site vicinity is between approximately 50 and 100 feet bgs. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered low (Geocon 2021).
Separate from the issue of liquefaction, the presence of groundwater or shallow, perched water or seepage can adversely affect new construction. The Geotechnical Investigation states that due to lack of groundwater encountered in on-site borings and the reported depth of historic high groundwater, groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction or have a detrimental effect on the Project including the subterranean levels. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that hydrostatic design of the basement level to offset potential buoyancy is not required; however, the report does suggest waterproofing of subterranean slabs and walls. The Geotechnical Investigation states it is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially in Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-21 Environmental Checklist Form impermeable fine-grained soils, which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. In addition, recent requirements for stormwater infiltration could result in shallower seepage conditions in the immediate site vicinity (Geocon 2021). There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered low (Geocon 2021). Additionally, separate from the issue of liquefaction, the Geotechnical Investigation states it is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially in impermeable fine-grained soils which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. In addition, recent requirements for stormwater infiltration could result in shallower seepage conditions in the immediate site vicinity (Geocon 2021). There would be no impact due to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv) Landslides?
WHY?
Project
The topography at the site is gently sloping to the south and southeast. The site is not located within an area identified as a “Hillside” area or an area identified as having a potential for slope stability hazards.
Additionally, the site is not identified on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Pasadena Quadrangle as within an area identified as susceptible to seismically induced landslides. There are no known landslides near the site nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the site is considered low (Geocon 2021). There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the site is considered low (Geocon 2021). There would be no impact due to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-22 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? WHY?
Project
The largest source of erosion and topsoil loss, particularly in a developed environment, is uncontrolled drainage during construction activities. Grading and other earthwork associated with Project construction may temporarily expose soils on the Project site to wind and/or water erosion. Since the Project area of earth disturbance is greater than one acre, compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities3 (Construction General Permit) would be required. Pursuant to the Construction General Permit, the City would be required to prepare, or have prepared by the Construction Contractor, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include erosion-control Best Management Practices (BMPs). There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, including implementation of erosion-control BMPs. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
WHY?
Project
Secondary seismic hazards related to the underlying geologic unit include several types of ground failure that can occur as a result of severe ground shaking. The probability for each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, the site’s distance from the fault, the local topography, and subsoil and groundwater conditions, among other factors. In addition, there can be soil engineering characteristics 3 Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, adopted by the SWRCB on September 2, 2009 (effective for all project sites on July 1, 2010) and most recently amended by Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ on July 17, 2012.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-23 Environmental Checklist Form inherent in the underlying sediments on a site that can adversely affect structures if not appropriately managed during construction, including subsidence, hydroconsolidation, and other forms of collapse.
Liquefaction and landslides are addressed above under Thresholds 2.7(a)(iii) and 2.7(a)(iv). Lateral spreading is a phenomenon related to liquefaction. Because there is no risk of liquefaction at the site, there would be no impact related to lateral spreading and no mitigation is required.
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The Project site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. There appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site (Geocon 2021).
Based on the laboratory testing of on-site soil samples, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the native, granular alluvial soils underlying the site are suitable for reuse as engineered fill where the grading recommendations provided in the investigation are implemented. Also, the Geotechnical Investigation determined there were no seismic or soil conditions present on the site that would preclude construction of the Project, provided all geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction (Geocon 2021). Therefore, the Project would not be located on a site that is unstable nor would the site become unstable as a result of the Project such that there would be on- or off-site ground failure. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not be located on a site that is unstable nor would the site become unstable as a result of the Project such that there would be on- or off-site ground failure. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
The existing site soils are considered to be “non-expansive” and to have a “very low” (EI < 20) expansive potential in accordance with Section 1803.5.3 of the 2019 CBC. Based on the depth of the proposed subterranean levels and granular nature of the site soils, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded the Project would not be prone to the effects of expansive soil (Geocon 2021). There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-24 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not be located on a site with expansive soil. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? WHY?
Project
The Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is a developed area and has been previously graded and disturbed. However, excavation into underlying native (i.e., undisturbed) soils to accommodate the subterranean parking levels has the potential to encounter unknown paleontological resources. A cultural resources study will be conducted as part of the EIR to determine whether the site has the potential to contain paleontological resources. Potential impacts to paleontological resources will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-25 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources due to construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-26 Environmental Checklist Form
2.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
WHY?
Project
The Project would result in a net increase in the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with land uses on the site. The Project’s short-term and long-term GHG emissions will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. This issue will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
WHY?
Project
As discussed in Threshold 2.8(a), the Project would result in increased GHG emissions. The Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies related to reduction of GHG emissions, including the City of Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan, will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in increased GHG emissions. The consistency of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial with applicable GHG emissions plans and policies will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-27 Environmental Checklist Form
2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Information in this section is derived in part from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; 465, 491, 503, 525 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway, Pasadena, California 91105 (Phase I ESA) prepared by EMG and dated April 2020 (EMG 2020). The Phase I ESA is provided in its entirety in Appendix B of this IS. The findings of the Phase I ESA would apply equally to the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial because the location and general scale of proposed buildings and subterranean parking structure would be the same for both development scenarios.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
WHY?
Project
Medical and medically related land uses involve substances that are categorized as hazardous materials due to the generation of biomedical waste. These types of materials are typical of any medical facility and would not be considered acutely hazardous or unusual. Also, each proposed building would have a 50- kilovolt standby emergency engine diesel generator. Potential impacts related to the generation of biomedical waste and storage of fuel onsite will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not generate as much biomedical waste (categorized as hazardous materials) as the Project, since only the assisted living building would generate such materials. This development scenario would instead generate a mix of non-hazardous municipal waste and biomedical waste. Like the Project, the buildings would each have a standby emergency generator. As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts related to the generation of biomedical waste and storage of fuel onsite will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-28 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
Construction of the Project would involve the use of common hazardous materials such as gasoline, oil, paints, thinners, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, and other chemicals that could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination, if not properly stored, used, or disposed.
Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law. These materials are common to typical construction activities, and compliance with existing hazardous material regulations on the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials at construction sites would prevent hazards to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions.
Given the age of the buildings on the Project site to be demolished, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) may be present within interior and/or exterior materials and surfaces. The SCAQMD’s Rule 1403 provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (certified by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [CalOSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Under this rule, removal of asbestos must include prior SCAQMD notification; compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos-handling and clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements.
In California, asbestos abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). In addition, CalOSHA has regulations to protect worker safety during potential exposure to asbestos under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1529 Asbestos). All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos must be conducted according to the CalOSHA standards. These standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. In California, lead abatement must also be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California DHS. In addition, the CalOSHA has adopted regulations to protect worker safety during potential exposure to lead under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1532.1 Lead). All demolition that could result in the release of lead must be conducted according to these standards, which were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with lead exposure. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and the CalOSHA’s Title 8 regulations on asbestos and lead abatement would be a condition of Project approval and would ensure that handling and disposal of these materials is conducted safely and accident conditions during demolition activities would not be reasonably foreseeable.
As such, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials required for construction and the presence of ACMs and LBP in buildings to be demolished would not present a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable accident and upset conditions, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-29 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
Construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would involve use of the same common hazardous materials and likely generation of ACMs and LBP during demolition as the Project. As discussed for the Project above, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials required for construction and the presence of ACMs and LBP in buildings to be demolished would not present a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable accident and upset conditions with compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quartermile of an existing or proposed school? WHY?
Project
The Project site is within approximately one-quarter mile of the following three schools:
Mayfield Junior School, 405 South Euclid Avenue;
The Waverly School, 67 West Bellevue Drive; and
Aria Montessori School, 693 South Euclid Avenue.
As discussed under Thresholds 2.9(a) and 2.9(b) above, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use of common hazardous substances, potential encounter of hazardous building materials, and use of medical and medically related materials that can be categorized as hazardous. While these materials would not be considered acutely hazardous or unusual, potential impacts to existing schools in proximity to the Project site due to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials on the site will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed above under Threshold 2.8(a), while the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate relatively less biomedical waste than the Project, this development scenario would still generate biomedical waste. Also, as discussed for the Project above, construction and operation of the Project would not involve the use of acutely hazardous or unusual materials. However, potential impacts to existing schools in proximity to the site related to handling of hazardous materials will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-30 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
Based on review of the Cortese List data resources, the Project site is not located on the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List of sites published by CalEPA and compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (referred to as the Cortese List). There is one site on the Cortese List located in the City of Pasadena, which is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (CalEPA 2020).
A Phase I ESA was conducted for the Project site. The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to identify “recognized environmental conditions”, which are defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property”. Therefore, a Phase I ESA addresses the potential for site contamination due to past or present land uses and the potential for future site contamination based on current conditions on and surrounding a site. The contents of Phase I ESAs are defined by national record review requirements in accordance with both the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and the USEPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 312). The Phase I ESA for the proposed Project was conducted in accordance with these standards.
The Phase I ESA concluded that there was one Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (REC)4. As part of the Phase I ESA, the review of the historical data available for the site and the regulatory database report identified that a service station, the former ARCO station located at 125 East California Boulevard, was located on the Project site from approximately the 1930s to 2002 and utilized at least three underground storage tanks (USTs). This facility was located on the southern portion of the site, the site of the current restaurant at 577 South Arroyo Parkway. An unauthorized gasoline release impacting groundwater was first reported in 1988 and soil vapor extraction operations were initiated. In 1998, three USTs were removed from the site and various soil and groundwater investigations were subsequently conducted. The station received a "no further action" letter from the Pasadena Fire Department dated May 24, 2000; however, the site also received an additional clarification letter regarding the "no further action" letter stating that while the site has complied with the regulatory requirements for the site investigation/remediation, contamination remained at the site below regulatory action levels. A Declaration of Environmental Restriction allowing access for remediation was recorded on August 21, 2002, that was to terminate 90 days after No Further Action was received. Quarterly monitoring was conducted, and 761 cy of soil was removed. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) granted case closure on December 3, 2004, with no property use 4 An Historical REC is defined under ASTM E1527 – 13 as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-31 Environmental Checklist Form restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls. The monitoring wells were abandoned in 2005. While this site has a "no further action" status and is considered a Historical REC (EMG 2020; Appendix B), this topic will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, potential impacts related to gasoline release in 1988 at the former ARCO station creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly Bob Hope Airport), located more than 12 miles west of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, nor for people visiting the Project. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the site is not near any air facility, and development of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, nor for people visiting the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial development scenario. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-32 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
WHY?
Project
The City of Pasadena Emergency Operations Plan addresses the City’s planned response to emergencies associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. It provides an overview of operational concepts, identifies components of the City’s emergency management organization within the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and describes the overall responsibilities of the federal, State, county entities, and the City for protecting life and property and ensuring the overall well-being of the population (Pasadena 2011). Further, the City maintains a SEMS/NIMS Emergency Response Plan, which addresses planned responses to emergency/disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. In case of a disaster, the Pasadena Fire Department is responsible for implementing the plan, and the Pasadena Police Department devises evacuation routes based on the specific circumstance of the emergency.
Construction and operation of the Project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. As such, the proposed Project would not obstruct any emergency evacuation or response activities. Construction staging would not interfere with circulation along Arroyo Parkway, California Boulevard, or any other nearby roadways. Among the standard conditions of approval for the Project, the Applicant would be required to submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the Public Works Department and no construction truck idling or staging, material storage, or construction trailer are allowed in the public ROW. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not interfere with any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not interfere with any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans as the site layout, including circulation, would be the same as the Project. Potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-33 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? WHY?
Project
The Project site and surrounding area is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2020). Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to wildfire risks. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-34 Environmental Checklist Form
2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Information in this section is derived in part from the Hydrology/LID Study, 555 Arroyo Parkway (Hydrology Study) prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and dated July 2021 (Fuscoe Engineering 2021).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
WHY?
Project
The Project site is within the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB (Region 4). The Project could result in short-term, construction-related impacts to surface water quality from grading and other construction activities (e.g., erosion, spills, and leaks from construction equipment). Compliance with non-storm water management and pollution-control BMPs, as outlined in the SWPPP required for the Project consistent with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (Order No 2009-009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), would ensure the pollutant levels in runoff during construction do not violate water quality standards. Because the Project site is over one acre, Construction General Permit requirements would include the preparation of a SWPPP, implementation and monitoring of BMPs, implementation of best available technology for toxic and non-conventional pollutants, implementation of best conventional technology for conventional pollutants, and periodic submittal of performance summaries and reports to the LARWQCB.
The Project site is entirely developed, with the portion of the site south of the Whole Foods Market having a 97 percent impervious surface area. The existing buildings primarily drain runoff via roof drains that either connect to an underground curb drain or release just above the pavement or sidewalk. The storm water runoff then outfalls through sheet flow along driveways and street-adjacent curb drains onto the Arroyo Parkway sidewalk or directly connects to the municipal storm drain system. In the existing condition, storm water runoff discharges untreated into the municipal storm drain system.
In the City of Pasadena, all development and redevelopment projects must comply with the latest Los Angeles County Public Works Low Impact Development (LID) Standards Manual. The LID Standards Manual complies with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit for storm water and non-storm water discharges from the MS4 within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4-2012-0175). The LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain and/or biotreat runoff on a site. Per the County LID Manual, the Project is deemed a designated project because it is a redevelopment project that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 sf or more of impervious surface on a site that was previously developed. All designated projects must detain the water quality volume on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, water runoff harvest and use, or a combination thereof unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do so.
The proposed on-site storm drain facilities would consist of catch basins, area drains, gutters, roof drains, pipes, and planters (biofiltration and non-biofiltration). These drains would route to either storm water infiltration facilities below the lowest basement, such as a drywell, or a detention tank before a biofiltration Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-35 Environmental Checklist Form planter, which would intercept the low flows and provide water quality treatment in order to meet the County LID Ordinance. In the case that biofiltration is selected for LID, pumps would be required to make the system successful. High flows and bypass flows would flow to the adjacent Arroyo Parkway either through sheet flow or the underground storm drain system overflow pipes that would connect to a parkway drain or curb drain. In the proposed condition, the site would be divided into four drainage areas that would have impervious surface areas of 94 percent, 98 percent, and 100 percent (two of the four drainage areas would be 100 percent).
The Hydrology Study prepared for the Project determined that, with implementation of the planned LID features—either infiltration or biofiltration—there would be a slight decrease in storm water runoff volumes.
Table 2-2, Pre- and Post-Development Storm Water Discharges, summarizes the runoff discharges for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year storm events.
TABLE 2-2
PRE- AND POST-DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER DISCHARGES
Drainage Area
2 Year
Event
5 Year
Event
10 Year
Event
25 Year
Event
50 Year
Event
Existing (cfs) 2.84 4.80 6.20 8.14 9.27
Proposed (cfs) 3.43 5.42 6.62 8.14 9.27
LID Flow Reduction 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Difference (cfs) -0.21 -0.18 -0.38 -0.80 0.80
cfs: cubic feet per second
Source: Fuscoe Engineering. 2021 (July). Hydrology/LID Study, 555 South Arroyo Parkway. Los Angeles, CA: Fuscoe Engineering. Appendix C.
Implementation of the planned LID features would ensure both the quantity and quality of runoff discharged from the Project site would not violate LARWQCB standards or otherwise degrade surface or groundwater quality. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would implement the same LID features to manage storm water runoff as the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project above, implementation of the planned LID features would ensure both the quantity and quality of runoff discharged from the Project site would not violate LARWQCB standards or otherwise degrade surface or groundwater quality. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-36 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
WHY?
Project
A project can result in a significant impact on groundwater supplies if it causes a demonstrable and sustained reduction of groundwater recharge capacity or changes the potable water levels such that it reduces the ability of a water utility to use the groundwater basin for public water supplies or storage of imported water, reduces the yields of adjacent wells or well fields, or adversely changes the rate or direction of groundwater flow.
The Project would result in a net increase in potable water demand for indoor and outdoor use. Additionally, a finite amount of water would be used during construction for dust suppression. The sufficiency of water supplies for the Project will be further evaluated in the Utilities and Service Systems section of the Draft EIR.
These potable water supplies may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources but would not change the volume of water withdrawn from the Raymond Basin, as such withdrawal is controlled by the Raymond Basin Management Board.
Additionally, the Project would not involve an increase in impervious surfaces that would impede stormwater infiltration. As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, the Project site would have a similar coverage of impervious surface area with Project implementation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not materially affect groundwater recharge. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the sufficiency of water supplies for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial will be further evaluated in the Utilities and Service Systems section of the Draft EIR, as these potable water supplies may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources. The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same post-development coverage of impervious surfaces as the Project, which is similar to the existing conditions. Therefore, as discussed, there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-37 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, the Project site would remain largely impermeable with Project implementation. As in the existing condition, any storm water discharging from the site would enter the municipal storm drain system via Arroyo Parkway. Also, the site is not located in proximity to a stream or other drainage. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same post-development drainage pattern as the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, the Hydrology Study prepared for the Project determined that, with implementation of the planned LID features–either infiltration or biofiltration–there would be a slight decrease in storm water runoff volumes. The appropriate LID features would be a requirement of building permit review and a condition of approval for the Project. The site would remain largely permeable with Project implementation, with the same general drainage pattern on the site. Therefore, the Project would Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-38 Environmental Checklist Form not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that on- or off-site flooding would occur.
There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would implement the same LID features to manage storm water runoff as the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that onor off-site flooding would occur. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
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?
WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, the Hydrology Study prepared for the Project determined that, with implementation of the planned LID features—either infiltration or biofiltration—there would be a slight decrease in storm water runoff volumes. The site would remain largely impermeable with Project implementation and would maintain the same general drainage pattern on the site as the existing condition.
Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the municipal storm drainage system. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would implement the same LID features to manage storm water runoff as the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the municipal storm drainage system. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-39 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, the Project site would remain largely impermeable with Project implementation. As in the existing condition, any storm water discharging from the site would enter the municipal storm drain system via Arroyo Parkway. Also, the site is not located in proximity to a stream or other drainage. Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the same post-development drainage pattern as the Project. Therefore, as discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
WHY?
Project
No portions of the City are within a 100-year floodplain, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As shown on FEMA FIRM panel 06037C1375F, the Project site is located in Zone X (FEMA 2008). Zone X is located outside of the special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance of flood (100-year floodplain), and no floodplain management regulations are required. In addition, according to the City’s Dam Failure Inundation Map (Plate P-2 of the Safety Element) the Project site is not located in a dam inundation area (City of Pasadena 2002a). The City is not located in proximity to any inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by either a seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the Project would neither introduce pollutants to the site nor risk release of pollutants due to inundation, including during intense storm events. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-40 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the City is not in a 100-year floodplain nor at risk of inundation by either a seiche or tsunami. The Project site in not within a dam inundation area (City of Pasadena 2002a).
Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would neither introduce pollutants to the site nor risk release of pollutants due to inundation, including during intense storm events. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? WHY?
Project
As discussed under Threshold 2.10(a) above, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect water quality through compliance with the Construction General Plan and LID/County MS4 requirements during construction or operation, respectively.
The Raymond Basin, the Pasadena Water and Power’s (PWP’s) source of groundwater, is defined by the California Department of Water Resources as a very-low priority pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (DWR 2019). As such, there is currently no sustainable groundwater management plan applicable to the Project site. Regardless, as discussed under Threshold 2.10(b) above, the increase in demand for potable water during construction and operation of the Project, which may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources, would not change the volume of water withdrawn from the Raymond Basin, as such withdrawal is controlled by the Raymond Basin Management Board as an adjudicated basin. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there is currently no sustainable groundwater management plan applicable to the site. Regardless, as discussed under Threshold 2.10(b) above, the increase in demand for potable water during construction and operation of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, which may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources, would not change the volume of water withdrawn from the Raymond Basin, as such withdrawal is controlled by the Raymond Basin Management Board as an adjudicated basin. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-41 Environmental Checklist Form
2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
WHY?
Project
The Project would not physically divide an existing community, as the Project would involve the redevelopment of five adjacent parcels that consist solely of commercial land uses. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not divide an existing community because it would involve the redevelopment of five adjacent parcels that consist solely of commercial land uses. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
The primary land use planning documents that govern the Project site are the City’s General Plan, the Central District Specific Plan, and the Pasadena Zoning Code. The General Plan land use designation is High Mixed Use and the site is zoned CD-6 (Central District Specific Plan, Arroyo Corridor/Fair Oaks subdistrict). No General Plan amendment is proposed as part of the Project. However, the Applicant seeks approval to rezone the site as a Planned Development (PD) district and approval of a PD Plan. The City’s PD zone is a special purpose zoning district defined, pursuant to Section 17.26.020(C) of the PMC. The PD zoning district is “intended for sites where an applicant proposes and the City desires to achieve a particular mix of uses, appearance, land use compatibility, or special sensitivity to neighborhood character.” The Applicant is also requesting a zoning variance for historic resources. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting an increase in allowable building height to offset the reduction in developable area due to the preservation of the two historic structures on the Project site. Consistency with the applicable plans and policies of the City and the Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-42 Environmental Checklist Form region (i.e., SCAG) will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR, with a focus on plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would also involve approval to rezone the site as a PD District, approval of a PD Plan, and a zoning variance for historic resources. Consistency with the applicable plans and policies of the City and the region (i.e., SCAG) will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR, with a focus on plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-43 Environmental Checklist Form
2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
WHY?
Project
No active mining operations exist in the City. There are two areas in Pasadena that have been identified by the CGS as Mineral Resource Zone 2, which is defined as areas where geologic data indicate the significant PCC-Grade aggregate resources are present. These two areas are Eaton Wash and Devil’s Gate Reservoir, which were both formerly mined for aggregate (CGS 1982, 2010). Neither the Project site nor surrounding areas are presently utilized for mineral production and mining is not an allowed use in the City’s zoning code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resource with value to the region. There will be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, neither the Project site nor surrounding areas are presently utilized for mineral production and mining is not a permitted use in the City’s zoning code. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in the loss of available known mineral resources with value to the region. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element does not identify any mineral recovery sites within the City (Pasadena 2015b). No active mining operations exist in the City, and mining is not currently allowed within any of the City’s designated land uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts from the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no mitigation is required.
This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-44 Environmental Checklist Form Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, no active mining operations exist in the City, and mining is not currently allowed within any of the City’s designated land uses. Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not result in significant impacts from the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-45 Environmental Checklist Form
2.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
The proposed Project would generate noise from construction activity and operational mobile (e.g., cars, trucks, ambulances) and stationary noise sources (e.g., idling vehicles and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ([HVAC] equipment). The Applicant anticipates that there would be regular ambulance visits to the assisted care facility (approximately 10 per month). Potential impacts from temporary construction and permanent operational noise generation will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would generate noise from construction activity and operational mobile (e.g., cars, trucks, ambulances) and stationary noise sources (e.g., idling vehicles and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ([HVAC] equipment) similar to the Project. Potential impacts from temporary construction and permanent operational noise generation will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
WHY?
Project
Depending on the type of construction activities employed, construction of the Project could generate groundborne vibration that could affect nearby buildings, including the three existing buildings to be retained on the site. Potential impacts related to generation of vibration will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, depending on the type of construction activities employed, construction of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial could generate groundborne vibration that could affect Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-46 Environmental Checklist Form nearby buildings, including the three existing buildings (i.e., two historic structures and Whole Foods Market) to be retained on the site. Potential impacts related to generation of vibration will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
WHY?
Project
There are no public or private airports located within two miles of the Project site. The closest airport to the site is the Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly Bob Hope Airport), located more than 12 miles west-northwest of the site. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people to excessive airport-related noise. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the site is not near any air facility, and development of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not expose people to excessive airport-related noise. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-47 Environmental Checklist Form
2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 the extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
WHY?
Project
The Project involves the construction and operation of medical office, commercial, and an assisted living building with both assisted living uses and independent living uses, which would result in a new permanent resident population on the Project site of up to 109 persons in the up to 95 senior housing units. While it is unlikely that all residents of the independent living units of the assisted living building would relocate to the City, for purposes of this analysis it is assumed that persons occupying the independent living units would be new residents. The City considers the independent living units within the assisted living building to be residential units because each unit would have a kitchen and areas for living and sleeping. Conversely, the assisted living uses would not have a kitchen, and are not considered residential units by the City for planning and zoning purposes. The assisted living facilities would care for up to an estimated 113 persons.
The medical office building is expected to result in 881 employees and the assisted living building is expected to result in 66 employees. The current (as of May 2021, the most recent published data) unemployment rate in the City of Pasadena is 8.4 percent and in the County of Los Angeles is 10.1 percent and has averaged
5.2 percent in the County from 2015 through 2019 (i.e., the five calendar years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic)(EDD 2021a, 2021b). Therefore, most or all of new employment positions generated by the Project are anticipated to be filled by the local labor pool in the region and would not require relocation to the City such that unplanned population growth exceeding projections would occur.
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan identifies a total development capacity of 4,272 residential units and 2,112,000 sf of commercial land uses in the Central District (Pasadena 2015b). The Project includes 98,576 sf of independent living uses, with up to 95 residential units, 85,800 sf of assisted living uses, and 154,000 sf of medical office and commercial uses. As of May 31, 2021, building permits have been issued for 1,721 residential units and 792,757 sf of commercial land uses. Therefore, there is adequate remaining development capacity in the Central District to accommodate the Project. Furthermore, the Project site is in a developed urban area with an established roadway network and in-place infrastructure. Therefore, development of the Project and its potential employment opportunities would not require extending or improving infrastructure in a manner that would indirectly facilitate population growth. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial could result in new permanent population of up to 493 persons5 in the up to 197 units, and the assisted living building (Building B) could result in a permanent 5 Based on average household size of 2.5 for the City of Pasadena per the most recent (2019) profile of the City generated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG 2019).
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-48 Environmental Checklist Form resident population of 109 persons in the up to 95 independent living units. As discussed in Section 1.0 of this Initial Study, based on the development cap of 87 du/acre, a total of 289 units could be constructed.
Therefore, if a total of 197 units were constructed in Building A, only 92 independent living units could be constructed in Building B. Conversely, if 95 independent living units were constructed in Building B, only 194 units could be constructed in Building A. Because the dwelling units in Building A would have a higher average population (2.5 persons) than the independent living units (1.14 persons), as the more conservative approach it is assumed the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be implemented with 197 units in Building A and 92 units in Building B as this would result in a higher population generation. This scenario would result in a total population of approximately 664 persons in the same size buildings as the Project (338,376 sf). As with the Project, the assisted living building is expected to result in 66 employees.
Under this development scenario, Building A would include a leasing/sales management office that would employ a small number of individuals and potentially employ maintenance personnel as well. As discussed above for the Project, based on the unemployment rate in the City in the five calendar years prior to the pandemic, it is expected that most or all of new employment positions generated by the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be filled by the local labor pool in the region and would not require relocation to the City such that unplanned population growth exceeding projections would occur.
There is adequate remaining development capacity (2,551 residential units and 1,319,243 sf of commercial land uses) in the Central District to accommodate the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. As discussed for the Project above, development of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not indirectly induce substantial population growth because the site development would not require extending or improving infrastructure, and job opportunities are not anticipated to require substantial relocation. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
WHY?
Project
The Project site does not contain any existing dwelling units, and there are no persons currently residing at the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any people or housing. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, there are no existing dwelling units or persons residing on the site.
Therefore, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would not displace any people or housing.
There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-49 Environmental Checklist Form
2.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
WHY?
Project
As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, above, the Project would result in direct population growth in the City. There would be increased demand for fire protection and police protection services related to both the increased population and the increased scale of building development on the site. The Project’s resident population would generate an increased demand for parks and other public facilities, such as libraries. The increased demand for these public services and whether it would result in the need for new or expanded facilities that could result in environmental impacts will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
As discussed for the Project above, the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in increased demand for fire protection and police protection services. The increased residential population with development of the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, which would be greater than with the Project, would generate an increased demand for parks and other public facilities, such as libraries. The increased demand for these public services and whether it would result in the need for new or expanded facilities that could result in environmental impacts will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Affinity Project
Initial Study
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\IS_NOP\Affinity IS-072921.docx 2-50 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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:
iii) Schools?
WHY?
Project
As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, above, the Project would result in direct population growth in the City. However, because the population would be senior individuals, there would not be an increased demand for schools. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. However, as discussed below, because the proposed development may involve development of a residential building that would increase demand for schools, whether this would result in the need for new or expanded facilities that could result in environmental impacts will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Project with Building A Residential/Commercial
The Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in an increased demand for schools because, unlike the assisted living building, the dwelling units in the proposed residential building under this development scenario could include families with school-age children. Therefore, the increased demand for schools and whether it would result in the need for new or expanded facilities that could result in environmental impacts will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.