Additionally, the City will permit “Missing Middle” housing types in all residential zones citywide, except for in high fire hazard areas. Missing Middle housing types shall include duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, courtyard buildings, and cottage courts. The City will adopt objective design standards for each housing type.
• How addressed: The Housing Element was revised to reduce the area where missing middle housing will be allowed from citywide to the high-quality transit areas within the city. This revision was released for public review on March 7, 2023. Program 2.n does not change the height limit, it commits the City Council to bring forth a voter initiative to consider repealing or replacing the height limit and provides a new height limit if it is replaced. The Housing Element establishes a program for the voters to decide whether to establish a new height limit to achieve the densities required to meeting 3 - 597
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-244 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE the RHNA housing goals. Pursuant to the Court order in the existing litigation regarding failure to adopt a compliant Housing Element by the statutory deadline, the City is required to place a measure on the ballot to revise the height limit for residential uses. If the voters do not increase the height limit in certain areas, other zoning-based measures (such as conversion of current low density areas into higher density areas) will need to be analyzed and submitted to HCD for review.
Josh Albrektson (March 11, 2023)
This e-mail is CCed to City Council. SoPas planning Staff, and HCD. This is meant mostly for HCD.
There are two major problems with the 4th draft South Pasadena Housing Element. At first I thought they were mistakes but after my conversation with SoPas staff on Wednesday I realized they were intentionally done.
South Pasadena's housing element should not be accepted without these being changed, and it is my hope that South Pasadena changes them before the Housing Element is submitted on Monday. I told them they needed to fix it at our Wednesday meeting and in a subsequent e-mail.
1. The city is using intentionally low FAR to ghost zone the 70 DU/Acre and 110 DU/Acre and make them not feasible.
The March 2nd draft had FARs of 7.0 and 10.0 respectively. They released a new draft on March 7th that changed it to 2.5 FAR. That 2.5 FAR makes 70 and 110 impossible to build and staff knows this. 815 Fremont Ave is a 50 unit density bonus project approved by South Pasadena in April 2022. It has a FAR of 3.3, a density of 61.7 DU/Acre, and a height of 56 feet.
This is a real world example of the FAR needed to build in South Pasadena. Based on this approved project, the FAR for 70 DU/acre should be at least 3.75 and for 6.0 FAR for 110 DU/Acre.
The 2.5 FAR makes both of these densities impossible and the Housing Element needs to be changed to at least the numbers I listed above.
I raised this issue with SoPas staff at my 3/9 meeting, and I found out this was intentionally done.
When I told Allison Becker (AB) that the 2.5 FAR made 70 and 110 infeasible, she told me that General plans, specific plans, and housing elements need to be internally consistent and they changed it to 2.5 FAR because that is what was in the 2020 proposed Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).
I told her that was BS, because the Housing Element was going to have densities of 70 and 110, and if you actually wanted the documents to be internally consistent than the FARS needed to be changed because the 70 and 110 are going to be in the Housing Element and the FAR should be changed to be consistent with the required density.
She then changed her response to say that the community didn't support over 2.5. AB stated 2.5 FAR is what the community agreed to in the DSP in 2020.
AB and Grant Henninger (GH) then stated that the 2.5 FAR is there because of the 45 foot height limit and when the community votes to raise the height limit there will then be a discussion at that time with the community as to what the appropriate FAR should be. 3 - 598
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-245 Of note, I have an e-mail from Woody Tescher of Placeworks who wrote our 2020 DSP. The reason he said 2.5 FAR was picked was because that is the biggest building that could be built with 50 DU/Acre and 45 ft height limit. If that is the biggest that can be built under those conditions, then
2.5 FAR is absolutely inadequate for 70 Du/acre and 110 DU/acre at 84 feet.
This kind of ghost zoning is just as bad as their repeated claims that 70 DU/Acre was feasible under the 45 foot height limit and the Housing Element should be changed so that the FAR allows the density stated in the Housing Element to be built. It should be 4.0 for 70 DU/Acre and 6.0 for 110 DU/Acre.
2. SoPas is intentionally setting the zoning for site 3, Pavilions, significantly under what the owner's representative stated was needed for financial viability.
At the Feb first City Council meeting SoPas asked the owner of Pavilions to give a public comment stating that they wanted to redevelop the property and was not concerned about parking during construction. Mr Anderson, the owners lawyer, went much further than that.
Here is the link to the video. Starting at 2:07:30 he gave a 3 minute public comment and then at 2:12:08 he was called back to answer a question from Council Member Braun until 2:14:00. I really encourage you to listen to everything he said.
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/2023_02_01.cfm He said he was asked to sign a letter stating intent to redevelop and he did. He also said that he REPEATEDLY told SoPas staff that the zoning proposed in previous housing elements were not financially viable.
He said that the only way they would redevelop the property with housing is if they could replace the grocery store with a bigger grocery store and they were very interested in that.
He also stated that they needed 150-160 DU/acre for the zoning and 140 DU/acre was the absolute minimum needed for financial viability. He also said they could do it at 84 ft.
South Pasadena is zoning this lot for 110 DU/Acre and this is intentionally below what Mr. Anderson said was needed to be viable.
In the March 2nd draft the zoning was 10.0 FAR, 110 feet. and 110 DU/Acre. In the March 7th draft they changed it to 2.5 FAR, 84 feet, and 110 DU/acre.
In my meeting with SoPas Staff I told them that with the changes they were now zoned for less than the very specific requirements Mr. Anderson stated.
AB told me that they had removed Pavilions, like I asked them to. I said no you didn't. It is still there. AB said well they planned to. GH interrupted her and said that they should have this conversation offline.
It appears that there had been discussions in SoPas staff to remove site 3 with the zoning proposed. 3 - 599
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-246 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AB then asked me "Well, don't you think that this was just an ambitious proposal from the owner used as a negotiating tactic??"
The goal of a Housing Element and SoPas staff should be to actually have the housing be built. It should not be a negotiation with the owner to make the feasibility of a project so low with the least amount of apartments so that the project may or may not be built. This site is one of the best sites to build housing in all of SoPas and SoPas should be doing whatever is possible to put the most possible units on this site.
Instead they are intentionally making sure the zoning would not allow redevelopment.
This Housing Element should be rejected unless South Pasadena zones this site for 160 DU/acre as Mr. Anderson specifically stated was required.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: There is no intent by the City to make sure zoning standards do not achieve stated Housing Element goals. The City is committed to taking such actions within the required 120 days post-adoption to amend zoning and other codes to address the goals of the Housing Element. • How addressed: The stated FAR and other development standards outlined in Program 3.b of the Housing Element are consistent with the current height limit. When adopted, within 120 days after adoption of the Housing Element, the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and other zoning amendments will need to be consistent with the current height limit. If the height limit is repealed or increased through voter initiative, development standards for affected zones with residential uses will be updated to be consistent with the new height limit within 120 days thereafter. • How addressed: This draft of the Housing Element represents a significant increase in the density allowed on Site 15, from 70 to 110 du/ac. At the February 1st City Council meeting, the representative of this site indicated that they analyzed the site’s feasibility using the existing inclusionary requirement of 20%, as well as a higher requirement of 30%, and under those requirements would need at least 140 du/ac to make redevelopment of the site be feasible. The City is reducing the inclusionary requirement to 15% and providing significantly more incentives and reduced development standard requirements to ensure that redevelopment of sites like this one are feasible.
Furthermore, this site is not necessary for the City to meet its RHNA numbers, and instead the site only adds to the City’s RHNA buffer.
Mike Thurman (March 12, 2023)
Hi Michael!
I wanted to reach out and share my thoughts on a win-win approach to meeting the State’s housing element requirements. I looked over the City’s draft proposal and was surprised at the low estimate for ADU conversions (50 over the next eight years) in meeting the 2,067 additional unit requirement.
I believe that our city has hundreds of unpermitted ADU units that are currently fully occupied by low-income residents that are not being counted because of their status. Issuing permits for these fully-occupied units would immediately:
3 - 600
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-247
1. Lift the City’s count of the number of low-income residents that currently live in these units.
2. Increase homeowner property values by increasing the habitable square footage of their properties.
3. Allow homeowners to fully insure their properties for the full replacement value of their properties, including the ADU units.
4. Avoid any new construction and associated impacts for these additional units.
5. Avoid any new parking impacts for these existing units where residents are already housed.
City leadership may be under the impression that the City’s previous efforts to encourage ADU conversions generated only limited results, and therefore this might not a viable option for generating significant additional low income units. However, that impression is incorrect.
Based on my own experience, although City staff prepared a brochure and encouraged residents to apply for ADU conversions, suggesting these would involve low-cost and low-documentation reviews, in fact once the Building Department became involved it immediately become apparent that the costs associated with the conversion, including completion of a complicated application and architectural and structural engineering plan requirements, would be prohibitive, and my hunch is that the City received very few applications from that effort.
However, it is important to appreciate the fact that all of these unpermitted units in South Pasadena are already occupied, meaning that this prohibitive ADU conversion process has simply prevented existing units from being permitted and has guaranteed that they remain uncounted.
Another unfortunate reality is it appears from the Report that the City has no accurate count of the number of these units in the City. I firmly believe there are at least a dozen of these units located in just my neighborhood, one street within the City. My sense is this could, and should, be a much more significant element in the City’s plans for complying with the State requirements.
I believe our City could make a significant dent in meeting the State’s additional housing requirements, and at the same time support many of our homeowners, by carefully examining the ADU conversion process, simplifying it and providing additional resident support in the process. I can foresee (and will volunteer to lead or be part of) a citizen-led promotion of such a program to encourage and maximize ADU conversion application submissions by South Pasadena residents who own these units.
Thank you for considering these thoughts and for your continued service to our City. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback on this issue.
Best wishes to you and your family,
Mike Thurman
(626) 399-6205 (cell)
[email protected]
• How addressed: The Housing Element includes a significant discussion of the City’s existing ADUs, as well as projected ADUs accounting for a portion of the City’s RHNA requirements.
Additionally, the Housing Element includes programs to encourage and monitor the construction of ADUs to ensure that ADU production meets the projections throughout the planning cycle.
3 - 601
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-248 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Care First South Pasadena (March 12, 2023)
City of South Pasadena
Community Development Department
[email protected]
[email protected]
CC: California Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: South Pasadena Housing Element, Fifth Draft (March 7) Dear Ms. Frausto-Lupo:
We are dismayed by the City of South Pasadena’s unilateral revisions of the Fifth Housing Element draft between March 2 and March 7. These changes set back progress on the development of the 20 vacant Caltrans properties. The City is no longer committing to converting these properties to affordable housing on site and, instead, is returning to entertaining “alternative solutions” to Senate Bill 381.
The Caltrans properties are the only certain parcels of land for the development of 100% affordable housing in the foreseeable future in South Pasadena. Other programs and sites identified in the Housing Element are only ideas for potential developments. Similarly, zoning, building, and other code changes will not guarantee affordable housing development, functioning only to support and incentivize prospective projects.
The City’s March 7 revisions to the Caltrans properties continue the City’s decades-long history of racial and economic exclusion and do not affirmatively further fair housing.
It comes as no surprise that both the March 2 and March 7 drafts also fail to address our comments about the City’s use of historic preservation policies. The City will continue to use these policies to impede affordable housing development and maintain much of its racial and economic exclusion in higher resource neighborhoods. And, the City has no plans to stop doing so.
Worse, not only is the City attempting to skirt existing laws on fair housing and Caltrans properties, but the City has also eluded the public participation process required for the Housing Element.
Nothing in the March 7 version explains why the City made significant revisions from the March 2 version. Prior to March 2, the City held three public meetings on February 1, 9, and 15 to receive public comment and to direct City staff on how to revise the Housing Element. The March 2 version reflected these discussions. We can reasonably surmise that between March 2 and March 7, the City received comments from residents and Councilmembers and changed the draft accordingly, outside of the public process. The City must disclose in this draft, with opportunity for public comment, all communications it received pertaining to the fifth Housing Element draft.
Program 1.b. – Convert Caltrans Homes to Affordable Housing Constructing affordable units on the Caltrans sites is critical to bringing in any new affordable units in the City because there are no other sites in the City that are already obligated to hold 100% affordable housing. While the City committed to converting Caltrans homes to affordable housing on site in the 3 - 602
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-249 March 2 version of the Housing Element draft, it completely changed course on March 7. The City should adopt the March 2 version of this program.
In the March 2 version, the City wrote:
[T]he City will construct additional units, either as ADUs or Missing Middle housing, on the parcels to provide additional lower income units if feasible. These additional units are not accounted for in the City’s RHNA calculation, and will provide an additional buffer if constructed.
Redline Version, p. 266 (emphasis added).
In the March 7 version, the City added a new provision about alternatives to Senate Bill 381, and walked back its commitment to construct additional units on the sites of the Caltrans properties:
To ensure the financial feasibility of acquiring the unoccupied properties and in turn leveraging them to expand housing opportunities in South Pasadena, staff will explore whether there might be any alternative solutions to those provided by SB 381 that respond to the cost constraints of particular properties.
. . .
[T]he City may consider the construction of additional units, either as ADUs or Missing Middle housing, on certain parcels to provide additional lower income units if feasible. These additional units are not accounted for in the City’s RHNA calculation, and will provide an additional buffer if constructed.
Redline Version, p. 267 (emphases added).
Senate Bill 381 is not just one option for the disposition of the Caltrans homes. It is the only option because it is the law that governs what the City must do upon acquiring the homes from Caltrans.
In a March 8 meeting with Care First, City staff shared it is the City’s intention to comply with the spirit of Senate Bill 381—to convert the properties into affordable housing—but also it would like to explore “alternative solutions” for certain properties. These are contradictory goals. The City identified exempt properties to include ones that have the main subject of community debate: those located in the City’s higher resource neighborhoods. When we asked for the City’s inspection reports and other documents they are relying on to determine the feasibility of development, the City declined to share this information.9 The City fails to provide any evidence in this Housing Element to support its conclusions that some properties are not financially feasible for development.
As explained in our December 8, 2022, comment, the City has not disclosed legally viable “alternative solutions” to the public. Mayor Jon Primuth, alongside Cultural Heritage Commission Chair Mark Gallatin (who simultaneously sits on the board of the private non-profit organization, the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation), has publicly advocated for these solutions, despite the City Attorney’s opinion that these alternatives are unlawful.10 One such alternative is selling the Caltrans 9 The City has approved contracts for inspection services. See Agenda Items 22 and 23, City Council Meeting, July 20, 2022, https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30038/637934174414530000. 10 On November 2, 2022, then-Mayor Pro Tem Jon Primuth, as one of the two members of the SB 381 implementation committee, stated at a city council meeting: “There’s a proposal that we look at an alternative to SB 381. We are exploring 3 - 603
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-250 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE properties through a double escrow process and selecting preferred homebuyers vetted by the Cultural Heritage Commission. Again, Senate Bill 381 does not allow for this or other alternatives. Moreover, the Cultural Heritage Commission, which has a mandate to enforce the City’s historic preservation laws rooted in racial and economic exclusion, must not be allowed to participate in any homebuyer selection process.
If the City insists on continuing to explore “alternative solutions” to Senate Bill 381 in the Housing Element, it must explain what these alternatives are and why they are legally viable. Otherwise, the Department of Housing and Community Development should not approve this Housing Element which contains policy decisions that violate the law.
Program 3.m. – Implement SB 9 and SB 10
In the March 2 version, the City proposed to permit Missing Middle housing types “in all residential zones citywide, except in high fire hazard areas.” The City did not specify the types of Missing Middle housing types for each category of residential costs, only that they could include duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, courtyard buildings, and cottage courts.
In the March 7 version, the City narrowed the Missing Middle zones to “low density residential zones along high-quality transit corridors and/or transit stops, except for in high fire hazard areas.” At this time, our position is neutral on these changes. However, we note several areas for improvement and change:
• Specify Missing Middle housing types to include triplexes and fourplexes. Without concrete commitments on density, the City risks falling short of its promises to allow for greater density that as one of our options as well.” See http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/2022_11_02.cfm# (starting at approximately 02:44:00).
Yet about two months prior, Primuth conceded in an email to local residents that these alternatives to SB 381 are not legally viable:
The dilemma of what to do now under the requirements of SB381 is real. But there is a persistent talk that SB381 is optional. That's not my interpretation of the law. It's not our city attorney's interpretation of the law. It's the interpretation of the attorney designated by the SPPF [South Pasadena Preservation Foundation] proponents for the city to retain to obtain independent advise [sic]. All the public comment we will receive tonight is based on a false assumption, repeated against the overwhelming legal counsel they have received. I've spent hours exploring the option presented by SPPF in many public comments. I pointed out the problems and dead ends with their legal strategy. I've obtained a concession from a prominent SPPF member that their route requires bending the rules. There has been no concessions from the SPPF proponents. I am sorry to go on the record to criticize them, as they are fine, trustworthy friends and neighbors.
See Attachment 1 (November 2, 2022 email).
On December 7, 2022, Mark Gallatin made public comment at a city council meeting (starting at 1:04:00) sharing that the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation had "nominated the Caltrans homes in the historic 710 corridor . . . for inclusion on the 2023 list of America's 11 Most Endangered Places [maintained by the National Trust for Historic Preservation]." During the 710 freeway fight, designating South Pasadena as an endangered city was of "invaluable assistance" to keeping the freeway away. Gallatin continued in his comments: "We need nationwide attention again to return our historic neighborhoods to pre-Caltrans conditions and get the houses sold." Returning historic neighborhoods to pre-Caltrans conditions is code for maintaining their high income levels at the exclusion of lower income households and, as a result, disproportionately excluding Black and Latinx people. See http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/2022_12_07.cfm. 3 - 604
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-251 in these targeted areas. For example, if the City only allows for duplexes, that will not be financially feasible for developers and will not result in greater density. • Designate upzoning as the default policy (not an opt-in program). Staging this as an opt-in program creates another administrative hurdle in the development process rather than streamlining it; thus, this component of the program should be removed. • Define “high fire hazard areas.” The City leaves “high fire hazard areas” undefined in this draft. Based on the City Council and staff ’s public outreach discussions (e.g., Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, February 15, 2023), the intent of this provision is to account for areas that have a high risk of fire. This provision should be narrowly interpreted and should not be used broadly to designate as many neighborhoods as possible as high fire hazard areas.
The City currently defines the High Risk Fire Area as those properties located south of Monterey Road, extending to the city border, and west of Meridian Avenue, extending to the city border. This is broad and vague, with little empirical data to back these findings. The City lacks the specificity found in the surrounding municipalities (see https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/) and should not use this means of determination. It would be more appropriate to examine these based on street width and availability of fire hydrants.
Further, any measurable risk determination should shape the design methods used not prevent development. This blanket designation fails to acknowledge the many existing construction methods that can mitigate these risks.
• While the City is separated into zoned parcels (RE, AM, RS, RM, RH, MSSP), the City is not utilizing data that correlates household demographic information to these parcels. The City is using census tract data boundaries to define that demographic data. That is entirely inadequate, given that the city only intends to increase density along transit corridors.
The parcels that currently contain the most demographic diversity will have their densities increased while the more homogenous regions will remain significantly lower – despite their proximity to available resources and their relatively flat topography. The largest, flattest, lots in the City are currently zoned RE – and the current draft of the Housing Element largely omits those lots from any future density development. Given the small area of the City, restricting density to transit corridors largely serves the purpose of keeping density contained where it currently exists.
• Allow lot subdivisions. Another inadequate method being proposed is the use of SB 9 lot splits to achieve greater density. To date there has not been a single SB 9 lot split approved in the City. Studies have shown that the legal requirements of SB9 splits make them prohibitive (see https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/).
South Pasadena relies on this inadequate method because there is not true intention to allow for more diverse development. The underlying principle in the city's programming is that current property owners can increase density via ADUs. But this does not provide equitable pathways to ownership and upwards mobility, it reinforces existing socioeconomic boundaries.
A much more equitable means would be allowing lot subdivisions. The city’s Housing Element has only allowed for lot consolidations along existing corridors.
Goal 6.0 – Expand and strengthen tenant protections for South Pasadena’s existing renters Program 6.a – Rent Registry
3 - 605
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-252 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Program 6.b – Right to Return Policy
Program 6.c – Relocation Assistance
Program 6.d – Rent Stabilization
We are thrilled the City has included a comprehensive package of tenant protections in this draft of the Housing Element. The City’s commitment to establish a rent registry sets itself up to monitor the rental market in South Pasadena and to effectively enforce these tenant protections. By establishing several new tenant rights—right to return, relocation assistance, and rent stabilization—the City will be actively preserving affordable housing and ensuring housing stability for thousands of South Pasadenans. While we applaud the City staff’s efforts thus far to research, develop, and propose to City Council these policies, the draft should contain a firm date on implementation for each policy to ensure Councilmembers follow through with their commitments. The implementation date for all policies should be no later than the end of December 2023.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Care First South Pasadena
• How addressed: The City Council has made no determination regarding the purchase of any of the surplus Caltrans properties or the specific use of the properties. The City is still analyzing the financial feasibility of purchasing the properties and the various options for converting them to affordable housing. The City cannot commit to a specific course of action for the surplus Caltrans properties until that analysis is complete. Staff will explore additional possible solutions. • How addressed: The Housing Element does specify which types of missing middle housing will be allowed, including tri-plexes and four-plexes. As noted in the letter, the City does have a current definition of “high fire hazard areas.”
• How addressed: The Housing Element includes significant areas of Very Low and Low Density Residential uses where missing middle housing will be allowed, all within ½ mile of high quality transit corridors along Fair Oaks Avenue and Huntington Drive.
Gail Maltun, et al (March 12, 2023)
Dear City Manager Chaparyan , Council Members and City Planning Staff, We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the 5th Draft of the Housing Element.
While we understand that South Pasadena has been mandated by the State to provide more than 2,000 units of housing, we strongly believe that this can be achieved without the ill-conceived and draconian solutions proposed in this draft.
We are further distressed by the City’s failure to present this Draft to the citizens of South Pasadena.
The housing policies proposed in this document will drastically alter the architectural character of our City. Despite this, the Draft was released only to people who had previously signed up for updates on the Housing Element. That email went out on March 2, notifying us that comments on the more than 500-page document would be due in less than a week. The Neighborhood Pulse, distributed to the community by the City, included a cheery note about South Pasadena’s 135th Birthday, but not a word about the Housing Element.
A few of our major objections are detailed below:
3 - 606
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-253 • The new height limit is dictated to be a minimum of 84 feet. We support a modest increase in height to allow for well-designed four and five story buildings, but 84-foot buildings—with 110 feet mentioned elsewhere--would drastically change the character of our town. • In Program 3M, titled “Implement SB9 and SB10”, you commit the City to participating in SB
10. This is a voluntary program that the City had previously vowed to opt-out of. SB 10, as you know, will allow massive upzoning (with CEQA exemptions) of much of the City— anything within ½ mile of the Gold Line Station and possibly within ½ mile of major bus stops as well.
• An “Affordable Housing Overlay”—otherwise known as rezoning—has been proposed in Program 2J/k. This overlay would allow “up to 30 units per acre” in “selected sites outside of the Downtown and Mixed-Use districts”. Where this upzoning might land is completely unspecified: it might be on any street in town.
• The City commits to building “100% Low Income” units on several City-owned properties in the Downtown district. This is just terrible, outdated planning. Low-income units need to be incorporated into buildings that also include moderate and market rate units. To do otherwise is to stigmatize the residents of the low-income buildings and to create contemporary versions of the blighted “projects” of decades past.
• The “missing middle” units may sound great in concept, but what that means is eliminating single family zoning in a very large portion of the City. We believe most residents will find this objectionable.
• Perhaps our largest objection is the complete and intentional elimination of the more than 30 acres of City-owned land in the Arroyo from any consideration for development. The Arroyo Seco Golf Course and the Stables constitute, by far, the largest undeveloped land in the City.
They could accommodate the development of many hundreds of housing units – and produce a huge financial windfall for the City in a potential joint venture with a developer.
These properties are used by relatively few South Pasadena residents. Golf courses are waterguzzling facilities that are being redeveloped for housing throughout the State. The Stables are used primarily by upper-income horse owners, with stable prices ranging from $685-$785 per month, per horse. And the stables and golf course generate very little income for the city.
Despite these properties being characterized in the report as open, natural space, neither are “natural space,” and both are fenced off from the general public. Unlike the playing fields and park in the Arroyo, neither the Stables nor the Golf Course should be considered sacrosanct.
The Arroyo, both in South Pasadena and in the City of Los Angeles, already contains both single-family and multifamily housing. In the course of public meetings, both the stables and the golf course were proposed for housing sites. If we have to choose between putting housing on these two sites and eliminating single-family residential zoning in most of our city and allowing -10 story buildings, we believe the wiser choice is clearly to develop the stables and golf course properties. That the City excluded these two properties from our planning for housing at a time when the State is demanding more than 2,000 new units in our community demonstrates a level of ineptness and lack of imagination that borders on malpractice. • We also object to the general tone of self-flagellation that permeates the document. The inclusion of the excerpt from “When South Pasadena was a Sundown Town”, by Jerry Friedman (P. 104), and the heavy emphasis on our 70-year-old “Sundowner” past, in Section
6.4.6, “South Pasadena History,” is a biased, one-dimensional view of our City. It ignores the fact that we long ago evolved into one of the most racially, ethnically and economically diverse 3 - 607
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-254 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE cities in the area. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the task that the State has asked us to execute:
namely, locate sites for 2,000 housing units: nothing more, nothing less.
It will be difficult to incorporate more than 2,000 new housing units in South Pasadena in the next few years. No one thinks this task will be easy. But we believe that it is possible to do this without destroying the architectural character of South Pasadena. By adding the Golf Course and the Stables to the sites available for development; by concentrating larger multifamily complexes that combine lower/moderate/market units on major streets such as Huntington and Fair Oaks, the Ostrich Farm area, and the Gold Line Station area; and by a modest increase in height limits to allow well designed four and five story buildings in selected sites—we think that we can achieve a successful Housing Element that will spark a more vibrant downtown while preserving our peaceful streets and small town character.
Sincerely,
Gail Maltun
Alan Maltun
Niles A. Pierce
Gillian Pierce
Diemha Hoang
Kathy Eastwood
Michael Eastwood
Shelley Stephens
Valerie Greco
Nicolas Greco
Nichole Dunville
Mary Farley
Christina Schwarz
Benjamin Schwarz
Eileen Lee
David Lee
Mark Haines
Julie Winkle Giulioni
Peter Giulioni
Terry Halberg
Lilian Lu
Henry R. Jones
Margie Ferree Jones
Joe Jacob
Bonnie Tsang
Corey Miller
Charlene Miller
Katherine Adamson
Tina LaMonica
Clarice Knapp
Harry Knapp
Michael Messner
Pierrette Hondagner-Sotelo
Valerie Huber
Jenny Teal
3 - 608
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-255 David Ho
Vicki Ho
Deni Sinnott
Mako Koiwai
Donna Bartlett
Kevin Lutz
Deborah Lutz
Stephen Lawes
Gina Lawes
Joanne Nuckols
Tom Nuckols
Peter Lam
Wendy Lam
• How addressed: The City held three public meetings to discuss the changes made in this draft of the Housing Element, and ensured the community had ten days to provide public comments.
The City has a requirement to address issues related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and to accommodate the number of homes allocated to it through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. The policies in the Housing Element fulfill those requirements.
Julian Petrillo (March 13, 2023)
Hello there. Julian Petrillo here, going on 25-year resident of South Pasadena. Recently it came to my attention that there’s a draft of a new SP housing element which would consider allowing multi-unit dwellings just about anywhere, and also that height limits of 7-10 stories are under consideration.
These policies will change the way of life that all residents of 91030 prioritize and strive for when they pay their significant property taxes. I urge the city and staff to find another way to meet occupancy and density requirements, rather than taking on new regulations such as those.
Thank you for your consideration.
Julian Petrillo
800 Adelaine Avenue
• How addressed: The City is required by the State of California to address issues related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and in addition to accommodate the number of affordable homes and total number of homes allocated through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The City must then demonstrate plans which can accommodate these three housing goals.The policies in the Housing Element fulfill those requirements.
Mary Urquhart (March 13, 2023)
The 5th Draft on Housing Element is nearing its completion. However, I did want to make an additional comment before the final deadline.
We have City properties that should be considered when developing additional housing in order to provide affordable housing for City staff and the community at large. These properties could be considered alternatives to other options already identified by the City. We currently have an 18-hole golf course, which could be turned into a 9-hole golf course to allow for a girls’ softball field and possibly another playground and outside tennis courts. That would allow the city to build additional housing and affordable housing on the City-owned site located at 1102 Oxley Street, which actually "fronts" the intersection of Mission Street and Orange Grove Avenue, adjacent to a softball field and playground. The mechanical repair and storage building at that location should be moved to a 3 - 609
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-256 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE location outside of the area so critical to transportation. The community building at that location needs significant repairs and has limited historical relevance. A conversion to housing, moving the recreation facilities to the golf course area, would be a great solution. Using a 'layering approach' we can be creative to redesign this area to respect the adjacent homes and helps solve our housing crisis.
The proximity to the train station is key, and there is close access to the 110 Freeway.
Changing single-family residential neighborhoods to densify our city should change only after we have exhausted all available corridors on Fair Oaks, Huntington Drive, Mission Drive (west of The Gold Line), and the Arroyo.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Urquhart
• How addressed: The golf course was considered as a housing site during the February 1st City Council meeting. The City Council directed staff to find alternative to accommodate the city’s housing needs that did not remove recreational open space from the city. However, the City is committed to continue to analyze additional sites, including potential sites in the Arroyo. As the Housing Element is part of the General Plan, it must be consistent with other General Plan elements, including the Open Space Element which requires sufficient recreational space for the residents of the City. However, the City is committed to continue to analyze additional sites, including potential sites in the Arroyo in the future.
South Pasadena Tenants Union (March 13, 2023)
City of South Pasadena
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Attn: Allison Becker and Angelica Fausto
Re: AMMENDED 5th Draft Housing Element – Public Comment Dear Ms. Becker and Ms Frausto-Lupo:
After further contemplation, South Pasadena Tenants Union leadership is submitting this amended public comment on the March 7, 5th Draft Housing Element.
We are pleased to have reviewed the March 2nd, 5th Draft of the Housing Element. It was/is a bold and expansive housing element, one which might even be the best in the Southland. We applaud staff for the inclusions of the tenant protections and the acknowledgment that preserving affordable housing is a priority in this process. We look forward to working with the City, the residents of South Pasadena and the Council to ensure that these policies are the best that they can be and are enacted effectively and within a timeframe that is beneficial to those whom they are intended to protect: the
53.5%.
We are not happy to learn that the original draft of March 2nd was substantially revised and without any published responses/comments indicating public input. In reviewing the March 7th redline version, we oppose the proposed program addressing the fate of the CalTrans homes. In this draft, the proposed implementation of SB381 has changed drastically from the March 2nd version. It is our understanding that there are no legal alternatives to SB381 and therefore we are stymied by this latest 3 - 610
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-257 change and urge the City to revise the draft submitted to HCD to include the original text from March
2. With regard to the revision indicated by the March 7 version for citywide fourplexes, also significantly different from the March 2nd draft, we find that we can remain wholly supportive of the current proposed change. In order to ensure that the City can maximize housing for lower wage earning residents and middle income residents, we support triplexes and fourplexes being limited to the high transit areas with a rent stabilization ordinance that is fully enacted no later than December 2023.
Therefore, our one public comment regarding the most recent March 7 version of the 5th Draft Housing element is below:
For program 6.d, SPTU asks that you include within the 5th draft implementation of a rent stabilization ordinance by December 2023.
South Pasadena Tenants Union looks forward to seeing our input included with the expediency that other revisions have been made in the last few days so that we can comfortably and wholeheartedly commit our support of the 5th Draft to HCD. We are aware that at least one Councilperson had requested that her constituents oppose major components of the March 2 draft with letters to the City Manager. Within hours of that email being circulated, the March 7 redline version was published.
South Pasadena Tenants Union expects that the City act in good faith and weighs our input equally to that of other influencers in the community by including our abovementioned request.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached Anne Bagasao at [email protected] or by phone at 626-660-8837.
Sincerely,
Anne Bagasao, Co-Founder
• How addressed: The timeframe for Program 6.d requires that City Council consider a rent stabilization ordinance no later than December 2023.
Joanne Nuckols (March 13, 2023)
I am opposed to any unbundling or separating of parking from any housing development as on page 153 referencing Downtown Specific Plan. This would be a disaster with many unintended consequences. Any reference should be removed from the HE draft unless and until there is a thorough study of the negative impacts of doing so.
Joanne Nuckols
South Pasadena
• How addressed: The Housing Element incorporates existing California law with regards to parking in proximity to high-quality transit.
Ed Elsner (March 22, 23, and 24, 2023)
[Note from City: The City received three comments from this commentor over the course of three days all on the same subject. All three comments are shown below, and only one response is provided to these three comments since they deal with the same subject.] March 22, 2023 comment letter
Dear Director Frausto-Lupo,
3 - 611
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-258 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE The draft housing element’s rezoning capacity analysis (Table VI-51) is seriously flawed.
The table undercounts existing housing units. For example, every listed site whose current land use is High Density Residential is incorrectly shown as having “0” existing units. This error means that thousands of existing units have not been counted, and that the total Maximum Additional Development Capacity for the listed sites is therefore overstated by the same amount.
On the other side of the coin, the Table VI-51 miscalculates the total Development Capacity Adjustment for every listed site with a residential zoning capacity of 50 du/ac or more.
Although these sites are ostensibly given a 400% development capacity adjustment, the 400% adjustment is not included in the calculation of the total adjustment for any site, resulting in the understatement of total Anticipated Development Capacity by hundreds of units, possibly more. Anticipated Development Capacity is perhaps the most critical metric in the housing element.
These errors have obvious and serious implications for policy making.
For example, as a last-minute addition to the draft housing element, the rezoning of Huntington Drive (to mixed-use with 70 du/ac density) will promote the displacement of many residential tenants. As a practical matter, the displacement will be permanent, for the reasons discussed in my previous comment published at page B1-234 of the draft. The human impacts of mass eviction and involuntary displacement can be devastating, and the decision to rezone Huntington Drive was a rushed decision that was not supported by reliable data.
Every listed Medium Density Residential site and High Density Residential site whose existing unit count is shown as “0” or “1” is suspect and should be checked by searching the APN on the County Assessor’s online portal (https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/). The existing unit count for each site should be updated as necessary.
Also, the 400% density adjustment should be included in the total development capacity adjustment for every listed site with a residential zoning of 50 du/ac or more. There is likely a formula error in the spreadsheet that needs to be resolved.
Once these errors are fixed, a determination should be made whether it is really necessary to rezone Huntington Drive to mixed-use, 70 du/ac, in order to meet the city's RHNA obligations. If the city is able to rezone residential sites on Huntington Drive to 30 du/ac (medium density) or 45 du/ac (high density), as it is doing elsewhere in the city, this would minimize the displacement of existing tenants.
Thanks again for your continuing work on the housing element and for your consideration of these comments.
Ed Elsner
[email protected]
March 23, 2023 comment letter
A quick follow up to my comment submitted yesterday:
3 - 612
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-259 Once the 400% development capacity adjustment is correctly applied to listed sites with a density of 50 du/ac or more, the new total anticipated development capacity is 3,819 housing units according to my calculation.
To put this in perspective, this is 2641 more housing units than the 1,178 total anticipated development capacity stated in the draft housing element for the sites listed in the uncorrected Table VI-51.
It is also 574 more housing units than the city's entire RHNA allocation of 2,067.
With an accurate count of existing units, the total anticipated development capacity will decrease.
But the magnitude of the capacity adjustment error suggests that the city will be able to meet its RHNA obligations without needing to increase density on Huntington Drive to 70 du/ac.
In any event, I don't think the city should be committing to the rezoning programs included in the draft housing element until a corrected Table VI-51 is reviewed and analyzed, even if that means delaying the submission of the draft to HCD.
Thanks again,
Ed Elsner
[email protected]
March 24, 2023 comment letter
Dear Director Frausto-Lupo,
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the 5th draft housing element that will be submitted to HCD later today.
The draft indicates that the development standards for the Huntington Drive zone will mirror the standards for the Mission Street Zone of the Downtown Specific Plan.
One suggestion would be to clarify that with respect to residential parcels in the Huntington Drive zone whose current land use is Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential, a specific allowable density is yet to be determined through a zoning process subsequent to the adoption of the housing element, with input from the community and especially from residential tenants who live on Huntington Drive, who would be at risk of displacement from redevelopment.
Stated another way, the allowable 70 du/ac density for the Mission Street Zone in the Downtown Specific Plan should not be considered an objective general plan standard or criteria for the Medium Density Residential or High Residential Density parcels in the Huntington Drive Zone, but a possible allowable density along with 30 du/ac or 45 du/ac mentioned in my previous comments.
A 70 du/ac density in the Huntington Drive zone should be reserved for existing commercial parcels which would be more suitable for redevelopment as mixed-use projects, and I'm 3 - 613
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-260 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE confident that the city can still meet its RHNA obligations with lower densities for residential parcels on Huntington Drive.
One final suggestion, there should be protections against tenant harassment as part of the package of protections for residential tenants, with appropriate remedies to deter bad actors from improperly influencing tenants to vacate in order to avoid compliance with the other tenant protections the city is proposing.
Thanks again, and best of luck with the submission of the draft.
Ed Elsner
[email protected]
• How addressed: City staff met with commenter on 3/24/23, prior to his final comment, to discuss his concerns. Staff acknowledged the limitations of the dataset that is used for the capacity analysis (Table VI-51). Data was pulled from our vendor’s site and was not closely screened before building the new table. Staff also acknowledged the possibility of a formula error in the table. Upon further review after the meeting with the commenter, the City’s Housing Element consultant determined that there is not a formula error in the table.
Staff clarified that the purpose of the table was to illustrate the breadth of the future rezoning areas and that the upcoming general plan update process would be used to refine the rezoning strategies. Staff clarified that our obligation with the housing element is to identify areas where development can be achieved and our commitment is to engage in a public process to rezone within the areas identified to accommodate our RHNA obligations with a reasonable buffer in order to produce a responsible long-range general plan.
Staff addressed the potential impact of rezoning on existing multi-family residential buildings and underscored the City’s commitment to developing a slate of tenant protection programs.
Staff clarified that in the instance of Huntington Drive, the term “mixed-use zone” was used to reflect the existing corridor conditions with comingled multi-family and commercial zoning.
New “mixed use” is contemplated for existing commercially zoned properties, and increased development capacity is contemplated for existing multi-family properties. The City is not considering converting residential to commercial land uses.
Steven Appleton (March 24, 2023)
Public Comments on the City of South Pasadena 5th Draft Housing Element, Clean Version.
Submitted on March 23, 2023.
Submitted on March 24, 2023 at 11:55 am
COMMENT 1:
In several locations in the 5th Draft Housing Element of the City of South Pasadena the subject of Rental Housing inspections is addressed, including direct mention of Assembly Bill 838. References can be found on pages 7, 67,68,255 and B1-47. The following statement summarizes the City’s stated intent:
3 - 614
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-261 “To augment the City’s already established code enforcement work, Community Development staff will develop and propose for City Council’s approval a Rental Housing Inspection Program, which would entail systematic, proactive, and routine inspections of certain rental properties to ensure compliance with health and safety codes. This program will support the City’s inspection of rental properties in response to a tenant’s complaint of substandard conditions as required under AB 838 by not only providing the infrastructure and capacity for code enforcement but also preventing tenant habitability issues before they emerge. “page 7.
I am a tenant who complained about substandard conditions and requested Code Enforcement inspection of the unit my family rented in South Pasadena, but City refused to inspect even after July
1. 2022 when it was obligated to inspect per the provisions of AB 838. The City continues to state a policy of “no inspection” of rental housing. As such, I question the 8-year timetable for implementing a full inspection program stated on page 7. If the Housing Element is approved with such a liberal timeline for compliance with AB838, it would enable the continuation of practices that play a role in the displacement of tenants.
I offer the below as rational for my comment:
On three occasions after July 1, 2022, I requested Code Enforcement of the City of South Pasadena to inspect the premises because of improper egress (substandard stairs to unpermitted sleeping quarters), fire code violations, and lack of heating etc. In each case I was told that “City of South Pasadena does not have an occupancy inspection program and will not inspect the property.” I was referred to a nonprofit tenant’s rights group.
City of South Pasadena’s refusal to inspect our rental premises is an unfulfilled obligation. The failure to inspect as required by law impacted our move-out. Future tenants are also impacted. Objective code and habitability inspection would reveal unsafe conditions, including structural deficiencies caused by unpermitted construction that continue to pose risk to any future tenants. Therefore, I have continued to request an inspection of the premises based on the fact that the failure to inspect when requested is an unfilled obligation of the City. The response of City staff was to quote the “no rental housing inspection policy of the City,” as noted below:
Angelica Frausto-Lupo , Community Development Director, City of South Pasadena, January 17, 2023: “I had my building team look into the matter and there is insufficient reason for further investigation or to open a code enforcement case. Further, the City of South Pasadena currently does not have an occupancy inspection program and as such we will not pursue inspection of these properties.”
Paul Riddle, Fire Chief, City of South Pasadena, March 13, 2023:
“I discussed with our Building Department had they advised that this matter has insufficient reason for further investigation or to open a code enforcement case. They also cited the fact, the City of South Pasadena does not have an occupancy inspection program and as such they will not pursue inspection of these properties. Tenants can reach out to a landlord/tenant rights organization such as the Housing Rights Center, https://www.housingrightscenter.org/ or the LA County Department of Public Health to file a complaint.
I suggest that the Housing Element is deficient unless the City of South Pasadena revises it to state that the City of South Pasadena will:
3 - 615
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-262 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 1) Immediately accept and process rental housing inspection requests made by tenants or tenant agents in line with the provisions of AB 838.
2) Immediately instruct all staff to change messaging to reflect that tenants have a right to request an inspection and be informed of the results of inspections. 3) Retroactively inspect any housing where a complaint was made by a tenant after July 1,2022 but City refused to inspect. (If a request was made after July 1, 2022, the City’s refusal to inspect is an unfulfilled obligation. The unfulfilled obligation has continuing impacts on past and future tenants.)
COMMENT 2:
I guide you to page Page B1-135 under “How Addressed”. In reference to Table VI-26, the document states, “It should be noted that these units are all single-family properties, and do not include multiunit rental properties.” The Housing Element should clarify that the City will accept and process rental housing inspection requests of tenants of multi-family housing.
Steven Appleton
• How addressed: The City acknowledges that at the time of the events Mr. Appleton refers to, the City was unprepared to fulfill its responsibilities under AB 838. The City is currently aware of its responsibilities under AB 838 and we are attempting to comply with the law. Should a tenant contact the City to request an inspection, we will respond in compliance with AB 838. This obligation is being formalized into a program under the Housing Element by including a proposed occupancy inspection program which would entail systemic, proactive, and routine inspections of certain rental properties to ensure compliance with health and safety codes as noted in the Housing Element Program 1.c-“Housing Rehabilitation and Code Enforcement.” As stated in Program 1.c., the proposed occupancy inspection program “will support the City’s inspection of rental properties in response to tenant’s complaints of substandard conditions as required under AB 838 by not only providing the infrastructure and capacity for code enforcement, but also preventing tenant habitability issues before they emerge.”
Anonymous (March 24, 2023)
As a resident, small developer and commercial property owner on Huntington Drive, I think the city's future development needs require a more aggressive plan for the Huntington Corridor. Right now the Housing Element's main focus is developing the DTSP and expanding the DTSP development standards to other areas including the proposed mixed-use zones.(See Program 3.A and 3.B., Housing Element, 5th draft). But that seems flawed as the DTSP development standards are based on the limits of the downtown area. These include historical resources, the area's existing density, traffic congestion, the small two lane roads that make up Mission St.and Monterey St. and the many more smaller one lane roads that intersect them. However, none of these qualities exist in the same proportion on the Huntington Drive Corridor. Huntington Drive is about 110ft wide. It is a large 3 lane road with NO significant historical resource or comparable density and traffic. Consequently, Huntington Drive can support development standards that are DOUBLE that of the DTSP. With sufficient height and density allowance the majority of the City's RHNA obligations can be satisfied from this area alone. This would create less of a burden to develop the more historically sensitive neighborhoods that make up the DNA of the City's heritage and charms. However, as the area consists largely of income generating commercial and multi family properties, the DTSP development 3 - 616
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-263 standards as proposed (namely a 70/110 DU/AC and 2.5 F.A.R. is insufficient to motivate us to risk losing guaranteed existing income.
Consequently, creating a different development standard that provides for even more density and massing than the DTSP is warranted and should be supported. Additionally, developing the Huntington Corridor into a highly dense lively mixed use zone will create desperately needed housing and provide for the City's future growth whilst protecting the City's historic family neighborhood charm.
-Anonymous Resident, Owner and Small Developer
• How addressed: The Housing Element accommodates the City’s RHNA requirements throughout the city, including within the downtown area and along Huntington Drive.
Josh Albrektson (May 4, 2023)
At the Feb first city council meeting, Mr. Anderson, the lawyer for the pavilions property, clearly stated that he needed 140 to 160 DU/acre in order for the project to be feasible.
In response, the City of South Pasadena set the density to 110 DU/Acre, 35% lower than what Mr.
Anderson said was required for feasible. Alison Backer in her meeting with me told me that it was intentionally and they considered removing the site as a possible housing site.
South Pasadena is intentionally trying to make sure the pavilions cannot be redeveloped and they should be forced to rezone the Fair Oaks corridor to 140 DU/Acre.
If they do not do this, then there should be a hard deadline that if they do not have a project proposed on Fair Oaks, say by May 1st, 2026 then it would automatically go to 140 DU/Acre. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: As the City discussed with HCD during its April 24th meeting, Site 15 will be rezoned to allow for 110 du/ac, along with the entire Fair Oaks Avenue corridor. As HCD’s research shows, this density is sufficient to ensure the site is viable for redevelopment to residential uses. Furthermore, the comments made by the property owner’s representative during the February 1st City Council meeting mentioned a variety of viable densities. While they did state that 140 du/ac would be needed, that was with a higher inclusionary requirement than the city currently has, while the City has committed to reducing its inclusionary requirement, and to review and update the reduced requirement throughout the planning period to ensure that it does not create a constraint on development. 3 - 617
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-264 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE This page intentionally left blank.
3 - 618
Appendix C:
Letter to Property Owners
3 - 619
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1414 MISSION STREET, SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
TEL: (626) 403-7210 ▪ FAX: (626) 403-7211
WWW.SOUTHPASADENACA.GOV
October 20, 2020
[PROPERTY OWNER NAME]
[PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS LINE 1]
[PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS LINE 2]
Re: 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Dear Property Owner,
The City of South Pasadena (City) is in the process of updating its Housing Element of the General Plan as required by state law. The new Housing Element is intended to address the housing needs of current and future City residents. One of the requirements of the Housing Element is for the City to demonstrate that there is sufficient land to allow the development of a range housing types to include higher density multi-family units.
The City has identified the property at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], which our records indicate you own, as having the potential to be developed with higher density multi-family units. A development with up to 30 units per acre is already allowed in this location either under current zoning or would allowed by the draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, currently undergoing community input and anticipated for adoption in mid-2021. One of the options the community will consider through ongoing outreach is whether to allow increasing the height or density on specific sites or in certain areas of the City to accommodate more affordable housing.
The City would like your input regarding the future of your property. Are you interested in new residential development at [PROPERTY ADDRESS] within the next 3-8 years?
o If yes:
Have you already begun to explore this possibility?
Have you considered a particular type of project?
Have you considered developing the property with affordable units? Would an increase in height or density change your perspective? Do you have any concerns about your property being identified for potential housing development in the Housing Element?
We look forward to your input to ensure we develop the most accurate and feasible plan for our housing future.
Please send us an email at [email protected] to provide us with your feedback by November 3, 2020, so that we can complete our Housing Element update effort. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact Margaret Lin, Manager of Long Range Planning and Economic Development at [email protected] or (626) 403-7236.
Sincerely,
Joanna Hankamer
Director of Planning and Community Development
3 - 620
Appendix D:
Qualified Entities
3 - 621
3 - 622
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added FRESNO Fresno Housing Authority P.O. Box 11985 Fresno CA 93776 (559) 443-8475 Edward Stacy [email protected] (559) 445-8981Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/14/17 12/16/98 ALL COUNTIES American Baptist Homes of the W6120 Stoneridge Mall Road, 3rd F Pleasanton CA 94588 (925) 924-7162 Ancel Romero (925) 924-7233Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/22/98 ALAMEDA Housing Authority of City of Alam701 Atlantic Ave Alameda CA 94501 (510) 747-4300 Denise Connors [email protected] (510) 522-7848Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/23/98 ALAMEDA Housing Authority of the City of 3203 Leahy Way Livermore CA 94550 (925) 447-3600 Jon D. Hovey [email protected] (925) 447-0942Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/23/98 ALAMEDA Housing Authority of County of A22941 Atherton St Hayward CA 94541 (510) 538-8876 √ [email protected] (510) 727-8554Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 12/23/98 ALL COUNTIES USA Properties Fund 7530 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 1 West Hollywood CA 90046 (323) 650-8771 Jesse Slansky (323) 650-4745Local, regional, national public agenc X 12/13/13 12/23/98 CONTRA COSTA Rubicon Programs, Inc. 2500 Bissell Ave Richmond CA 90804 (510) 235-1516 Tom Matthews [email protected] (510) 235-2025Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/5/17 12/23/98 KERN Golden Empire Affordable Hous 3600 CheSte.r Ave. Ste. B Bakersfield CA 93301 (805) 633-1533 Gary Kammer (805) 633-1617Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/14/17 12/23/98 LAKE Lake County Housing Services D255 N. Forbes St. Lakeport CA 95453 (707) 263-2510 Linda Hedstrom [email protected] (707) 263-2751Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/14/17 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES West Hollywood Community Hou7530 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 1 West Hollywood CA 90046 (323) 650-8771 Robin Conerly [email protected] (323) 650-4745Local, regional, public agency X 8/14/14 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES City of Pomona Housing Authori 505 South Garey Ave Pomona CA 91766 (909) 620-2368 Benita DeFrank, Neighborhood Services Director (909) 620-3702Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/14/17 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES Hollywood Community Housing 1726 N. Whitley Ave Hollywood CA 90028 (323) 469-0710 Christina V. Duncan (323) 469-1899Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES Hope - Net 760 S. Westmoreland Ave Los Angeles CA 90005 (213) 389-9949 Canoace Whalen [email protected] (213) 389-0098Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES Skid Row Housing Trust 1317 E. 7th St Los Angeles CA 90021 (213) 683-0522 Jim Bonar (213) 683-0781Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 LOS ANGELES The Long Beach Housing Devel 333 W. Ocean Blvd., 2nd Flr Long Beach CA 90802 (562) 570-6926 Diana V. McNeel (562)570-6746 Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 MARIN Housing Authority of the County 4020 Civic Center Drive San Rafael CA 94903 (415) 491-2530 Anna Semenova [email protected] (415) 491-2530Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 12/23/98 MARIN Canal Community Alliance 91 Larkspur St San Rafael CA 94901 (415) 454-2640 Tom Wilson [email protected] (415) 454-3967Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 ORANGE Neighborhood Housing Services 350 Hillcrest La Habra CA 90631 (562) 694-2051 Diane Ste.wart [email protected] (562) 694-2052Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SAN DIEGO Housing Development Partners 1122 Broadway, Suite 300 San Diego CA 92101 (619) 578-7555 Dottie Pierce [email protected] (619) 578-7360Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 12/23/98 SAN DIEGO San Diego Housing Commission1122 Broadway, Suite 300 San Diego CA 92101 (619) 578-7555 Dottie Pierce [email protected] (619) 578-7360Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/23/98 SAN DIEGO COUHousing Development Partners 1122 Broadway, Suite 300 San Diego CA 92101 (619) 578-7590 Dottie Pierce [email protected] (619) 578-7356Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 12/23/98 SAN FRANCISCOTenderloin Neighborhood Develo201 Eddy St San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 776-2151 Don Falk [email protected] (415) 776-3952Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SAN JOAQUIN Stockton Shelter for the Homele P.O. Box 4803 Stockton CA 95204 (209) 465-3612 Bill Mendelson (209) 943-4806Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SANTA CLARA Cambrian Center, Inc. 2360 Samaritan Place San Jose CA 95124 (408) 559-0330 Dale J. Harrington [email protected] (408) 377-0478Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SANTA CLARA Charities Housing Development 195 East San Fernando St San Jose CA 95112 (408) 282-1125 Chris Block [email protected] (408) 282-1130Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SANTA CLARA Palo Alto Senior Housing Projec 455 E. Charleston Rd Palo Alto CA 94306 (650) 494-1944 Genie Dee [email protected] (650) 493-7437Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 SONOMA Burbank Housing Development 3432 Mendocino Ave Santa Rosa CA 95403 (707) 526-9782 John Lowry [email protected] (707) 526-9811Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/23/98 ALAMEDA Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G Berkeley CA 94702 Susan Friedlow (510) 649-0312Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/9/17 12/24/98 ALL COUNTIES Resources for Community Deve 2220 Oxford St Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 841-4410 Dan Sawislak [email protected] (510) 548-3502Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/5/17 12/24/98 ALPINE Amador-Tuolumne Community A935 South State Highway 49 Jackson CA 95642 (209) 223-1485 ERaj Rambob [email protected] (209) 223-4178Local, regional, national public agenc X 5/24/17 12/24/98 CALAVERAS ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 COLUSA Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 CONTRA COSTA ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 CONTRA COSTA East Bay NHS 2320 Cutting Blvd Richmond CA 94804 (510) 237-6459 (510) 237-6482Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 CONTRA COSTA Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G Berkeley CA 94702 (510) 649-8500 Susan Friedlow (510) 649-0312Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/24/17 12/24/98 CONTRA COSTA Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 EL DORADO Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 FRESNO ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 FRESNO Better Opportunities Builder, Inc P.O. Box 11863 Fresno CA 93775 (559) 443-8400 Tracewell Hanrahan [email protected] (559) 443-8495Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/24/98 GLENN Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 KERN Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 KINGS Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 LASSEN Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 LOS ANGELES Housing Authority of the City of 2500 Wilshire Blvd, PHA Los Angeles CA 90057 (213) 252-4269 Larry Goins Local, regional, national public agenc X 3/3/11 12/24/98 LOS ANGELES Century Housing Corporation 1000 Corporate Pointe Culver City CA 90230 (310) 642-2007 Ronald A. Griffith (310) 258-0710Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 MADERA ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 MADERA Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 MARIN Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 MARIN Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 MARIPOSA Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 MERCED ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 MERCED Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave. Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 1 of 8
3 - 623
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added MERCED Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 MONTEREY Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition303 Vintage Park Drive, #250 Foster City CA 94404 (650) 356-2900 (650) 357-9766Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 MONTEREY Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 MONTEREY South County Housing, Inc. 7455 Carmel St Gilroy CA 95020 (408) 842-9181 Jan Lindenthal [email protected] (408) 842-0277Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 NAPA Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 ORANGE Century Housing Corporation 1000 Corporate Pointe Culver City CA 90230 (310) 642-2007 Ronald A. Griffith (310) 258-0710Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 ORANGE Civic Center Barrio Housing Cor 1665 E. 4th St, Ste. 210 Santa Ana CA 92701 (714) 835-0406 Helen Brown [email protected] (714) 835-7354Local, regional, national public agenc X 12/24/98 PLACER ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 PLACER Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 PLACER Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 RIVERSIDE St. Vincent de Paul Village 3350 E St San Diego CA 92102 (619) 687-1029 Bill Bolstad (619) 687-1010Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/24/98 RIVERSIDE Neighborhood Housing Services 1390 North D St San Bernardino CA 92405 (909) 884-6891 Edward Moncrief [email protected] (909) 884-6893 X 12/24/98 SACRAMENTO ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 SACRAMENTO Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 SACRAMENTO Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SAN BENITO South County Housing, Inc. 7455 Carmel St. Gilroy CA 95020 (408) 842-9181 Jan Lindenthal [email protected] (408) 842-0277Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SAN BERNARDINCentury Housing Corporation 1000 Corporate Pointe Culver City CA 90230 (310) 642-2007 Ronald A. Griffith (310) 258-0710Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SAN BERNARDINNeighborhood Housing Services 1390 North D St San Bernardino CA 92405 (909) 884-6891 Edward Moncrief [email protected] (909) 884-6893 X 12/24/98 SAN DIEGO St. Vincent de Paul Village 3350 E St San Diego CA 92102 (619) 687-1029 Harvey Mandel [email protected] (619) 687-1010Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SAN DIEGO Civic Center Barrio Housing Cor 1665 E. 4th St, Ste. 210 Santa Ana CA 92701 (714) 835-0406 Helen Brown [email protected] (714) 835-7354Local, regional, national public agenc X 12/24/98 SAN FRANCISCOAffordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SAN JOAQUIN ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 SAN JOAQUIN Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 SAN MATEO Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition303 Vintage Park Drive, #250 Foster City CA 94404 (650) 356-2900 (650) 357-9766Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SAN MATEO Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SAN MATEO Palo Alto Housing Corp 725 Alma St Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 321-9709 Marlene H. Prendergast (650) 321-4341Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SANTA CLARA Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition303 Vintage Park Drive, #250 Foster City CA 94404 (650) 356-2900 (650) 357-9766Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SANTA CLARA Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SANTA CLARA Palo Alto Housing Corp 725 Alma St Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 321-9709 Marlene H. Prendergast (650) 321-4341Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SANTA CLARA South County Housing, Inc 7455 Carmel St Gilroy CA 95020 (408) 842-9181 Jan Lindenthal [email protected] (408) 842-0277Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SANTA CRUZ Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition303 Vintage Park Drive, #250 Foster City CA 94404 (650) 356-2900 (650) 357-9766Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SANTA CRUZ Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SANTA CRUZ South County Housing, Inc 7455 Carmel St Gilroy CA 95020 (408) 842-9181 Jan Lindenthal [email protected] (408) 842-0277Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SISKIYOU Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 SOLANO ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 SOLANO Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition303 Vintage Park Drive, #250 Foster City CA 94404 (650) 356-2900 (650) 357-9766Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 SOLANO Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G Berkeley CA 94702 (510) 649-8500 Susan Friedlow (510) 649-0312Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/24/17 12/24/98 SOLANO Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 SONOMA Affordable Housing Foundation P.O. Box 26516 San Francisco CA 94126 (415) 387-7834 Eric Tang [email protected] (415) 752-9902Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/98 STANISLAUS ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 STANISLAUS Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 TULARE Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/10/18 12/24/98 TUOLUMNE ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 VENTURA Century Housing Corporation 1000 Corporate Pointe Culver City CA 90230 (310) 642-2007 Ronald A. Griffith (310) 258-0710Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/24/98 YOLO ACLC, Inc 315 N San Joaquin St Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 (209) 466-3465Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 12/24/98 YOLO Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Courtney Tatum, Kat [email protected] (916) 338-1248Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/24/98 ALL COUNTIES BRIDGE Housing Corporation 345 Spear Strett, Suite 700 San Francisco CA 94105 (415) 989-1111 Brad Wiblin (415) 495-4898Local, regional, national public agenc X 12/24/10 12/28/98 AMADOR Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 CALAVERAS Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 COLUSA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 COLUSA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 CONTRA COSTA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 EL DORADO Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 GLENN Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2 of 8
3 - 624
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added LOS ANGELES FAME Corporation 1968 W. Adams Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90018 (323) 730-7727 Sandra Hernandez [email protected] (323) 737-5717Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/28/98 NAPA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 NEVADA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 PLACER Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 SACRAMENTO Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 SAN JOAQUIN Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 SHASTA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 SUTTER Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 TEHAMA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 YOLO Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 YUBA Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento CA 95691 (916) 414-4436 Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/28/98 RIVERSIDE BUILD Leadership Development 1280 Bison, Ste. B9-200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 720-7044 Tracy Green [email protected] (949) 720-7434Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 SACRAMENTO Sacramento Valley Organizing C3263 1st Ave Sacramento CA 95817 (916) 457-0245 Larry Ferlazzo [email protected] (916) 457-0207Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 SAN BERNARDINBUILD Leadership Development 1280 Bison, Ste. B9-200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 720-7044 Tracy Green [email protected] (949) 720-7434Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 SAN FRANCISCOBUILD Leadership Development 1280 Bison, Ste. B9-200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 720-7044 Tracy Green [email protected] (949) 720-7434Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 SOLANO Sacramento Valley Organizing C3263 1st Ave Sacramento CA 95817 (916) 457-0245 Larry Ferlazzo [email protected] (916) 457-0207Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 YOLO Sacramento Valley Organizing C3263 1st Ave Sacramento CA 95817 (916) 457-0245 Larry Ferlazzo [email protected] (916) 457-0207Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/29/98 ALL COUNTIES Foundation for Affordable Housi 384 Forest Ave., Suite 14 Laguna Beach CA 92651 (949) 443-9101 Darrin Willard (949) 443-9133Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 BUTTE Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 GLENN Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 LASSEN Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 PLUMAS Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 SHASTA Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 SUTTER Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 TEHAMA Community Housing Improveme1001 Willow St Chico CA 95928 (530) 891-6931 Kris Zappettini [email protected] (530) 891-8547Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 12/30/98 ALAMEDA East Bay Asian Local Developm 310 Eighth Street, Ste. 200 Oakland CA 94607 Lynette Jung Lee [email protected] (510) 763-4143Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/9/17 1/5/99 CONTRA COSTA East Bay Asian Local Developm 310 Eighth Street, Suite 200 Oakland CA 94607 (510) 287-5353 (510) 763-4143Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/5/17 1/5/99 FRESNO Fresno Co. Economic Opportuni3120 W. Nielsen Ave., Ste. 102 Fresno CA 93706 (559) 485-3733 George Egawa [email protected] (559) 485-3737Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/14/17 1/5/99 SOLANO Fairfield Redevelopment Agency1000 WebSte.r St., 2nd Floor Fairfield CA 94533 (707) 428-7688 Lark Solis [email protected] (707) 428-7621Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/5/99 EL DORADO El Dorado County Housing Auth 937 Spring St Placerville CA 95667 (530) 621-6167 Joyce Aldrich [email protected] Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 6/14/17 1/6/99 LOS ANGELES American Family Housing 15161 Jackson St. Midway City CA 92655 (714) 897-3221 Donna Gallup [email protected] (714) 893-6858Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/5/17 1/6/99 SAN FRANCISCOBernal Heights Neighborhood Ce515 Cortland Ave San Francisco CA 94110 (415) 206-2140 Housing Director (415) 648-0793Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/6/99 SAN FRANCISCOMission Housing Development C474 Valencia St, Ste. 280 San Francisco CA 94103 (415) 864-6432 Philip Dockow (415) 864-0378Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/8/99 STANISLAUS Modesto Redevelopment Agenc 940 11th St Modesto CA 95355 (209) 577-5247 Bill Cooper [email protected] (209) 544-3982Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/8/99 SAN FRANCISCOChinatown Community Developm1525 Grant Ave San Francisco CA 94133 (415) 984-1450 Joanne Lee [email protected] (415) 984-1494Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/11/99 ALL COUNTIES The Trinity Housing Foundation 836 Avalon Ave Lafayette CA 94549 (925) 385-0754 Bill Leone [email protected] (925) 215-2403Local, regional, national public agenc X 2/26/14 1/12/99 LOS ANGELES The Long Beach Housing Devel 836 Avalon Ave Lafayette CA 94549 (925) 385-0754 Bill Leone [email protected] (925) 215-2403Local, regional, national public agenc X 6/14/12 1/12/99 LOS ANGELES PICO Union Housing Corporatio 1038 Venice Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90015 (213) 747-2790 Jesus Torres [email protected] (213) 743-3819Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 1/12/99 VENTURA A Community of Friends 836 Avalon Ave Lafayette CA 94549 (925) 385-0754 Bill Leone [email protected] (925) 215-2403Local, regional, national public agenc X 6/14/12 1/12/99 LOS ANGELES Korean Youth & Community Cen680 S. Wilton Place Los Angeles CA 90005 (213) 365-7400 Jimmy Lee (213) 353-1280Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/19/99 CONTRA COSTA Pacific Community Services, Inc329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Box 1397 Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-1056 Tom LaFleur [email protected] (925) 439-0831Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/5/17 1/21/99 IMPERIAL Coachella Valley Housing Coalit 45-701 Monroe St, Ste. G., Plaza Indio CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Emilia Mojica [email protected] (760) 342-6466Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/14/17 1/21/99 RIVERSIDE Coachella Valley Housing Coalit 45-701 Monroe St, Ste. G., Plaza Indio CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Emilia Mojica [email protected] (760) 342-6466Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/14/17 1/21/99 SAN BERNARDINCoachella Valley Housing Coalit 45-701 Monroe St, Ste. G., Plaza Indio CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Emilia Mojica [email protected] (760) 342-6466Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/14/17 1/21/99 SAN DIEGO Coachella Valley Housing Coalit 45-701 Monroe St, Ste. G., Plaza Indio CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Emilia Mojica [email protected] (760) 342-6466Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/14/17 1/21/99 SOLANO Pacific Community Services, Inc329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Box 1397 Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-1056 Tom LaFleur [email protected] (925) 439-0831Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/21/99 SONOMA Pacific Community Services, Inc329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Box 1397 Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-1056 Tom LaFleur [email protected] (925) 439-0831Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/21/99 ALAMEDA Community and Economic Deve250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Ste. 53Oakland CA 94612 (510) 238-3502 Jefferey P. Levin [email protected] (510) 238-3691Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/9/17 1/27/99 ALAMEDA Bay Area Community Services 629 Oakland Ave Oakland CA 94611 (510) 499-0365 Daniel Cooperman [email protected] (510) 569-4589Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/9/17 1/28/99 ALL COUNTIES National Community Renaissanc9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamon CA 91730 (909) 204-3508 Tracey Williams [email protected] (909) 483-6524Local, regional, national public agenc X 5/24/17 5/17/99 ALL COUNTIES Community Housing Assistance 3803 E. Casselle Ave Orange CA 92869 Ken Robertson [email protected] (714) 744-6850Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 5/18/99 CONTRA COSTA Community Housing Developme1535 Fred Jackson Way ste A Richmond CA 94801 (510) 412-9290 Donald Gilmore [email protected] (510) 215-9276Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 5/19/99 DEL NORTE Redwood Community Action Age904 G St. Eureka CA 95501 (707) 269-2021 Bill Rodstrom [email protected] Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 3 of 8
3 - 625
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added HUMBOLDT Redwood Community Action Age904 G St Eureka CA 95501 (707) 269-2021 Bill Rodstrom [email protected] Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 LOS ANGELES Long Beach Affordable Housing 5855 Naples Plaza, Suite 209 Long Beach CA 90803 (562) 434-3333 H. Kim Huntley (562) 434-3330Local, regional, national public agenc x 9/26/08 5/19/99 MONTEREY Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp3533 Empleo St San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 540-2452 John Fowler [email protected] (805) 544-1901Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 ORANGE Long Beach Affordable Housing 5855 Naples Plaza, Suite 209 Long Beach CA 90803 (562) 434-3333 H. Kim Huntley (562) 434-3330Local, regional, national public agenc x 9/26/08 5/19/99 SAN BENITO Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp3533 Empleo St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 540-2452 John Fowler http://www.pshh.org/ (805) 544-1901Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 SAN DIEGO Long Beach Affordable Housing 5855 Naples Plaza, Suite 209 Long Beach CA 90803 (562) 434-3333 H. Kim Huntley (562) 434-3330Local, regional, national public agenc x 9/26/08 5/19/99 SAN DIEGO Bayview CDC 5100 Federal Blvd, 2nd Floor San Diego CA 92105 (619) 262-8403 Stasi Williams (619) 262-7836Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/19/99 SAN LUIS OBISP Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp3533 Empleo St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 540-2452 John Fowler [email protected] (805) 544-1901Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 SANTA BARBARALong Beach Affordable Housing 5855 Naples Plaza, Suite 209 Long Beach CA 90803 (562) 434-3333 H. Kim Huntley (562) 434-3330Local, regional, national public agenc x 9/26/08 5/19/99 SANTA BARBARAPeoples' Self-Help Housing Corp3533 Empleo St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 540-2452 John Fowler [email protected] (805) 544-1901Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 VENTURA Long Beach Affordable Housing 5855 Naples Plaza, Suite 209 Long Beach CA 90803 (562) 434-3333 H. Kim Huntley (562) 434-3330Local, regional, national public agenc X 9/26/08 5/19/99 VENTURA Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp3533 Empleo St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 540-2452 John Fowler [email protected] (805) 544-1901Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 5/19/99 ALL COUNTIES DML & Associates Foundation 6043 Tampa Ave, Ste. 101A Tarzana CA 91356 (818) 708-2710 Myron Lieberman (818) 708-1944Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/23/17 5/21/99 ALL COUNTIES EAH, Inc. 22 Pelican Way San Rafael CA 94901 (415) 599-2712 Scott Johnson [email protected] (415) 453-3683Local, regional, national public agenc X 5/23/18 5/21/99 ALAMEDA Satellite Affordable Housing Ass1835 Alcatraz Ave. Berkeley CA 94703 (510) 647-0700 Susan Friedland [email protected] (510) 647-0820Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 6/10/99 CONTRA COSTA Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord CA 94520 (925) 825-4700 (925) 825-2610Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 6/10/99 CONTRA COSTA Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord CA 94520 (925) 825-4700 (925) 825-2610Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 6/10/99 CONTRA COSTA Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 647-0700 Susan Friedland [email protected] (510) 647-0820Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 6/10/99 KERN Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 LOS ANGELES Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 NAPA Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 ORANGE Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 RIVERSIDE Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord CA 94520 (925) 825-4700 [email protected] (925) 825-2610Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 6/10/99 RIVERSIDE Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SACRAMENTO Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 647-0700 Susan Friedland, [email protected] (510) 647-0820Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 6/10/99 SACRAMENTO Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SAN BERNARDINHousing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SAN DIEGO Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SAN FRANCISCOSatellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 647-0700 Susan Friedland, [email protected] (510) 647-0820Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 6/10/99 SAN FRANCISCOHousing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SAN JOAQUIN Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SAN MATEO Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SANTA BARBARAHousing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 SANTA CLARA Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 647-0700 Susan Friedland, [email protected] (510) 647-0820Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 2/26/14 6/10/99 SOLANO Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord CA 94520 (925) 825-4700 [email protected] (925) 825-2610Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 6/10/99 SOLANO Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 STANISLAUS Housing Authority of the County P.O. Box 581918 Modesto CA 95358 (209) 523-0705 Rich Chubon [email protected] (209) 522-8637Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/10/99 VENTURA Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100 Laguna Beach CA 92677 (323) 726-9672 Carol Cromar [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 6/14/17 6/10/99 LOS ANGELES Abode Communities 701 E. Third St., Ste. 400 Los Angeles CA 90015 (213) 629-2702 Holly Benson (213) 627-6407Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 3/9/00 ALL COUNTIES University River Village 7901 La Riviera Drive Sacramento CA 95826 (916) 381-2001 Kaci Walsh (916) 381-7321Local, regional, national public agency 5/10/17 6/1/00 ALL COUNTIES National Affordable Housing Tru 2335 North Bank Drive Columbus OH 43220 (614) 451-9929 Robert Snow [email protected] (614) 451-3370Local, regional, national public agency 5/24/17 6/1/00 SAN DIEGO San Diego Co. Dept. of Housing 3989 Ruffin Road San Diego CA 92123 (858) 694-4805 Alfredo Ybarra [email protected] (858) 694-4871Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/19/00 ALL COUNTIES California Housing Partnership C369 Pine Street, Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 433-6804 Matt Schwartz [email protected] (415) 433-6805Local, regional, public agency X 8/14/14 10/23/00 ALL COUNTIES Solari Enterprises, Inc. 1544 W. Yale Ave Orange CA 92687 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Profit-motivated individual or organization 5/24/17 12/29/00 LOS ANGELES Southern California Presbyterian 516 Burchett St Glendale CA 91203 (818) 247-0420 Jacqueline A Seegobm (818) 247-0420Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/29/00 RIVERSIDE Southern California Presbyterian 516 Burchett St Glendale CA 91203 (818) 247-0420 Jacqueline A Seegobm (818) 247-0420Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/29/00 SAN BERNARDINSouthern California Presbyterian 516 Burchett St Glendale CA 91203 (818) 247-0420 Jacqueline A Seegobm (818) 247-0420Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 12/29/00 ALL COUNTIES Mercy Housing, Inc. 1999 Broadway, Suite 1000 Denver CO 80202 303-830-3300 Janet Gaf [email protected] (303) 830-3301Local, regional, national public agency 5/24/17 1/17/01 ALL COUNTIES California Community Reinvestm100 West Broadway Ste. 1000 Glendale CA 91210 818-844-4951 David Saltzman [email protected] (818) 550-9806Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/23/17 1/18/01 FRESNO The East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 KERN The East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 LOS ANGELES The East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 RIVERSIDE The East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 4 of 8
3 - 626
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added SAN BERNARDINThe East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 SAN DIEGO The East Los Angeles Commun 1248 Goodrich Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90022 (323) 838-8556 Jasmine Borrego [email protected] (323) 838-0548Local, regional, national public agenc X 8/14/14 1/29/01 ALAMEDA Christian Church Homes of Nort 303 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 201 Oakland CA 94621 (510) 632-6712 William F. Pickel [email protected] (510) 632-6755Local, regional, national public agency 5/9/17 2/6/01 ALL COUNTIES Goldrich & Kest Industries, LLC 5150 Overland Avenue Culver City CA 90230 (310) 204-2050 Carole Glodney [email protected] (310) 280-5767Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 8/14/14 4/25/01 LOS ANGELES LTSC Community Development 231 East Third Street, Ste. G 106 Los Angeles CA 90013 (213) 473-1606 Takao Suzuki [email protected] (213) 473-1681Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 4/25/01 ALL COUNTIES East Los Angeles Community C 530 South Boyle Avenue Los Angeles CA 90033 (323) 269-4214 Ernesto Espinoza (323) 261-1065Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 12/24/10 7/13/01 LOS ANGELES Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 ORANGE Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 RIVERSIDE Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 SAN BERNARDINNexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 SAN DIEGO Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 SANTA BARBARANexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 VENTURA Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange CA 92867 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari [email protected] (714) 282-2521Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 7/13/01 SACRAMENTO Norwood Family Housing 630 I Street, Second Floor Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 440-1328 Darren Bobrowsky [email protected] (916) 442-6736Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 1/9/02 ALL COUNTIES Bayside Communities 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 1Walnut Creek CA 94596 (925) 482-9406 Basil Rallis [email protected] (510) 891-9004Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 5/10/17 9/10/02 ALL COUNTIES Newport Development, LLC 9 Cushing, Ste. 200 Irvine CA 92618 (949) 923-7812 Warren Allen [email protected] (949) 585-0449Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 5/24/17 9/10/02 ALL COUNTIES Mercy Housing California 1360 Mission St., Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94103 213-743-5830 Ed Holder [email protected] (415) 553-6373Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/24/17 12/9/02 ALL COUNTIES KDF Communities, LLC 1301 Dove St., Suite 720 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 622-1888 John Bernard (949) 851-1819Profit-motivated individual or organization 5/23/17 12/13/02 SONOMA Divine Senior Apartments P.O. Box 148 Occidental CA 95465 (707) 874-3538 Richard W. Blanz (707) 874-3538Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 5/29/03 ALL COUNTIES California Human Development 3315 Airway Drive Santa Rosa CA 95403 (707) 521-4788 John M. Way CaliforniaHumanDevelopment.org (707) 523-3776Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 8/14/14 6/30/03 ALL COUNTIES Reiner Communities LLC 100 Spectrum Center Dr. Suite 83Irvine CA 92618 (949) 753-0555 Dylan Feliciano [email protected] Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 5/16/17 6/30/03 ALL COUNTIES Petaluma Ecumenical Properties 1400 Caulfield Lane Petaluma CA 94954 (707) 762-2336 Vera R. Ciammetti [email protected] (707) 762-4657Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/10/17 8/19/03 ALL COUNTIES The John Stewert Company 1388 Sutter St., 11th Floor San Francisco CA 94109 (415) 345-4400 Margaret Miller [email protected] (415) 614-9175State-wide, for-profit X 5/24/17 8/19/03 ALL COUNTIES William G. Ayyad, Inc. 9252 Chesepeake Dr., Suite 100 San Diego CA 92123 (858) 244-0900 * Rebecca Ayyad [email protected] (858) 244-0909Profit-motivated individual or organization 5/24/17 8/19/03 MENDOCINO CDC of Mendocino County 1076 North State Street Ukiah CA 95482 (707) 463-5462 Todd Crabtree [email protected] (707) 463-4188Public housing authority 2/26/14 8/25/03 SONOMA Sonoma County Community Dev 1440 Guerneville Road Santa Rosa CA 95403 (707) 565-7901 Nick Stewart [email protected] 8/14/14 9/8/03 ALL COUNTIES Linc Housing Corporation 100 Pine Avenue, # 500 Long Beach CA 90802 (562) 684-1100 Sid Paul (562) 684-1137 8/14/14 9/15/03 LOS ANGELES Francis R. Hardy, Jr. 2735 W. 94th Street Inglewood CA 90305 (323) 756-6533 Francis R. Hardy, Jr. (323) 756-6533 9/18/03 ALL COUNTIES Domus Development, LLC 594 Howard St., Ste 204 San Francisco CA 94105 (415) 856-0010 Meea Kang (415) 856-0264 X 8/14/14 2/4/04 ALL COUNTIES BUILD Leadership Development P.O. Box 9414 Newport Beach CA 92658 (877) 644-9422 Tracy Green (949) 719-9711Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/16/17 2/4/04 ALL COUNTIES Skyline Real Estate Developmen P.O. Box 7613 Newport Beach CA 92658 (949) 293-4705 Lynn Miller [email protected] (949) 719-9711Profit-motivated individual or organization 5/24/17 2/4/04 LOS ANGELES A Community of Friends 9 Cushing, Ste. 200 Irvine CA 92618 (415) 856-0010 Meea Kang [email protected] (415) 856-0264 X 8/27/13 2/4/04 ALL COUNTIES MBK Management Corporation 23586 Calabasas Road, Ste. 100 Calabasas CA 91302 (818) 444-2100 e Jessica Robbins [email protected] (818) 337-7578 X 5/23/17 3/4/04 ALL COUNTIES Cabouchon Properties, LLC Pier 9, Suite 114 San Francisco CA 94111 (415) 433-2000 Susan Terrado (415) 433-2000 5/23/17 4/28/04 ALL COUNTIES Maximus Properties, LLC 23586 Calabasas Road, Ste. 103 Calabasas CA 91302 (818)449-4004 Jeffrey S. McGuire [email protected] (818) 449-4004 5/23/17 4/28/04 ALL COUNTIES Squier Properties, LLC 1157 Lake Street Venice CA 90291 (310) 418-6389 Scott Richards√ [email protected] (310) 418-6389Profit-motivated individual or organization 5/24/17 4/28/04 LOS ANGELES Many Mansions, Inc. 1459 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.,SteThousand Oaks CA 91362 (805) 496-4948 Neil McGuffin [email protected] (805) 496-4948Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/28/04 LOS ANGELES Winnetka King, LLC 23586 Calabasas Road, Ste. 100 Los Angeles CA 91302 (818) 222-2800 Rick Macaya (818) 222-2800 4/28/04 SANTA BARBARAMany Mansions, Inc. 1459 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.,SteThousand Oaks CA 91362 (805) 496-4948 Neil McGuffin (805) 496-4948 4/28/04 VENTURA Many Mansions, Inc. 1459 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.,SteThousand Oaks CA 91362 (805) 496-4948 Neil McGuffin [email protected] (805) 496-4948Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/28/04 ALL COUNTIES Creative Housing Coalition 4612 Alta Canyada Road La Canada CA 91011 (805) 736-9342 Jane Anderson (805) 736-9342 5/23/17 5/19/04 ALL COUNTIES Fallbrook Capital Corporation 6700 Fallbrook Avenue, #111 West Hills CA 91307 (818) 712-6931 Brandt Blaken (818) 712-6931 5/23/17 6/1/04 LOS ANGELES Los Angeles Housing & Commu 1200 W.7th Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 (213) 808-8654 Franklin Campos [email protected] (213) 808-8999 X 8/14/14 3/15/05 ALL COUNTIES West Bay Housing Corporation 1390 Market Street, Ste. 405 San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 618-0012 Bill Pickel (415) 618-0228 X 9/25/12 4/6/05 SAN DIEGO A Community of Friends 1390 Market Street, Ste. 405 San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 618-0012 Bill Pickel (415) 618-0228 X 9/25/12 4/6/05 ALAMEDA Northern California Land Trust, I3122 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 Erin Coyle [email protected] (510) 548-7562 X 8/14/14 6/10/05 CONTRA COSTA Northern California Land Trust, I3122 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 (510) 548-7562 X 8/14/14 6/10/05 LOS ANGELES Orange Housing Development C414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange CA 92866 (714) 288-7600 Todd Cottle (714) 242-2092 X 6/10/05 MARIN Northern California Land Trust, I3122 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 (510) 548-7562 X 8/14/14 6/10/05 ORANGE Orange Housing Development C414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange CA 92866 (714) 288-7600 Todd Cottle (714) 242-2092 X 6/10/05 RIVERSIDE Orange Housing Development C414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange CA 92866 (714) 288-7600x Todd Cottle (714) 242-2092 X 6/10/05 SAN BERNARDINOrange Housing Development C414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange CA 92866 (714) 288-7600 Todd Cottle (714) 242-2092 X 6/10/05 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 5 of 8
3 - 627
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added SAN DIEGO Orange Housing Development C414 E. Chapman Avenue Orange CA 92866 (714) 288-7600 Todd Cottle (714) 242-2092 X 6/10/05 SAN FRANCISCONorthern California Land Trust, I3122 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 (510) 548-7562 X 8/14/14 6/10/05 SAN MATEO Northern California Land Trust, I3122 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 (510) 548-7562 X 8/14/14 6/10/05 ORANGE Riverside Chartable Corporation 3803 E. Casselle Ave Orange CA 92869 (714) 628-1650 Kenneth S. Robertson (714) 628-1657 8/14/14 9/2/05 LOS ANGELES Home and Community 2425 Riverside Place Los Angeles CA 90039 (213) 910-9738 Sabrina Williams (213) 913-5819 11/28/05 ALL COUNTIES Wakeland Housing & Developm 1230 Columbia St. Ste. 950 San Diego CA 92101 (619) 326-6215 Tim Wray (619) 235-5386 X 5/24/17 12/27/05 LOS ANGELES Hart Community Homes 2807 E. Lincoln Ave Anaheim CA 92086 (714) 630-1007 William Hart (714) 630-3714 X 12/27/05 ORANGE Hart Community Homes 2807 E. Lincoln Ave Anaheim CA 92086 (714) 630-1007 William Hart (714) 630-3714 X 12/27/05 KERN Keller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 6/14/17 2/8/06 KERN Poker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 6/14/17 2/8/06 LOS ANGELES Keller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 2/8/06 LOS ANGELES Poker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 2/8/06 ORANGE Keller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 2/8/06 ORANGE Poker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 2/8/06 RIVERSIDE Keller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 2/8/06 RIVERSIDE Poker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 2/8/06 SAN BERNARDINKeller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 2/8/06 SAN BERNARDINPoker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 2/8/06 SAN DIEGO Keller & Company 4309 Argos Drive San Diego CA 92116 Chad Keller (619) 795-7151 2/8/06 SAN DIEGO Poker Flats LLC 1726 Webster Los Angeles CA 90026 Jennifer B. Luria (323) 661-2936 2/8/06 ALL COUNTIES Hampstead Development Group 3413 30th Street San Diego CA 92104 (619) 543-4200 Chris Foster (619) 543-4220 X 8/24/11 5/5/06 KERN Housing Authority of the County 601 24th Street Bakersfield CA 93301 (661) 631-8500 Stephen M. Pelz (661) 631-9500 8/14/14 5/5/06 SANTA CRUZ Housing Authority of the County 2931 Mission Street Santa Cruz CA 95060 (831) 454-5901 Ken Cole 8/14/14 5/5/06 LOS ANGELES Coalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 252-4411 Alison Dickson (213) 252-4422 X 6/8/06 ORANGE Coalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 252-4411 Alison Dickson (213) 252-4422 X 6/8/06 RIVERSIDE Coalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 252-4411 Alison Dickson (213) 252-4422 X 6/8/06 SAN BERNARDINCoalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 252-4411 Alison Dickson (213) 252-4422 X 6/8/06 VENTURA Coalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 252-4411 Alison Dickson (213) 252-4422 X 6/8/06 ALL COUNTIES A. F. Evans Development, Inc. 4305 Univeristy Ave. Suite 550 San Diego CA 92105 (619) 282-6647 Anne Wilson (619) 282-4145 X 1/26/12 10/11/06 ALL COUNTIES California Coalition for Rural Hou717 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 443-4448 Alicia Sebastian [email protected] (916) 447-0458 X 5/23/17 10/11/06 ALL COUNTIES Chelsea Investment Corporation725 South Coast Highway 101 Encinitas CA 92024 (760) 456-6000 Jim Schmid (760) 456-6001 5/23/17 10/11/06 ALL COUNTIES Corporation for Better Housing 15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100 Sherman Oaks CA 91403 (818) 905-2430 Mary Silverstein (818) 905-2440 5/23/17 10/11/06 ALL COUNTIES Community HousingWorks 2815 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. San Diego CA 92108 (619) 858-9031 Daniel Marcus [email protected] (619) 282-4145Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 6/7/18 10/11/06 IMPERIAL Calexico Community Action Cou 2306 M.L. King Calexico CA 92231 (760) 357-2995 Steve F. Rivera (760) 357-2923 6/14/17 10/11/06 LOS ANGELES Clifford Beers Housing, Inc. 1200 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 205 Los Angeles CA 90017 James Bonar (213) 316-0111 X 5/3/07 ALL COUNTIES USA Properties Fund 2440 Professional Drive Roseville CA 95661 (916) 773-5866 Geoffrey C. Brown (916) 773-5866 5/24/17 7/12/07 CONTRA COSTA City of Walnut Creek 1666 N. Main Street Walnut Creek CA 94596 (925) 943-5899 Laura Simpson [email protected] (925) 256-3500 X 2/26/14 9/11/07 ALL COUNTIES Bank of America, N.A. 555 California St., 6th Floor San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 953-2631 Gabriel Speyer (415) 622-1671 5/16/17 12/4/07 ALL COUNTIES Fairfied Residential LLC 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 (858) 824-6406 Paul Kudirka [email protected] (858) 635-8606 5/23/17 12/4/07 MONTEREY CHISPA Inc. 295 Main Street, Suite 100 Salinas CA 93901 (831) 757-6251 Normond V. Kolpin (831) 757-7537 5/29/08 ALL COUNTIES Allied Pacific Development, LLC 169 Saxony Road, Suite 103 Encinitas CA 92024 (760) 557-1480 (760) 557-1480 X 5/27/10 ALL COUNTIES Belveron Real Estate Partners, L268 Bush St., #3534 San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 273-6801 (415) 520-5688 X 5/27/10 DEL NORTE Humboldt Bay Housing Develop PO Box 4655 Arcata CA 95518 (707) 826-7312 Bonnie Hughes [email protected] (707) 826-7319 X 8/14/14 5/27/10
HUMBOLDT
Humboldt Bay Housing
Development Corporation
(DBA Housing Humboldt) PO Box 4655 Arcata CA 95518 (707) 826-7312 Elizabeth [email protected](707) 826-7319Local, regional non-profit X 8/14/14 5/27/10 ALL COUNTIES Richman Group of California, LL21520 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite G- Yorba Linda CA 92887 (714) 837-6138 Pamela Mikus [email protected] X 5/28/10 ALL COUNTIES Renaissance Housing Communi 110 Pacific Avenue, Suite 292 San Francisco CA 94111 (415)0419-4027 David Silver (415) 789-448 X 8/9/10 ALAMEDA Alameda County Allied Housing 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 10 Hayward CA 94541 (510) 670-5404 Linda Gardiner [email protected] (510) 670-6378Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 5/9/17 9/27/10 ALL COUNTIES Mesa Realty Advisors 56 Cbana Blanca Henderson NV 89012 (310) 213-5310 Rick W. Toney X 9/25/12 9/27/10 CONTRA COSTA Alameda County Allied Housing 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 10 Hayward CA 94541 (510) 670-5404 (510) 670-6378Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 9/27/10 9/27/10 LOS ANGELES CSI Support & Development Se 201 E. Huntington Drive Monrovia CA 91016 (626) 599-8464 Isa Woods (626) 599-8463 X 9/27/10 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 6 of 8
3 - 628
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added ORANGE A Community of Friends 56 Cbana Blanca Henderson NV 89012 (310) 213-5310 Rick W. Toney X 9/25/12 9/27/10 ORANGE CSI Support & Development Se 201 E. Huntington Drive Monrovia CA 91016 (626) 599-8464 Isa Woods (626) 599-8463 X 9/27/10 RIVERSIDE CSI Support & Development Se 201 E. Huntington Drive Monrovia CA 91016 (626) 599-8464 Isa Woods (626) 599-8463 X 9/27/10 SAN BERNARDINCSI Support & Development Se 201 E. Huntington Drive Monrovia CA 91016 (626) 599-8464 Isa Woods (626) 599-8463 X 9/27/10 ALL COUNTIES California Commercial Investme 4530 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste Westlake Village CA 91362 (805) 495-8400 (805) 495-5471 X 8/14/14 12/24/10 ALL COUNTIES Dawson Holdings, Inc. 300 Turney Street, 2nd Floor Sausalito CA 94965 (801) 244-6658 Tim Fluetsch (801) 733-6116 X 8/14/14 12/24/10 ALL COUNTIES WNC Community Preservation P 17782 Sky Park Circle Irvine CA 92620 (714) 662-5565 (714) 662-4412 X 3/3/11 AMADOR Mutual Housing California 8001 Fruitridge Road, Suite A Sacramento CA 95820 (916) 453-8400 Rachel Iskkow [email protected] (916) 453-8401Local, regional, national public agenc x 4/21/16 3/3/11 SOLANO Mutual Housing California 8001 Fruitridge Road, Suite A Sacramento CA 95820 (916) 453-8400 Holly Wunder Stiles [email protected] x 8/14/14 3/3/11 ALAMEDA ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 BUTTE ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 CONTRA COSTA ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 EL DORADO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 FRESNO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 IMPERIAL ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 KERN ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 KINGS ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 LOS ANGELES ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 MADERA ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 MENDOCINO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 MERCED ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 MONTEREY ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 ORANGE ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 PLACER ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 RIVERSIDE ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SACRAMENTO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN BENITO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN BERNARDINROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN DIEGO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN FRANCISCOROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN JOAQUIN ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN LUIS OBISP ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SAN MATEO ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SANTA BARBARAROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SANTA CLARA ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 SANTA CRUZ ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 STANISLAUS ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 TULARE ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 VENTURA ROEM Development Corporatio 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 E Erin Caputo [email protected] (408) 984-3111 X 5/24/17 3/30/11 KERN Abbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills CA 91343 (818) 332-8008 Jonathon Dilworth (818) 332-8101 6/14/17 3/28/12 LOS ANGELES Abbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills CA 91343 (818) 332-8008 Jonathon Dilworth (818) 332-8101 X 6/14/17 3/28/12 NAPA SWJ Housing PO Box 815 Sebastopol CA 95473 (707) 823-9884 Scott Johnson (707) 634-1422 X 8/14/14 3/28/12 ORANGE City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 644-3221 Melinda Whelan X 8/14/14 3/28/12 ORANGE Abbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills CA 91343 (818) 332-8008 Jonathon Dilworth (818) 332-8101 X 6/14/17 3/28/12 SAN BERNARDINAbbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills CA 91343 (818) 332-8008 Jonathon Dilworth (818) 332-8101 X 6/14/17 3/28/12 SOLANO SWJ Housing PO Box 815 Sebastopol CA 95473 (707) 823-9884 Scott Johnson (707) 634-1422 X 8/14/14 3/28/12 SONOMA SWJ Housing PO Box 815 Sebastopol CA 95473 (707) 823-9884 Scott Johnson (707) 634-1422 X 8/14/14 3/28/12 VENTURA Abbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills CA 91343 (818) 332-8008 Jonathon Dilworth (818) 332-8101 X 6/14/17 3/28/12 ALL COUNTIES Preservation Partners Developm21515 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 125 Torrance CA 90503 (310) 802-6681 Chuck Treatch [email protected] (310) 802-6680A California limited partnership, for-p X 8/14/14 1/16/13 ALL COUNTIES Berkadia 823 Colby Drive Davis CA 95616 (916) 769-7768 Al R Inouye [email protected] X 8/1/16 2/26/14 ORANGE Jamboree Housing Corporation 17701 Cowan Ave, #200 Irvine CA 92614 (949) 214-2395 Roger Kinoshita [email protected] (949)214-2395 Local, region, national, nonprofit org 4/22/16 4/22/16 ALL COUNTIES American Community Developer 20250 Harper Avenue Detroit MI 48225 (313) 884-0722 Derek M. Skrzynski [email protected] (313) 884-0722Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 9/2/16 9/2/16 ALL COUNTIES Highland Property Development 250 W. Colorado Bv. Suite 210 Arcadia CA 91007 (626) 698-6357 Paul Patierno [email protected](626) 698-6365Profit-motivated individual or organization 9/27/16 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 7 of 8
3 - 629
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ENTITIES INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN CALIFORNIA'S FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.11
County Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person E-Mail Address FAX Number Type of Organization Confirm Date Revised List Added ALL COUNTIES GAL Affordable LP 250 W. Colorado Bv. Suite 210 Arcadia CA 91007 (626) 698-6357 Paul Patierno (626) 698-6365Profit-motivated individual or organization 10/24/16 ALL COUNTIES Eden Housing, Inc. 22645 Grand Street Hayward CA 94541 (510) 582-1460 Andrea Osgood [email protected] (510) 582-6523Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 11/8/16 LOS ANGELES Innovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/6/17 ORANGE Innovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/6/17 RIVERSIDE Innovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/6/17 SAN BERNARDINInnovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/6/17 VENTURA Innovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/6/17 SAN DIEGO Innovative Housing Opportunitie 19772 Macarthur Bv., Ste. 110 Irvine CA 92612 (949) 863-9740 Patricia Whitaker (949) 863-9746Local, regional, national nonprofit org X 4/7/17 ALL COUNTIES Lincoln Avenue Capitol, LLC 680 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York NY 10019 (646) 585-5524 Andrew Mika [email protected] Profit-motivated individual or organiz X 8/30/19 5/3/17 LOS ANGELES Community Development Comm700 W. Main Street Los Angeles CA 91801 (626) 586-1812 Larry Newnam [email protected] (626) 943-3815Loca., regional, national public agency 11/6/17 8/17/17 FRESNO Self-Help Enterprises 8445 W. Elowin Court/P.O. Box 65Visalia CA 93290 (559) 802-1620 Thomas J. Collishaw [email protected] (559) 651-3634Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 4/10/18 4/10/18 ALL COUNTIES Colrich Multifamily Investments, 444 West Beach St. San Diego CA 92101 (858) 490-2300 Danny Gabriel [email protected] (858) 490-0264Profit-motivated individual or organization 4/16/18 ALL COUNTIES Standard Property Company, IN 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3 Los Angeles CA 90067 (310) 553-5711 Brad Martinson bmartinson@standard-companies.(310) 551-1666Profit-motivated individual or organization 6/4/18 ALL COUNTIES Jonathon Rose Companies 551 Fifth Ave, 23rd Floor New York NY 10176 (917) 542-3600 Nathan Taft [email protected] (917) 542-3601Profit-motivated individual or organization 6/27/18 ALL COUNTIES JEMCOR Development Partners1700 El Camino Real Suite #400 Sna Mateo CA 94402 (415) 941-5847 Michael McDermott [email protected] Profit-motivated individual or organization 8/8/18 ALL COUNTIES Catalyst Housing Group, LLC 21 Ward Street, Suite 2 Larkspur CA 94939 (415) 205-4702 Jordan Moss [email protected] Profit-motivated individual or organization 12/11/18 LOS ANGELES Los Angeles County Developme 700 W. Main Street Alhambra CA 91801 (626) 586-1816 KeAndra Cylear-Dod [email protected] Local, regional, national public agency 4/18/19 ALL COUNTIES Veritas Urban Properties LLC 2050 Hancock Street, Suite B San Diego CA 92110 (619) 746-5191 Gilman Bishop [email protected] Profit-motivated individual or organization 4/24/19 LOS ANGELES Santa Fe Art Colony Tenants As2415 S. Sante Fe Avenue, Unit 2 Los Angeles CA 90058 (310) 663-6665 Sylvia Tidwell [email protected] Tenants' Association 5/2/19 SANTA CLARA Silicon Valley at Home 350 West Julian Street, Building 5San Jose CA 95110 (669) 254-1009 Mathew Reed [email protected] Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 7/10/19 LOS ANGELES San Gabriel Valley Habitat for H 400 S Irwindale Ave Azusa CA 91702 (626) 709-3277 Mark Van Lue [email protected] Local, regional, national nonprofit org. 8/12/2019 Updated 5-5-21 HCD DOES NOT EVALUATE OR ATTEST TO ANY ENTITY'S QUALIFICATIONS Prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 8 of 8
3 - 630
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Appendix E:
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Projection Methodology
3 - 631
3 - 632
Appendix E
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
MAY 2023
Page E1-1
Analysis for projecting accessory dwelling units as part of meeting South Pasadena’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (Revised: September 2022)
As part of the Housing Element Update for the City of South Pasadena (City) and to ensure that the City is able to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City may project the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that is expected to be built over the course of the 6th Round Housing Element Cycle. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognizes that ADUs have become more popular in recent years and expects the trend to continue. ADUs are seen as an attractive option for developing housing given their affordability to lower-income renters, relatively low cost to construct, and their ability to provide income and alternative housing options to homeowners.
Assuming a certain number of ADUs will be developed over the course of housing element implementation has been acceptable to the State of California since ADU law was instituted in 2003.
These projections are based on recent past ADU development trends in the jurisdiction and the current market rents for ADUs in the jurisdiction. State law regulating ADUs has changed significantly since 2016, requiring local jurisdictions to allow ADUs more broadly across a jurisdiction and with development standards and other regulations that reduce cost and other barriers to ADU development.
This includes changes to require less on-site parking, allow fewer fees to be charged related to ADUs, and allow conversion of existing structures to ADUs.
HCD “Safe Harbor” Calculation
HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, finalized in June 2020, has clarified parameters for analyzing ADU past performance and using it to project the number of ADUs expected to be developed as part of meeting the City’s RHNA. HCD has explained that the quantity of ADU building permits issued in previous years, particularly since 2018 as effects of the changes to the law began having more impact, may be used as a baseline for making the calculations. According to HCD, to project the number of ADUs expected, there are two methods that are acceptable to arrive at a ‘safe harbor’ number for projected ADUs. Both are based on past approvals of ADUs in a jurisdiction. Based on preliminary discussions with HCD for South Pasadena, the safe harbor number can be relied on in the 6th Round Housing Element in combination with programs to comply with state ADU regulations and monitor ADU production. The two options for ‘safe harbor’ analysis are described here:
• Use the number of ADU building permits in the jurisdiction since January 2018 to estimate new production. Take the average number of ADUs that have received building permits per year since the beginning of 2018. That average number can be assumed to be the average number of ADUs that will be permitted per year through the rest of the 6th Cycle RHNA projection period (through October 15, 2029). The 6th Cycle RHNA projection period begins June 30, 2021. • Assume an average increase of five times the previous planning period ADU construction trends prior to 2018. Take the average number of ADUs with building permits issued per year between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, which is the part of the 5th Housing Element RHNA projection period occurring before January 1, 2018, when many of the new ADU laws began to take effect. Multiply that average by five. That average number can be assumed to be the 3 - 633
Appendix E
MAY 2023
Page E1-2
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
average number of ADUs that will be permitted per year through the rest of the 6th Cycle RHNA projection period (through October 15, 2029).
A jurisdiction may choose to use one or the other of these approaches if better data is available for one of the timeframes. Before 2018, South Pasadena had only approved one ADU (during the 5th Cycle).
During that time, the ADU regulations in the City were much more limiting and ADUs were only allowed on parcels larger than 12,000 square feet. Once the new state laws took effect, the ADU numbers began to increase. Between January 1, 2018, and the present (mid-2022), an average of 16 ADUs received planning permits per year with an increase every year.
Four ADUs received building permits in 2018, seven in 2019, eight in 2020, 19 in 2021 and 38 during the first two-thirds of 2022 (by August 31), for an average of over 16 ADUs per year receiving building permits during that timeframe.
When 16 ADUs per year on average are projected through the end of the projection period, the City estimates a safe harbor number of 148 ADUs between June 30, 2021, and October 15, 2029.
Projection Based on Data Reflecting South Pasadena’s Specific Circumstances If a jurisdiction expects a higher number of ADU approvals in the 6th Cycle than what is projected using one of the safe harbor options, additional data, analysis of trends, and supporting programs, including a monitoring program, must be included in the Housing Element. The City of South Pasadena does expect a higher number of ADUs will be permitted than the safe harbor number of 148 ADUs, because of the recent upward trajectory following updates to the City’s ADU zoning regulations that went into effect in early June and December 2021, and based on the results of other ADU programs and initiatives that have been implemented or are planned at the City.
Over five years, ADU building permit activity has increased as follows:
• 2017 to 2018 – increase from 1 to 4 ADUs that received building permits • 2018 to 2019 – increase from 4 to 7 ADUs that received building permits • 2019 to 2020 – increase from 7 to 8 ADUs that received building permits • 2020 to 2021 – increase from 8 to 19 ADUs that received building permits • 2021 to June 30, 2022 – increase over 6 months to 29 ADUs (or 58 ADUs projected to an annualized number) that received building permits
The 19 permits issued in 2021 and 29 permits issued in the first half of 2022 far exceeded the City’s earlier (Public Review Draft) projection of 12 ADU permits. The increase can be attributed to two important policy actions taken by the City Council:
Adoption in December 2021 of an urgency ordinance with standards for constructing ADUs on historic properties, along with comprehensive design guidelines that pave an administrative (by-right) path for owners of historic properties to build an ADU. Council adopted the same ordinance permanently into the Municipal Code on February 2, 2022. These changes to the code resolved issues that have delayed approval of ADUs and reduced application submittals. Staff immediately noticed an increase in interest and new applications with approval of the new standards. Additionally, the City streamlined the application process with new forms and electronic submittal. Accordingly, more complete applications have been received and approved more quickly.
Additionally, at the end of 2021, the City added four new Planning staff to increase permit processing 3 - 634
Appendix E
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
MAY 2023
Page E1-3
capacity, including ADU applications.
With increased staffing and clear, objective Code standards, the City has increased confidence in the projections provided in the first two public drafts. The City has already initiated several of the programs in this 2021-2029 Housing Element, including homeowner education and assistance and the ADU amnesty program for property owners with an existing unpermitted ADU on their property to legalize based on compliance with the Building Code. A list of the programs and initiatives the City is undertaking related to ADUs is included at the end of this memo.
The trend in ADU application submittals since the Code was amended, documented above, supports an assumption that the “safe harbor” is far below reasonably projected numbers, and given the City’s RHNA, it is important to use a projection that is reflective of the permit activity experienced since conditions changed starting in June 2021. As the third Public Review Draft is released, data through August 2022 shows a sharp increase in applications and building permits, and the City expects to issue 58 ADU building permits in 2022. To maintain a conservative forecast, this sharp increase will be considered to 8 represent a “bubble” due to pent-up demand, with future years of the planning period remaining as forecast earlier (39 annually) as shown in Table 1. In order to remain consistent with the public’s and HCD’s understanding of the City’s approach for the RHNA forecast and the housing program, the City will continue to use the figure of 297 units for those purposes, as projected in earlier public review drafts.
Table 1. Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection
Year ADU Planning Permits ADU Building Permits
2020 - Actual 17 8
2021 - Actual 62 19
Issued from June 30 through December 31 2021
(Actual) 28 9
Issued from January 1 through June 30
2022 (Actual) 50 29
Remainder of 2022 50 29
2023 55 39
2024 55 39
2025 55 39
2026 55 39
2027 55 39
2028 55 39
2029 (through October 15) 40 28
Total January 1, 2022-October 15, 2029 470 320
It is quite possible that the projection in Table 1 is too low, as market trends show growing popularity for ADU construction. Applications on historic properties in particular are just beginning to be submitted. For informational purposes, a second, more robust, scenario is included in Table 3 that assumes that 2022 was a bubble, but which projects a stronger growth trend throughout the planning period, with 75% of applications moving forward to building permit issuance.
ADU Affordability Analysis
SCAG prepared its Regional ADU Affordability Analysis for the entire SCAG region in 2020. The analysis was accepted by HCD in late 2020 and is the best proxy for estimating affordability levels for 3 - 635
Appendix E
MAY 2023
Page E1-4
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
South Pasadena. The analysis made findings for affordability of ADUs by subregion based on data gathered on current rents and occupancy of ADUs in addition to industry research about affordability levels of ADUs, including those that do not reach the rental market. ADU research conducted by the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovationi indicates that 40 percent of ADUs are typically rented to family members or friends at either no cost or below-market rental rates.
SCAG conservatively estimated that 15 percent of the ADUs in their region would be in this category and thus rented to the extremely low-income category of households. Table 2 lists the projected 297 ADUs by income category based on the SCAG analysis for the Los Angeles II subregion that includes South Pasadena.
Table 2. Projected ADUs - Affordability
Percentage Number of ADUs Income Category Affordable To:
15% 45 Extremely Low Income
9% 27 Very Low Income
44% 131 Low Income
2% 6 Moderate Income
30% 89 Above Moderate Income
100% 297 Total
An Alternative Projection Based on the 2021-2022 ADU Permit Trend As noted above, Table 3 presents a scenario that reflects the actual number of approved ADU Planning applications and building permits issued in 2021, accounts for 2022 ADU permits as a bubble, and assumes an increase in applications from 2021 to 2023 that continues for three years before leveling off.
This scenario also assumes that 75 percent of approved Planning applications will receive building permits. Based on these assumptions, this more robust scenario projects a total of 403 ADUs between January 1, 2022, and October 15, 2029.
Table 3. Possible Higher Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection Year
ADU Planning
Applications
ADU Building
Permits Issued Notes
2020 30 8 Actual
2021 45 21
Actual
150% increase in Planning applications; 400%
increase in building permits.
Issued after June 30, 2021 28 9 Actual
2022 100 58 Assumption of same level of applications for the remainder of 2022 (same as Table 1)
2023 55 41
Assumption of 2022 as a bubble, but increase in
applications over 2021 and 75% moving forward
to building permits
2024 60 45 Assumption of 10% increase in applications and 75% moving forward to building permits 2025 66 50
2026 72 54
2027 72 54 Assumption of steady application rate,
no increase 2028 72 54
2029
(through October 15) 63 47 Same assumption as previous year, through October 15, 2029
Total January 1, 2022-
October 15, 2029 560 403
3 - 636
Appendix E
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
MAY 2023
Page E1-5
Projections Relative to Existing Single-family Housing Stock In 2019, South Pasadena’s single-family housing stock consisted of 5,642 units. 30 ADU permits were issued in the previous housing element cycle, including the first half of 2021.
The projection of 297 units, which is used for RHNA and program purposes in this housing element and Table 3 both project many more ADUs, and for context, it is informative to consider the number of single-family properties within the city and whether those projections make sense within that context.
Table 4 includes the 30 5th cycle ADUs, the 9 units permitted in the 2nd half of 2021, together with the actual and projected 2022-2029 ADUs for both projection scenarios and calculates them as a percentage of the 2019 housing stock. As shown, the more conservative projection would result in about 6 percent of single-family properties that have ADUs in 2029. The more aggressive scenario results in 7.8 percent.
In either case, more than 92 percent of single-family properties remain unchanged.
Table 4: Percentage of ADUs Projected Relative to Housing Stock Housing Stock (5,642 units) 5,642
Additional ADUs as a % of
housing stock
Total ADUs as a % of housing
stock
297ADUs (+30+9) 336 5.4% 6.6%
Table 3 ADUs (+30+9) 442 7.3% 7.8%
Additionally, the estimate of ADUs as a percentage of single-family properties does not take into account that some ADUs will be constructed on multifamily properties. It is anticipated that these will become more popular as apartment building owners get savvier regarding ADU law. As of 2022, the City has already approved the first such applications. Furthermore, the City’s program creating an amnesty process for illegal units, to recognize them as ADUs, will bring additional units into the housing stock, and are not contemplated in this scenario. Based on this information, it can be concluded that both of the ADU projection scenarios are realistic within the context of the overall existing housing stock in South Pasadena.
City of South Pasadena ADU Initiatives and Programs for 2021-2029 Program 3.f – Allow and Facilitate ADUs
Assumption of same level of applications and 75% moving forward to building permits Program 3.i – ADU Amnesty Program
Program 3.j – Adjust ADU Permit, Utility Connection, and Impact Fees Program 3.k – ADU Education and Promotion and Homeowner Outreach
i Chapple et al. 2017. Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.
University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation. 3 - 637
DI II I
I I
I I
Appendix F:
Realistic Capacity Analysis
3 - 638
3 - 639
Appendix F
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page F1-1 Justification of the 95 percent Realistic Capacity
Assumption Applied to Downtown and Mixed-Use Sites
Much of the City of South Pasadena’s lower-income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is proposed to be accommodated in the Draft Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area and the mixed-use Neighborhood Centers proposed in the General Plan Update. These sites are included in the set of sites with detailed exhibits and descriptions in Appendix A. Where full redevelopment of a site or adding to existing structures is assumed for the Housing Element analysis, a realistic development capacity of 95 percent is assumed. The realistic capacity assumption of 95 percent is supported by past and current trends showing redevelopment at 97 percent or more of the base capacity and by new policies requiring inclusionary housing and providing design incentives, FAR bonuses, height concessions and other options to increase density (state density bonus) for projects on these sites. This appendix is included to provide the background and analysis to support that 95-percent assumption.
Multi-unit Housing: Trending Upward in South Pasadena and Regionally The City of South Pasadena is nearly built out and has very little vacant land of a size suitable for multifamily development. However, the market in South Pasadena and the region has addressed this situation with infill and mixed-use redevelopment of sites that include a portion or all of the site with new residential units.
After a hiatus following construction of South Pasadena’s first new mixed-use, transit-adjacent development in 2005, several multiple-unit residential or mixed-use projects containing higher density housing have recently been constructed or approved in South Pasadena (see Table 1), demonstrating an increasing interest to construct multi-family housing in the city. These are all on sites that were previously developed. The Mission Bell Project, approved in 2020, includes adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. The Senior Housing Project, with 13 affordable units, was approved in 2020 under the City’s first state density bonus application. The Seven Patios Project, with 60 housing units, was approved in 2021. All three projects were able to achieve higher densities with a range from 22 to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) without accounting for removal of the nonresidential portions of the project from the total parcel or site in the case of the mixed-use projects. All three projects achieved higher than 95 percent of allowed development capacity and two achieved higher than 100 percent.
While the trend toward higher density, mixed-use development in South Pasadena is more recent, it is consistent with what is happening in the region, where projects containing multi-family housing of various densities, unit sizes, and architectural styles are being developed at 100 percent or higher percent of allowed capacity on previously developed sites (See Housing Element Tables VI-44 and 42). Most are receiving the entitlements with the inclusion of dedicated affordable units as a prerequisite to receiving significant density bonuses that are attractive to developers and make the project feasible. 3 - 640
Appendix F
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page F1-2 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Table 1. Representative Projects on Non-Vacant Sites in South Pasadena Address/
Project Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Numbers Acres
Entitled, Under
Construction, or
Completed? Zone
Previously
Developed
With/
Existing Uses Project Description
Total
Number of
Dwelling
Units Density
Percentage of Allowed
Capacity
Similar Sites in Table
VI-46
(and Site ID)
Seven Patios
845 El Centro
Street
5315-019-048
5315-019-045
5315-019-046
1.6 Entitled in 2021;
Construction
anticipated in
2022
MSSP
and RM
Office building
Three parcels
were consolidated
Mixed-use, transit-oriented
development (TOD),
multifamily housing (studios,
lofts, flats, and townhomes),
and street-fronting
commercial uses (restaurant
and retail).
60 45 du/acre in
MSSP portion
9 du/acre in
RM portion
97% of allowed FAR and
>100% allowed density (project
used bonus parking for extra
floor); MSSP density is capped
only by development standards
(not du/ac); max FAR is 1.5;
project used 1.45 FAR
Odd-shaped sites near
transit:
Gold Line Storage (10);
North side of Mission (8,
11, 13, 14);
Other sites near rail
transit: City Yard (9);
Fremont/Mission (13,
14), Arco (9)
Mission Bell
1101, 1107, 1115
Mission Street
5315-008-045
5315-008-043 0.72
Entitled in 2020;
Construction
anticipated in
2022
MSSP
A portion of the
existing historic
building to be
demolished and
the other portion
adaptively reused
Two parcels were
consolidated
Mixed-use: 7,394 square feet
of commercial retail space
along Mission Street and
Fairview Avenue frontages
and 36 residential units above
and to the rear of the
commercial uses.
36 50
98% of allowed FAR and
>100% of allowed density
(project used bonus parking for
extra floor); MSSP density is
capped only by development
standards (not du/ac); max FAR
is 1.5; project used 1.48 FAR
School Site -12 (historic
resource); Site Gold Line
Storage - 10; Parking Lot
sites -15, 16, 21
(rectangular; several
parcels combined);
Eight Twenty
820 Mission
Street
5315-017-094
5315-017-082
5315-017-067
5315-017-103
1.90 Built in 2017 MSSP Laboratories
Mixed-use, TOD, multifamily
housing (studios, lofts, flats,
and townhomes) and streetfronting commercial uses.
38 20
109% of allowed FAR (allowed
FAR was 0.8; project approved
at 0.87 FAR through Planned
Development Permit process)
Gold Line Storage - 10;
Parking Lot sites -15, 16,
21 (rectangular; several
parcels combined)
625 Fair Oaks
Senior Housing 5315-001-072 2.62 Entitled in spring 2020 CO Commercial retail
with underutilized
parking lot
No parcel
consolidation for
redevelopment
Senior housing with 86 units,
13 affordable. Density bonus
project with additional height
and density.
86 33
138% of allowed density
(allowed density is 24 du/acre);
FAR is 3.6, including existing
office building and additional
2.45 FAR for housing
Sites on Fair Oaks (17,
18, 22, 23, 24)
Mission Meridian
Village Meridian
Avenue and
Mission Street
5315-021-001
5315-021-079
5315-021-047
1.6 Built in 2005 MSSP
Lower-density,
dilapidated homes
and a
convalescent
hospital
Residences are all ownership
units. Includes three-story
mixed-use building w/ 5,000
square feet of ground-floor
retail and 14 loft
condominiums, residential
structures w/50 units—
condominiums, townhomes,
and duplexes and three
single-family residences.
Overall density of 40
units/acre.
67 42
97% of allowed FAR (Allowed
FAR was 1.5, project approved
at 1.45)
Meridian site (Site 11)
Source: PlaceWorks and City of South Pasadena, 2021
3 - 641
Appendix F
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page F1-3 Why this trend will continue and likely increase: Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Chapter 6.5 (Housing Development Resources) provides a full narrative of the inclusionary housing ordinance (see Zoning Provisions to Encourage Affordable Housing), which Council adopted in May 2021. The projects in Table 1 were developed prior to the City’s adoption of this ordinance. Only one of them voluntarily included affordable units and received bonus density and height, achieving 138% of the underlying density (allowed capacity), the highest of the five projects. Now that the inclusionary units are required, coupled with by-right density bonus, this has become a central component of the strategy to build affordable units and forms an important component of the basis for anticipating the 95-percent realistic capacity.
Because the properties identified in the Sites Inventory (Appendix A) with a 95-percent realistic capacity assumption are eligible for the design incentives in the adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and because the Inclusionary Housing regulations apply to all residential projects of more than three units, the realistic capacity on these sites takes the Inclusionary Housing regulations into consideration.
The inclusionary housing regulations streamline use of the State Density Bonus to increase the amount of affordable housing approved in the City. This recent change will work together with proposed changes in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, both currently being updated, to allow higher-density housing in more areas of the city through mixed-use zoning and an affordable housing overlay. These changes will be adopted at or near the same time as Housing Element adoption. Zoning updates to codify those changes will occur shortly after the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan are adopted. The City has been conducting outreach and gathering input from the community and decision makers since early 2019 and support has been expressed for the proposed increased density.
State and Local Regulations encourage full development of allowed capacity for project feasibility
In the process of developing the inclusionary housing ordinance, the City reviewed analysis of jurisdictions throughout the state, including several with similar housing markets within the San Gabriel Valley and wider Los Angeles County region in order to choose a level that would result in the most affordable units while maintaining project feasibility. The recently increased State density bonus, which offers density bonuses up to 35% or 50% for providing very-low or lower income units, combined with the streamlined incentives, supports economic feasibility for projects with 20% affordable units as required by the ordinance. The City has not been made aware of any pending applications that were cancelled due to adoption of the inclusionary housing regulations. In fact, the effect thus far has been as anticipated; the City has received more inquiries from developers since adopting the inclusionary housing regulations.
In September 2021, the City received the first Design Review application subject to the inclusionary housing code, for 108 one- and two-bedroom condominium units in a mixed-use, 84,198 square-foot, 50-foot height project. The proposed project would include 20% of its base units as affordable. The applicant is requesting to comply with the streamlined density bonus provisions and receive Codeallowed concessions. However, staff understands that many developers need to wait for density increases in the forthcoming General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan before submitting applications.
Ongoing Analysis and Monitoring
In July 2021, the City contracted with EPS, an economics consultant firm, to prepare an Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study and develop Affordable Housing Program Recommendations. This work will analyze the inclusionary housing regulations and make recommendations for the City’s affordable 3 - 642
Appendix F
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page F1-4 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE housing program or participation in a regional affordable housing production program. The analysis will also support the City’s understanding of housing production trends and confirm the assumptions that it is realistic to anticipate that developments will be proposed at 95 percent of the zoning capacity. The City has committed in the programs section of this Housing Element to reviewing the effectiveness of the inclusionary regulations starting in 2022 and revising if needed at that point.
Conclusion
Based on the trends and regulations analyzed, the assumption of 95 percent of realistic development capacity on the DTSP and mixed-use sites is reasonable and potentially conservative based on the fact that the most recently approved and developed multifamily and mixed-use with multifamily projects are developing at a higher percentage of allowed capacity. Table 2 shows the number of units on these sites at 95, 100, and 110 percent of allowed capacity under the proposed DTSP and General Plan. Note that the figures include the small number of sites that have a lower-capacity assumption in the DTSP and mixed-use areas. The realistic capacity percentages are lower on those sites because of existing uses that are anticipated to remain on part of the sites.
While 95 percent is the assumption used for this housing element, the number of units potentially possible at 100 and 110 percent of capacity are included in Table 2 to demonstrate what could easily happen if the recent trends to take advantage of state density bonus law for multifamily projects in South Pasadena continue.
Table 2. Capacity Assumption Alternatives
95% Capacity 100% Capacity 110% Capacity
Units 1,545 1,623 1,781
3 - 643
ATTACHMENT 1 b
Initial Study
3 - 644
Draft Initial Study
2021–2029 Housing Element Project
City of South Pasadena, California
Prepared for City of South Pasadena
Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
Prepared by Psomas
225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
T: 626.351.2000
May 2023
3 - 645
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.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 ............................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................. 2-6
2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 2-9
2.6 Energy .................................................................................................. 2-10
2.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 2-11
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 2-14
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 2-15
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 2-18
2.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 2-20
2.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 2-21
2.13 Noise .................................................................................................... 2-22
2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................ 2-23
2.15 Public Services ..................................................................................... 2-24
2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................ 2-25
2.17 Transportation....................................................................................... 2-26
2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 2-28
2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 2-29
2.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................. 2-31
2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................... 2-32 Section 3.0 References ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3 - 646
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx ii Table of Contents TABLES
Table Page
1 2021–2029 Housing Element RHNA Allocation ............................................................. 1-4
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Regional and Local Vicinity ............................................................................................ 1-1 2 Existing Land Use Map .................................................................................................. 1-5 3 Citywide Sites Inventory Map ......................................................................................... 1-5 3 - 647
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-1 Project Information SECTION 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 2021–2029 Housing Element Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South Pasadena Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alison Becker
626.403.7220
4. Project Location: The approximate 2,772 acres encompassing the City of South Pasadena (see Exhibit 1)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of South Pasadena Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
6. General Plan Designation: Various
7. Zoning: Various
8. Description of the Project:
A general plan guides the physical, economic, social, and environmental well-being of a jurisdiction through establishing goals, policies, actions and/or programs for achieving the community’s vision for its future. A housing element is one of the State-required general plan elements. The City of South Pasadena’s (City) current General Plan, including the Housing Element, do not align with the City’s vision for its future and with the need to provide housing in compliance with State law.
Therefore, the City is undertaking the Project both to align goals, policies, and actions with the City’s vision and respond to changing economic, environmental, legal, and social settings.
The most recent drafts of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element, respectively, are available online at the following two sites:
General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan Update | South Pasadena, CA (https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/government/departments/planning-and-building/generalplan-downtown-specific-plan-update); Housing Element Update 2021-2029 | South Pasadena, CA (https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/government/departments/planning-and-building/housingelement-update-2021-2029).
The City is the subject of a Court Order1 to bring its Housing Element into compliance with Government Code Section 65754 within the timeframe stated within the Court Order. As part of this Court Order, pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a), the City is required to prepare this Initial Study, with substantially the same information required pursuant to Section 15080(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines). Should this Initial Study demonstrate that an action may have a significant effect on the environment, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment within the time limitations specified in Government Code Section 65754, the content of which substantially conforms to the 1 Stipulated Judgment (Californians For Homeownership V. City of South Pasadena, LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161)
3 - 648
Pasadena
Altadena
San Marino
San Gabriel
Alhambra
Monterey Park
Huntington Dr
La Lom a Rd
Sierra Madr e B vl d
Highland
Park
Colorado Blvd
Eagle Rock
Figueroa St
Garvanza
§¨210
§¨10
§¨210
§¨5
§¨10
UV2
UV134
UV110
UV710
UV710
Maple St
York Blvd
Valley Blvd
Garvey Ave
Del Mar Blvd
Mission Rd
Figueroa St
Hellman Ave
Altadena Dr
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Washington Blvd
Del Mar Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Chevy Chase Dr
New York Dr
Broadway
Orange Grove Blvd Hill Ave
Arroyo Blvd
Allen Ave
Fremont Ave
San Rafael
Soto St
Main St Arroyo Pkwy
Mission St
Garfield Ave
Avenue 54
Alhambra Ave
Lincoln Ave
Eagle Rock Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Las Tunas Dr
Monterey Rd
Fair Oaks Ave
Lake Ave
Rancho Castilla
New Ave
Oak Grove Dr
San Pascual Ave
Mission Dr
Rosemont Ave
Saint John Ave
Medford St
Glenarm St
San Rafael Ave
Huntington Dr
Los Robles Ave
Hellman Ave
Main St
D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\MXD\Settlement_Agreement\ex_LV_RL_20220824.mxd ²
A N G E L E S
N A T I O N A L
F O R E S T
Project Site
§¨5
§¨210
§¨10
ST19
§¨5
Alhambra
Pasadena
§¨405
§¨210
§¨105
§¨10
§¨ §¨710
110
§¨605
ST170
ST72
ST134
ST110
ST60
ST710
ST91
Los Angeles
Orange
Los Angeles
Downey
Whittier
Glendale
Hawthorne
West Covina
West Hollywood
Regional and Local Vicinity
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Exhibit 1
(Rev: 4-25-2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_LV_RL.pdf 1 0.5 0 1
Miles
Project Site (City of South Pasadena)
Metro L Line
3 - 649
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-2 Project Information content required for a Draft Environmental Impact report set forth in Article 9 of the California Code of Regulations. All other provisions of CEQA, Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000), do not apply to any action necessary to bring the general plan or relevant elements of the plan into compliance with any Court Order or judgment under Article 14 (Government Code Section 65759[a]). This Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 65769 et. sec.
Background
All California jurisdictions are required by State law (Section 65300 of Government Code) to prepare and maintain a planning document called a General Plan. The City of South Pasadena (City) last comprehensively updated its General Plan in 1998. Since the adoption of the 1998 General Plan, several minor amendments have been adopted. The Mission Street Specific Plan (now referred to as the Downtown Specific Plan [DTSP]), part of the City’s General Plan, was adopted in 1996. State law does not require a General Plan to be updated in regularly scheduled intervals, except for the Housing Element. However, a General Plan needs to be updated if it is to reflect community values and priorities as they change over time. General Plan updates typically range between every 20 to 30 years.
The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of a General Plan. Unlike all other General Plan elements, State law requires each municipality to update its Housing Element on a prescribed schedule (most commonly every eight years). The City’s 2013–2021 Housing Element was in effect through 2021. Housing needs are determined by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), which allocates numerical housing targets to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which includes the City of South Pasadena. SCAG finalized its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), on March 9, 2021, and has allocated a total of 2,067 dwelling units (DUs) to the City of South Pasadena at a range of affordability levels. Additionally, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has required the 2021–2029 Housing Element to demonstrate capacity for a surplus of units beyond the RHNA allocation. Cities and counties are not responsible for building the target number of units, but rather are required to plan for them, by demonstrating the sufficiency of sites to accommodate the allocation and identifying specific Housing Element programs to provide capacity to meet the RHNA requirements with implementation dates, within three years. The Housing Element will not be certified by HCD if it does not demonstrate standards and programs for housing production capacity to accommodate the RHNA, including rezoning, if necessary.
Project Components
The Court Order requires that the City bring its Housing Element into compliance with State Planning Law. The changes in the draft 2021–2029 Housing Element is reflected in both the General Plan and DTSP Update, being prepared contemporaneously. This Initial Study, the NOP, and EA are based on environmental analysis of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress (referred to as the Project herein). While the General Plan and DTSP Update remain in preparation, the maximum non-residential development capacity (i.e., 430,000 square feet) and distribution would be the same as contemplated in past drafts of these documents.
3 - 650
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-3 Project Information General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update
The comprehensive General Plan and DTSP Update is being undertaken by the City at this time to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live; reflect an understanding of current community goals; address continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley and the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices; and respond to evolving regional and environmental issues. The General Plan and DTSP Update serve as long-term (through 2040) policy guides for decision-making regarding the physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City and establishes a non-residential development capacity for the City.
Through the public visioning process that began in 2017, the community has identified the character, intensity, and scale of infill development desired for vacant and underutilized tracts in selected areas. Specifically, the community envisions new development to be respectful of the place and its historic resources; contribute to the vibrancy of the human experience; and have positive impacts on place-making, health, economy, and the environment. The central strategy of the Project is to preserve and enhance the distinctive neighborhoods and direct calibrated growth primarily to five focus areas including the Downtown area (i.e., DTSP), Ostrich Farm District, and three Neighborhood Centers on Huntington Drive, while providing housing opportunities for all. The General Plan and DTSP Update each include eight chapters, and each of the chapters features an overriding goal, with policies and actions based on the goal. The eight chapters, their guiding principles, and their contents (i.e., goals, policies, actions), reflect the public visioning process while balancing State-mandated legislative requirements (including the 2021–2029 Housing Element), the City’s budget, and feasibility of future activities.
The DTSP Update has an accompanying hybrid form-based code (herein referred to as DTSP Code or Code) to guide the DTSP’s implementation, providing all requirements for development and land use activity with the DTSP’s boundaries. Form-based codes are an alternative to conventional zoning regulations and are purposeful place-based regulations with an increased focus on the design of the public realm–the public space defined by the exterior of buildings and the surrounding streets and open space.
2021–2029 Housing Element
The 2021-2029 housing element cycle for the Southern California region departs significantly from past housing element cycles due to significant changes in State law. State requirements to boost housing production and provide more affordable housing units and justification for such are new additions. Accordingly, the proposed Housing Element update balances strategic and targeted potential housing sites adequate to meet the RHNA allocation, AFFH concerns, and introduces new policies and programs consistent with State law based on a comprehensive and inclusive strategy to encourage housing production and retention to serve the entire community. Per State requirements, the City’s proposed Housing Element must include the following components:
A detailed analysis of the City’s demographic, economic, and housing characteristics. An analysis of the barriers to producing and preserving housing. A review of the City’s progress in implementing current housing policies and programs. An identification of goals, policies, and actions in addition to a full list of programs that will implement the vision of the Housing Element.
3 - 651
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-4 Project Information A list of sites (Suitable Sites Inventory) that could accommodate new housing, demonstrating the City’s ability to meet the quantified housing number established in the RHNA.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional (i.e., SCAG) requirements. SCAG has determined that the City’s RHNA allocation is 2,067 DUs and the HCD-required RHNA surplus is 708 DUs (2,775 DUs in total).
Table 2 summarizes the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for the City of South Pasadena that the Project accommodates.
TABLE 1
2021–2029 HOUSING ELEMENT RHNA ALLOCATION
Income Group
Number of New Units
Allocated to Citya Percentage RHNA Surplusb
Extremely Low and Very Low Income 757 37%
177
Low Income 398 19%
Moderate Income 334 16% 144
Above Moderate Income 578 28% 316
Total 2,067 100% 708
Total Dwelling Units 2,775
Sources: a SCAG 2021; b South Pasadena 2023.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element includes the following six overarching goals:
Goal 1.0–Conserve the existing housing stock and maintain standards of livability:
Conserve and maintain the existing housing stock so that it will continue to meet livability standards and sustain the community’s housing needs.
Goal 2.0–Encourage and assist in the provision of affordable housing: Facilitate the development of deed-restricted affordable housing units in locations distributed throughout the city in order to provide housing for a diverse community, including low-income households that are least able to afford adequate housing.
Goal 3.0–Provide opportunities to increase housing production: Provide adequate sites for residential development with appropriate land use designations and zoning provisions, objective design standards, and energy efficiency requirements, and ensure efficient and transparent review processes for residential development, including accessory dwelling units, to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing needs. Goal 4.0–Compliance with State housing laws: Adopt and implement policies and regulations that comply with State laws to facilitate housing for people living with disabilities or experiencing homelessness, and to accelerate the approval processes for housing projects, particularly projects that include affordable housing units. Goal 5.0–Promote fair housing while acknowledging the consequences of past discriminatory housing practices: Acknowledging that throughout much of the 20th century, discriminatory housing and lending practices excluded non-white people from purchasing housing in the city, and that such history continues to have implications for the community’s racial and cultural diversity today. Promote fair housing through policies and programs to promote inclusion of low-and moderate-income households. 3 - 652
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-5 Project Information Goal 6.0–Expand and strengthen tenant protections for South Pasadena’s existing renters: South Pasadena renters are important members of the community and make up about 53.5% of the city’s population. The City’s efforts to advance housing that is affordable to people of all income levels must include not only longer-term strategies like facilitating housing production, but also policies and programs that help South Pasadena’s existing renters remain in (or return to) their homes and their broader community. To that end, the City is committed to ensuring that all of its renter households maintain housing stability and affordability so that they can stay and thrive in South Pasadena.
Each of these goals has supporting policies that guide decision-making. Several programs are identified to support the goals and policies, with an eight-year objective, funding source(s), responsible agency(ies), and timeframe presented for each program. The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs are intended to support and encourage housing construction to achieve the City’s RHNA allocation. The housing plan includes measurable targets that are monitored on an annual basis through HCD’s Annual Progress Reporting system. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is available under a separate cover from the General Plan and DTSP Update and will be incorporated by reference in these documents.
Project Development Capacity
Based on community input, a market study prepared as part of the General Plan and DTSP Update process, State requirements, and HCD feedback, the central strategy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element continues to be preservation of existing neighborhoods and directing calibrated growth.
Preserving housing supports sustainability objectives, and it is also less expensive to create affordable units in existing housing stock. However, to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation, the City must determine policies and zoning thresholds that allow and encourage production of new housing units in a manner that South Pasadena has not contemplated in the past. The multipronged strategy that the housing element update relies on includes inclusionary housing requirements that the City Council adopted in 2020; encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) with simpler, objective requirements; and rezoning for higher density and mixed-use commercial/residential development. The rezoning of non-residential parcels to allow densities that support and encourage both market rate and affordable housing units would follow the adoption of a revised General Plan Land Use Element together with the DTSP, an update and expansion of the 1996 Mission Street Specific Plan.
The plans encourage most of the new housing to be provided in walkable mixed-use environments in the Downtown and along major transit corridors and arterial roadways but also accommodate increased housing opportunities within existing residential neighborhoods. Exhibit 2, Existing Land Use Map, and Exhibit 3, Citywide Sites Inventory Map, depict the proposed distribution and extent of the categories of public and private uses of land. The Project analyzed herein would accommodate a maximum of 2,775 DUs and 430,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses‒ comprised of retail and office development‒in addition to existing land uses.
The buildout of up to 2,775 DUs and 430,000 sf of retail/office is estimated to generate up to 1,978 additional jobs2 and 6,882 more residents3 in the City through 2040 compared to existing conditions.
The maximum 6,882 residents equate with full occupancy of 2,775 units. However, based on a vacancy rate of 5.5 percent, the maximum 2,775 DUs in the 2021–2029 Housing Element would result in a resident population increase of approximately 6,503 persons occupying 2,622 DUs (i.e., households). Vacancy rates of 5.5 percent for the City and 6.4 for the County are applied in this 2 Based on a rate of 1 employee per 200 sf with an 8 percent vacancy as per the Market Analysis (HR&A 2017). 3 Based on a rate of 2.48 persons per household derived from the most recent California Department of Finance demographic data for the City (2022).
3 - 653
Source: City of South Pasadena 2018
(04/25/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_Existing_LU.pdf D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\GRAPHICS\Settlement_Agreement\ex_Existing_LU_20191218.ai Exhibit 2
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Existing Land Use Policy Map
0 500 1000 2000
Feet
3 - 654
Mission Stree t Specific Pla n
c=J Altos De Monte r ey Residenti a l
Estate & Ve ry Low Density Residenti al
c::::=J Low De nsity Residenti a l
C=:J Medium Den sity Reside n tia l
High Density Residenti a l
c:=J Pt·ofession al Offi ce
Gen er al Comme rcia l
c:::::J Bu siness Pa rk/Research & Developm ent & Light Ma nufacturing CI::i} Commun ity Facilities
Parks
C:J Open Space
Ra il Transit Ro ute 110 Freeway
Unimproved Right of Way
C::J Arroyo Seco Channe l
st Office
lue Line St a tio n
\,
C
J-==tr.~ ~ I[
--·~ . ~\:\1-";::::1 {
~ '
Source: City of South Pasadena 2023
(04/25/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_CitywideSites_Inventory.pdf D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\GRAPHICS\Settlement_Agreement\ex_CitywideSites_Inventory_20230425.ai South Pasadena City Boundary
Housing Site Inventory
(RE) Residential Estate(AM) Altos De Monterey Residential(RS) Residential Low Density(RM) Residential Medium Density(RH) Residential High Density(CO) Commercial Office(CG) Commercial General(CF) Community Facility(BP) Business Park(MSSP) Mission Street Specific Plan Exhibit 3
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Citywide Sites Inventory Map
3 - 655
• •
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-6 Project Information analysis as they are the most recent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and are expected to be more reflective of typical conditions over the longer-term planning periods of the Project. The majority of existing land uses in the City are not expected to change substantively, and new development is anticipated to occur largely as infill redevelopment or development in the focus areas.
Discretionary Actions by the City
The primary discretionary action by the City supported by this Initial Study is adoption of the 2021– 2029 Housing Element, as a policy document. It is important to note that the General Plan and DTSP Update (when adopted) and this proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element would not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval, including public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. New development would continue to be subject to the City’s development review process. The proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional (i.e., SCAG) requirements.
Probable Environmental Impacts of the Project
Based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, 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 Environmental Assessment:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, the Project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the environmental checklist questions for the topics listed below:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources 3 - 656
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-7 Project Information
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The City of South Pasadena is located on the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County (County), approximately 5 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. The City is surrounded by several municipalities, including the City of Pasadena to the north; the City of San Marino to the east; the City of Alhambra to the south; the City of Los Angeles to the southwest; and the City of Los Angeles neighborhoods, including Garvanza and Highland Park, to the west.
The planning area for the proposed Project includes approximately 3.5 square miles, or 2,272 acres, within the incorporated City limits. The City’s estimated 11,156 residential dwelling units (DUs), housing the City’s population of 25,580, are comprised of nearly equal number of singlefamily and multi-family units.
The City’s land use pattern is well established and largely built out, with limited available vacant or underutilized land throughout the City. The City’s development character is predominantly lowand mid-rise residential, with low- to mid-rise neighborhood-serving retail uses, office buildings, and civic uses generally located along its main corridors: Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Huntington Drive, Fremont Avenue, and Monterey Road. The City’s circulation network is largely a grid system of north/south and east/west roads. The exception to the grid system is the southwest quadrant of the City that has curvilinear streets developed to fit the topography of the area.
Regional access to the City is provided predominantly by State Route 110 (SR-110, Arroyo Seco Parkway), which transects the City. Interstate 210 (I-210) and SR-134 also provide regional access, with the nearest ramps situated approximately 1 mile north of the northern City boundary.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) L Line also provides transit/rail access to downtown Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, and the northern San Gabriel Valley. The City’s location and regional setting and primary transportation corridors are shown on Exhibit 1 above.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
This question is not applicable to this Initial Study, as it is being prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65759 as part of the Court Order (see above). There are no other agencies that would use this document as part of discretionary decision-making.
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 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 with the California Native American tribes affiliated with the City of South Pasadena has been completed. Refer to Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study for further information.
3 - 657
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-8 Project Information This page intentionally left blank
3 - 658
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-9 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 ASSESSMENT 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 ASSESSMENT 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 EA 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
05/02/23
Alison Becker, AICP
5/2/2023
Angelica Frausto-Lupo
3 - 659
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 1-10 Project Information This page intentionally left blank
3 - 660
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.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? Discussion
The City’s existing General Plan defines that the “hillsides and ridgelines of South Pasadena provide a scenic backdrop for the entire community”. Additionally, the San Gabriel Mountains rise to heights over 6,000 feet above msl and would be expected to remain partially visible from most areas of the City. However, the Project would result in an intensification of land uses in portions of the City including buildings on selected parcels that may be taller than 45 feet. Therefore, potential impacts related to obstructions of scenic vistas will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion
The nearest officially designated scenic highway under the State’s Scenic Highways program is a segment of the I-210 located approximately 1.8 miles due north. Due to distance and intervening development, the City is not visible from this segment of I-210. However, the segment of SR-110 that traverses the northern portion of the City is designated as the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway under the National Scenic Byway program. Views of the City from the SR-110 may change where intensified land uses that abut the freeway are potentially developed. Therefore, potential impacts related to scenic resources within view of SR-110 will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 661
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-2 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
Discussion
The City is considered an urbanized area. However, the City considers visual character of high importance separate from the issue of consistency with applicable planning regulations. The assessment of the Project impacts related to visual character would consider both the context of public views in the City as well as planning regulations.
Future development would change the visual quality of individual development sites, as structures and site improvements are introduced on vacant lands and as older developments are replaced with newer structures and site improvements that would likely have a different architectural style and may be more intense than the pre-existing land use. Increased urbanization could be expected as properties are developed and/or redeveloped with higher intensity/density uses.
Potential impacts related to visual quality will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
Future development under the proposed Project would be accompanied by new sources of light and glare. These would include exterior security lighting, lighted signs, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian pathway lighting. Newly constructed buildings could also create new sources of daytime glare in the form of glazed building surfaces, use of mirrors and glass as exterior building surfaces, and other reflective materials that would reflect the sun or light sources and create glare.
Therefore, potential impacts related to light or glare will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 662
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
The City is a developed urban area surrounded by several municipalities that are also urbanized.
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 2020). The City has no land zoned for agricultural use, nor is there land proposed to be zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the Project would not impact agriculture resources. This issue will not be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. Accordingly, there are no conflicts with agricultural zoning, and Williamson Act contracts are not applicable to the City. Additionally, there is no forest land, timberland, or any Timberland Production Zones in the City; therefore, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production areas. Thus, agriculture and forest resources will not be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 663
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-4 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?
Discussion
The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). On December 2, 2022, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 2022 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 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2020–2045 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 SoCAB compared to the existing condition. Therefore, consistency with the 2022 AQMP will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The SoCAB 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. The Project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in non-attainment, when considered in combination with other development planned in the SoCAB, will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 664
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-5 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
As stated in Threshold 2.3(a), construction and operation of the Project would result in a net increase in air pollutants. Therefore, potential impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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). Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous commercial refuse, which occurs in the existing condition. Additionally, short-term construction equipment and activities would generate odors, such as diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment and paving activities. Therefore, potential impacts related to odors will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 665
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-6 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?
Discussion
The Project site is in a highly urbanized area and is largely built out. As such, habitat potentially suitable for native wildlife species in the City is limited to the ornamental vegetation in developed areas and the native soils and vegetation in the undeveloped open space areas. Habitat potentially suitable for native plant species is present in the undeveloped, naturally vegetated open space areas. Additionally, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) are special status wildlife species with potential to occur in the large trees that are located throughout the City. Therefore, potential impacts related to special status biological resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
As discussed above in Threshold 2.4(a), the City is in a highly urbanized area. However, the Project may result in future development of vacant areas supporting native vegetation communities, potentially containing sensitive upland vegetation types. Therefore, potential impacts related to sensitive natural communities will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 666
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-7 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
As discussed above in Threshold 2.4(a), the Project site is in a highly urbanized area.
Jurisdictional resources (i.e., under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to the Clean Water Act) within the City of South Pasadena are mostly confined to concrete-lined drainages with no associated vegetation. The concrete-lined drainages across the City are numerous and disperse. The vacant, naturally vegetated, open space areas are mostly located in steep, upland areas with little potential to support jurisdictional resources. However, potential impacts related to jurisdictional resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
Wildlife corridors and habitat linkages are features that promote habitat connectivity and are generally characterized as undisturbed canyon and riverine stream habitat areas. Wildlife movement is already greatly restricted within the City due to existing urban development in most areas. Wildlife movement is likely to be confined to the Arroyo Seco along the western boundary of the City and within the vacant, naturally vegetated open space areas in the southwestern portion of the City. Also, future development may involve clearing or removals of vegetation and trees used by migrating bird and bat species protected by State and/or federal regulations.
Therefore, potential impacts related to wildlife movement will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 667
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-8 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
The City of South Pasadena has a detailed tree preservation ordinance defined under Chapter 34, “Trees and Shrubs”, of the City of South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC). Future development may involve trimming or removals of trees. Therefore, potential impacts related to conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP); Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP); or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City of South Pasadena. However, this issue will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment as part of the biological resources analysis.
3 - 668
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-9 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?
Discussion
The City has numerous designated historic resources and many additional properties that have been identified as potentially eligible historical resources. Implementation of the proposed Project would involve redevelopment of existing properties. Therefore, potential impacts to historical resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The City is almost built out and is in a highly developed, urban area of Los Angeles County.
Because there are few vacant parcels in the City, future development would largely occur in areas of the City that are already developed and/or built out. However, grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation than in the past, could potentially cause the disturbance of previously unknown/unrecorded archaeological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
3 - 669
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-10 Environmental Checklist Form Discussion
As discussed under Threshold 2.5(b) above, grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation than in the past, may encounter unknown cultural resources, including previously undiscovered human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, potential impacts to human remains will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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 Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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 Environmental Assessment. 3 - 670
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-11 Environmental Checklist Form
2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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.
Discussion
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 South Pasadena are both affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (Alquist-Priolo Zones). Specifically, the limits of the Alquist-Priolo Zone for the Raymond Fault run east-west through the northernmost portion of the City, largely overlying the SR 110 alignment.
Therefore, potential impacts related to the surface fault rupture will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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. Also, several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin. Consistent with its location in a seismically active region, the City may be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from a major earthquake on one or 3 - 671
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-12 Environmental Checklist Form more faults in the area in the future. Therefore, potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
iv) Landslides?
Discussion
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. Separate from the issue of liquefaction, the presence of groundwater or shallow, perched water or seepage can adversely affect new construction. Landslides typically consist of shallow failures involving surficial soils and the underlying highly weathered bedrock in moderate to steep terrain. The CGS broadly identifies areas of seismic-induced liquefaction risk pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. There are discrete areas designated as potentially susceptible to either liquefaction or landslide within the hilly area in the southwest portion of the City. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction and landslides will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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? Discussion
The largest source of erosion and topsoil loss, particularly in a developed environment, is uncontrolled drainage during construction activities. Construction activities produce loose soils, which would be subject to erosion if the surface areas were to be left uncovered and exposed to weather conditions. Grading, excavation, and trenching for construction may expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion, which could result in increased particulate matter (i.e., PM10) in the air and/or increased sediment runoff in surface waters. Therefore, potential impacts related to soil erosion will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 672
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-13 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
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? Discussion
Secondary seismic hazards related to the underlying geologic unit include several types of ground failure that can occur because of severe ground shaking. These hazards include landslides, collapse, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, and liquefaction. Liquefaction and landslides are addressed above under Thresholds 2.7(a)(iii) and 2.7(a)(iv). 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 inherent in the underlying sediments on a site that can adversely affect structures if not appropriately managed during construction, including expansive soils, subsidence, hydroconsolidation, and other forms of collapse. Therefore, potential impacts related to location on an unstable geologic unit will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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 wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
The vast majority of the City is served by the municipal sewer system; however, there are septic tanks that remain in the Altos de Monterey area in the southwest portion of the City. Therefore, potential impacts related to alternative wastewater systems will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 673
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-14 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
Future development would largely occur in areas of the City that are already developed and/or built out. However, as with archaeological resources, grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation into the native soil than in the past, could potentially cause the disturbance of previously unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, potential impacts related to archaeological resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The Project would result in a net increase in the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and operation of future development in the City. The Project’s shortterm and long-term GHG emissions will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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, 3 - 674
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-15 Environmental Checklist Form including the City of South Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan, will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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?
Discussion
Construction activities associated with new development would commonly involve the use of hazardous materials for construction, such as paints, thinners, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, oils, and other chemicals, which could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination, if not properly stored, used, or disposed. Operation of future development may involve use of common hazardous materials (e.g., paint, pesticides, cleansers, and solvents). These hazardous materials would be stored and used at individual sites and may create a public health and safety hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal. Therefore, potential impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
As discussed under Threshold 2.9(a), future development could involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and other hazardous materials that are associated with construction. Redevelopment activities that involve demolition or reuse of existing buildings may result in the need to remove and dispose of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint, dependent on the age of the structure. In addition to the identified hazardous materials sites, as discussed above, there may be sites in the City impacted by hazardous materials or hazardous wastes from historic use that are not identified on current databases. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazardous materials release will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 675
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-16 Environmental Checklist Form 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-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Discussion
All schools in the City are located near residential or civic land uses where hazardous materials use is limited. However, given the modest size of the City, some existing schools are within
0.25 mile of one or more focus areas, which would have a mixed-use land use designation and may include retail and office uses that could handle materials classified as hazardous. While these materials would not be considered acutely hazardous or unusual, potential impacts to existing schools due to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials at future development sites will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
Based on review of the Cortese List data resources, there are a total of 18 (17 with status completed–case closed; 1 with status open, eligible for closure) sites in the City identified on the list of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2023). The LUST sites are concentrated along Fair Oaks Avenue, Mission Street, and Huntington Drive. There are no sites identified on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites list via its EnviroStor database (DTSC 2023). While these findings are typical of urban environments, potential impacts related to sites identified on hazardous materials databases will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 676
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-17 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
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 airport is the El Monte Airport, located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue, El Monte, approximately six miles east-southeast of the City at the nearest points. However, this issue will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment as part of the hazards and hazardous materials analysis.
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?
Discussion
The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. Evacuation routes include major roadways in the City, with the SR 110 and I 210 freeways serving as primary regional exit routes. Construction activities on public rights-of-way may temporarily block traffic and access near the construction zone. The potential impacts related to emergency response and evacuation will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
3 - 677
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-18 Environmental Checklist Form Discussion
No portion of the City is identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2023). However, the western and southwestern borders of the City are adjacent to VHFHSZs. The southwestern portion of the City, located west of Meridian Avenue and south of Monterey Road, is a hilly area that is defined as a high fire hazard area by the City. Therefore, potential impacts related to wildland fires will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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?
Discussion
There are two major classes of pollutants: point source and non-point source. Point-source pollutants can be traced to their original source and are discharged directly from pipes or spills.
Non-point-source pollutants cannot be traced to a specific original source. Non-point source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. Storm water runoff (i.e., non-point source) occurs when rainfall is collected by storm drains instead of being absorbed into groundcover or soil as is common in undeveloped and in landscaped areas. Storm water runoff from individual construction sites could contain pollutants such as soils and sediments that are released during grading and excavation activities and petroleum-related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Future development would have the potential to increase non-point-source runoff, and associated pollutants, from residential, office/retail, utility, and roadway uses. Therefore, potential impacts related to water quality will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
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 3 - 678
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-19 Environmental Checklist Form 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. These water supplies may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources. Therefore, potential impacts related to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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 offsite? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion
Changes in drainage patterns would be confined to individual development sites and would not affect major underground storm drain lines and concrete-lined drainages in the City. However, the construction of new impervious surfaces would reduce the amount of rainwater that could infiltrate the soils, potentially increasing storm water runoff due to reductions in infiltration.
Therefore, potential impacts related to alteration in drainage patterns will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
No portions of the City are within a 100-year floodplain, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2023). Due to distance from the Pacific Ocean and absence of large 3 - 679
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-20 Environmental Checklist Form water bodies in or near the City, tsunamis or seiches would not affect the City. However, mountainous areas are susceptible to mudflows. Most of the City is relatively flat, with steeper hillside areas primarily in the southwest portion of the City. Therefore, the potential impacts related to inundation from mudflows will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The San Gabriel Basin, the City’s source of groundwater, is defined by the California Department of Water Resources as very low priority pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (DWR 2023). As such, there is currently no sustainable groundwater management plan applicable to the City. Regardless, as discussed under Threshold 2.10(b) above, the Project would result in an increased demand for water during construction and operation of future development, which may be in part derived from the City’s groundwater sources. Therefore, potential impacts related to groundwater management will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The City of South Pasadena is largely built out with established residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. While this fact has contributed to difficulty in the City finding a feasible way to accommodate the high RHNA allocation, the focus of the 2021–2029 Housing Element is to conserve the stable and established neighborhoods and direct carefully calibrated growth. The planned development and redevelopment are meant to revitalize neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and would enable more residential development or mixed-use development (i.e., residential and commercial/office) than presently allowed. Regardless, potential impacts related to dividing an established community will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 680
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-21 Environmental Checklist Form 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?
Discussion
The primary land use planning documents that govern the City include the City’s General Plan, Mission Street Specific Plan, and South Pasadena Municipal Code. Additionally, the SCAG’s RHNA and RTP/SCS are regional planning documents relevant to the City’s local planning, including the 2021–2029 Housing Element. Consistency with the applicable plans and policies of the City and the region (i.e., SCAG) will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
There are no known mineral resources or active mining operations in the City. 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. Therefore, mineral resources will not be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 681
~ □ □ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-22 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?
Discussion
The 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) associated with future development. Therefore, potential impacts related to noise generation will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
Depending on the type of construction activities employed, construction activities could generate groundborne vibration that could affect nearby buildings. Therefore, potential impacts related to generation of vibration will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
3 - 682
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-23 Environmental Checklist Form Discussion
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 airport is the El Monte Airport, located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue, El Monte, approximately six miles east-southeast of the City at the nearest points. However, this issue will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment as part of the noise analysis.
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)? Discussion
Future development under the proposed Project would increase housing, population, and employment in the City. While buildout of a City under an adopted general plan, including its housing element, is not tied to a specific timeline, for the purposes of this Initial Study, development of the Project is assumed to occur by the horizon year of 2040 with the policies and associated programs of the 2021–2029 Housing Element being completed by the end of 2029.
Therefore, potential impacts related to the direct and indirect generation of population in the City will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
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?
Discussion
The 2021–2029 Housing Element calls for the conservation of the City’s established residential neighborhoods and transitions to higher densities within focused areas. Thus, most of the residential land uses in the City are expected to remain in place. New residential development on the limited number of vacant lots in the City would not involve any displacement of housing.
However, transitions to higher densities within the focus areas or those lots outside the focus areas with potential for redevelopment that currently contain residential land uses could result in displacement. Therefore, potential impacts related to displacement of existing people or housing will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 683
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-24 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?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
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 scope of development. The Project’s resident population would also generate an increased demand for parks, schools, and other public facilities, such as libraries. The increased demand for these public services may result in the need for new or expanded facilities whose construction could result in environmental impacts. Therefore, potential impacts related to public services will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 684
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-25 Environmental Checklist Form
2.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Discussion
As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, above, the Project would result in direct population growth in the City. The Project’s resident population would generate an increased demand for recreational facilities in the City and local region. The increased demand for these recreational facilities may result in the deterioration of these facilities. Therefore, potential impacts related to increased use of recreational facilities will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
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 recreational facilities related to both the increased population and the increased scope of development. The increased demand for recreation facilities may result in the need for expanded recreational facilities whose construction could result in environmental impacts. Therefore, potential impacts related to the demand for recreational facilities will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 685
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-26 Environmental Checklist Form
2.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Discussion
The City adopted CEQA transportation analysis guidelines on May 20, 2020 (Resolution No. 7656), pursuant to SB 743. The guidelines outline screening criteria and significance thresholds for land use plans, land development projects, and transportation projects. For land use plans that would change population and/or employment, the SCAG model will be used to forecast the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The total VMT of the land use plan area will be divided by population (per capita) and service population (population plus employees). A significant impact would occur if the VMT per capita or service population for the land use plan exceeds the VMT per population or service population of the baseline. A cumulative significant impact would be the same as the project-level impact since the analysis includes all regional land use and transportation cumulative conditions. The Project would generate increased vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles. Therefore, consistency of the Project with the City’s plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, specifically the City’s General Plan and the City’s transportation analysis guidelines will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1)?
Discussion
Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines refers to evaluating transportation impacts using the VMT metric for land use projects. As discussed above, the City’s transportation analysis guidelines were prepared to reflect the requirements of SB 743, and potential impacts related to additional increased vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles will be presented for further evaluation in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 686
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-27 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Discussion
Roadway and other transportation improvements that may be implemented in the future would involve only existing streets, ramps, driveways, and sidewalks. No new major streets or other substantial alterations to the existing roadway network could be accommodated as the City is essentially built out. In some instances, addition of new streets may be necessary to break up the large-scale super-blocks into pedestrian-oriented blocks, or complete a block with missing buildings, open space, or infrastructure. Therefore, potential impacts related to traffic hazards will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. Evacuation routes include major roadways in the City, with the SR 110 and I 210 freeways serving as primary regional exit routes. The Project would result in a greater intensity of land uses on some parcels in the City. Construction activities on public rightsof-way may temporarily block traffic and access near the construction zone. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 687
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-28 Environmental Checklist Form
2.18 TRIBAL 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 tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Discussion
The Project is subject to compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources”, defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, as part of the CEQA process. AB 52 requires the City to notify any groups (who have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project for which a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR is required pursuant to CEQA, on or after July 1, 2015. Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies. It establishes responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005.
Pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, the City initiated government-to-government consultation with NAHC-identified California Native American tribes has been completed as part of ongoing preparation of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021‒2029 Housing Element. Tribes requested consultation to identify, protect, and/or mitigate potential impacts to cultural places/resources. The results of this consultation and the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to a listed or eligible tribal cultural resource will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 688
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-29 Environmental Checklist Form
2.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion
The Project would increase demand for potable water, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications services and would increase the generation of wastewater. As discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of new impervious surfaces would reduce the amount of rainwater that could infiltrate the soils, potentially increasing storm water runoff due to reductions in infiltration. Therefore, potential impacts related to the need for new or expanded water, wastewater, storm water drainage, and dry utilities whose construction could result in environmental impacts will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Discussion
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.
Therefore, potential impacts related to the sufficiency of water supplies will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 689
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-30 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Discussion
The Project would increase the generation of wastewater. Wastewater from the City of South Pasadena is treated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts).
Potential impacts to Sanitation Districts’ facilities from the Project will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion
Construction of the Project would generate a finite volume of construction and demolition waste, and operation of the Project would result in increased long-term generation of municipal (nonhazardous) solid waste. Potential impacts related to landfill space and compliance with applicable solid waste regulations will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 3 - 690
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-31 Environmental Checklist Form
2.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
No portion of the City is identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2023). However, the western and southwestern borders of the City are adjacent to VHFHSZs. The southwestern portion of the City, located west of Meridian Avenue and south of Monterey Road, is a hilly area that is defined as a high fire hazard area by the City.
Therefore, potential impacts related to wildfires will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
3 - 691
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-32 Environmental Checklist Form
2.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Discussion
As discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, the potential for the Project to impact special status biological resources, sensitive vegetation types, jurisdictional resources, wildlife movement, and conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance or conservation plans will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
As discussed in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the potential for the Project to impact the on-site historic resources and unknown historic (buried), archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or paleontological resources will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
Discussion
Within the City of South Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley, there are planned, ongoing, and proposed projects (not including the Project) that may cumulatively increase environmental impacts in the Project area. These impacts may be potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment will evaluate cumulative impacts for the Project based on the environmental impacts of the development associated with the Project in combination with the potential environmental impacts of regional growth in the San Gabriel Valley through the year 2040. 3 - 692
[8J □ □ □
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-33 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion
Construction and operation of the Project could have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Environmental Assessment will provide analyses of the potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utility and service systems, and wildfire.
3 - 693
[8J □ □ □
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 2-34 Environmental Checklist Form This page intentionally left blank
3 - 694
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 3-1 References SECTION 3.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2020 (November). Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018: Sheet 2 of 2.
Sacramento, CA: FMMP. https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/RequestFile/2819428.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. (April 25, access date).
FHSZ Viewer. Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023 (April 25, access date).
EnviroStor Database. Sacramento, CA: DTSC. https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.
California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023 (April 25, access date). Geotracker Database. Sacramento, CA: SWRCB. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2023 (April 25, access date). Basin Prioritization: SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Sacramento, CA: DWR. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023 (April 25, access date). The National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA Flood Map Service Center: South Pasadena, City of.
Washington, D.C.: FEMA. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
3 - 695
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Initial Study
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Settlement Agreement Documentation\Housing Element Draft IS-050223.docx 3-2 References This page intentionally left blank
3 - 696
ATTACHMENT 1 c
Environmental Assessment
3 - 697
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
3 - 698
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
Prepared for City of South Pasadena
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Prepared by Psomas
225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
May 2023
3 - 699
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx i Table of Contents Section Page
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Location and Setting ........................................................................... ES-1 Project Description .......................................................................................... ES-2 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................... ES-3 Issues to be Resolved ..................................................................................... ES-4 Areas of Controversy ....................................................................................... ES-4 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts .............................................. ES-4 Section 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Type of Environmental Impact Report ............................... 1-1
1.1.1 Background ................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 1-2
1.1.3 Lead Agency ............................................................................... 1-3
1.2 Project Sponsor and Contact Person ..................................................... 1-4 Section 2.0 Environmental Setting and Project Description ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting and Characteristics ......................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Regional Setting .......................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Local Environmental Setting ....................................................... 2-2
2.2.3 Relevant Planning Considerations .............................................. 2-4
2.3 Project Background ................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.1 Existing General Plan and Housing Element .............................. 2-6
2.3.2 Existing Mission Street Specific Plan .......................................... 2-8
2.3.3 Purpose and Use of the Project .................................................. 2-9
2.3.4 Planning Process ........................................................................ 2-9
2.4 Proposed Project Description ................................................................. 2-9
2.4.1 2021–2029 Housing Element .................................................... 2-10
2.4.2 Definition of Planning Components and Terms ........................ 2-13
2.4.3 Project Development Pattern and Capacity .............................. 2-14
2.5 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................. 2-17
2.6 Project Objectives ................................................................................. 2-18
2.7 Intended Uses of the EA ....................................................................... 2-18
2.8 References ........................................................................................... 2-19 Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................... 3-1
3.0.1 Environmental Analysis Format .................................................. 3-2
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................ 3.1-1
3.1.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.1-1
3.1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.1-1 3 - 700
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx ii Table of Contents
3.1.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.1-2
3.1.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.1-5
3.1.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies ...................... 3.1-5
3.1.6 Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 3.1-6
3.1.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 3.1-9
3.1.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.1-10
3.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.1-10
3.1.10 References ............................................................................. 3.1-11
3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 3.2-1
3.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.2-1
3.2.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.2-1
3.2.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.2-7
3.2.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.2-11
3.2.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.2-13
3.2.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.2-13
3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.2-18
3.2.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.2-19
3.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.2-20
3.2.10 References ............................................................................. 3.2-22
3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.3-1
3.3.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.3-1
3.3.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.3-6
3.3.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.3-9
3.3.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.3-10
3.3.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.3-11
3.3.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.3-14
3.3.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.3-14
3.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.3-15
3.3.10 References ............................................................................. 3.3-16
3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................ 3.4-1
3.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.4-1
3.4.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.4-1
3.4.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.4-18
3.4.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.4-24
3.4.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.4-25
3.4.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.4-25
3.4.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.4-29
3.4.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.4-30
3.4.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation ..................................... 3.4-31
3.4.10 References ............................................................................. 3.4-32
3.5 Energy ................................................................................................. 3.5-1
3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.5-1
3.5.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.5-1
3.5.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.5-1
3.5.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.5-6
3.5.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies ...................... 3.5-6
3.5.6 Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 3.5-6 3 - 701
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx iii Table of Contents
3.5.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 3.5-8
3.5.8 Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 3.5-8
3.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... 3.5-8
3.5.10 References ............................................................................... 3.5-9
3.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................ 3.6-1
3.6.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.6-1
3.6.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.6-1
3.6.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.6-3
3.6.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.6-6
3.6.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies ...................... 3.6-6
3.6.6 Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 3.6-7
3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.6-11
3.6.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.6-12
3.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.6-12
3.6.10 References ............................................................................. 3.6-12
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3.7-1
3.7.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.7-1
3.7.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.7-1
3.7.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.7-4
3.7.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.7-15
3.7.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.7-15
3.7.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.7-15
3.7.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.7-17
3.7.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.7-17
3.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.7-17
3.7.10 References ............................................................................. 3.7-18
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 3.8-1
3.8.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.8-1
3.8.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.8-1
3.8.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.8-2
3.8.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.8-5
3.8.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies ...................... 3.8-6
3.8.6 Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 3.8-6
3.8.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.8-10
3.8.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.8-11
3.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.8-12
3.8.10 References ............................................................................. 3.8-12
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3.9-1
3.9.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 3.9-1
3.9.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ....................................... 3.9-3
3.9.4 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 3.9-9
3.9.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.9-10
3.9.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.9-10
3.9.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.9-15
3.9.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.9-16
3.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.9-16
3.9.10 References ............................................................................. 3.9-16 3 - 702
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx iv Table of Contents
3.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................... 3.10-1
3.10.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.10-1
3.10.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.10-1
3.10.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.10-2
3.10.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.10-11
3.10.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................. 3.10-11
3.10.6 Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 3.10-12
3.10.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.10-17
3.10.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.10-18
3.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.10-18
3.10.10 References ....................................................................... 3.10-19
3.11 Noise ................................................................................................. 3.11-1
3.11.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.2 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.11-4
3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.11-7
3.11.4 Proposed Housing Element GOals and Policies .................... 3.11-8
3.11.5 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.11-8
3.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.11-14
3.11.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.11-15
3.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.11-17
3.12 Population and Housing ..................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.12-1
3.12.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.12-4
3.12.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.12-14
3.12.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................. 3.12-14
3.12.6 Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 3.12-16
3.12.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.12-21
3.12.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.12-21
3.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.12-22
3.12.10 References ....................................................................... 3.12-22
3.13 Public Services and Recreation ......................................................... 3.13-1
3.13.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.13-1
3.13.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.13-1
3.13.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.13-6
3.13.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.13-9
3.13.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.13-9
3.13.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.13-9
3.13.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.13-15
3.13.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.13-17
3.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.13-17
3.13.10 References ....................................................................... 3.13-17
3.14 Transportation.................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.14-1
3.14.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.14-4
3.14.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.14-10
3.14.5 Proposed Housing Plan Goals and Policies ........................ 3.14-10 3 - 703
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx v Table of Contents
3.14.6 Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 3.14-11
3.14.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.14-13
3.14.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.14-14
3.14.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.14-14
3.15 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................ 3.15-1
3.15.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.15-1
3.15.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.15-1
3.15.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.15-4
3.15.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.15-9
3.15.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................. 3.15-10
3.15.6 Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 3.15-10
3.15.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.15-15
3.15.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.15-17
3.15.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................... 3.15-17
3.15.10 References ....................................................................... 3.15-17
3.16 Wildfire ............................................................................................... 3.16-1
3.16.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3.16-1
3.16.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3.16-1
3.16.3 Relevant Programs and Regulations ..................................... 3.16-2
3.16.4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 3.16-6
3.16.5 Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies .................... 3.16-7
3.16.6 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 3.16-7
3.16.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... 3.16-9
3.16.8 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 3.16-9
3.16.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... 3.16-9
3.16.10 References ....................................................................... 3.16-10 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Project Summary ........................................................................ 4-1
4.1.2 Project Objectives ....................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .......................................... 4-3
4.1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................................... 4-3
4.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Consideration ............................ 4-3
4.2.1 Alternative Site ............................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 No Project/No Development ....................................................... 4-4
4.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Consideration ....................... 4-4
4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan .......................... 4-5
4.3.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Capacity ........................ 4-13
4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................... 4-21
4.5 References ........................................................................................... 4-23 Section 5.0 Other California Environmental Quality Act Required Considerations ....... 5-1
5.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ..................................... 5-1
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................ 5-3 3 - 704
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx vi Table of Contents TABLES
Table Page
2-1 2014–2021 Housing Element RHNA Allocation ............................................................. 2-7 2-2 1998 General Plan (2010 Forecast) and Existing Land Uses ........................................ 2-8 2-3 2021–2029 Housing Element RHNA Allocation ........................................................... 2-11 2-4 Summary of Existing and Projected Demographics ..................................................... 2-16
3.2-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................... 3.2-5
3.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB ................................................ 3.2-6
3.2-3 Local Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2019) ................................................... 3.2-7
3.2-4 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .......................................... 3.2-12
3.2-5 2040 Demographic Comparison Based on 2020–2045 RTP/SCS ............................ 3.2-15
3.2-6 California Air Resource Board Advisory Recommendations ..................................... 3.2-17
3.4-1 Designated Individual Resources ................................................................................ 3.4-5
3.4-2 Cultural Resources Studies Within the Project Site .................................................... 3.4-7
3.4-3 Archaeological and Historical Resources Within the Project Site ............................. 3.4-10
3.5-1 South Pasadena Climate Action Plan Energy Sector Measures (Plays) and Actions (Moves) .......................................................................................................... 3.5-3
3.6-1 Fossil Localities Within the City of South Pasadena ................................................... 3.6-2
3.6-2 Additional Known Localities Near the City of South Pasadena ................................... 3.6-3
3.7-1 Comparison of Worldwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................. 3.7-4
3.7-2 South Pasadena Climate Action Plan Measures (Plays) Summary .......................... 3.7-14
3.9-1 Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters .......................................................................... 3.9-7
3.10-1 SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis ................................................ 3.10-15
3.11-1 South Pasadena Municipal Code Operational Noise Standards ............................... 3.11-6
3.11-2 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................. 3.11-8
3.11-3 Construction Reference Noise Levels ....................................................................... 3.11-9
3.11-4 Future (2040) with Project Traffic Noise Levels by Focus Area .............................. 3.11-11
3.11-5 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .............................................. 3.11-13
3.12-1 Historic Population Trends, 1990–2021 .................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12-2 Historic Housing Trends, 1990–2022 ........................................................................ 3.12-2
3.12-3 Historic Employment Trends, 2000–2021 ................................................................. 3.12-2
3.12-4 SCAG Growth Projections for South Pasadena ........................................................ 3.12-3
3.12-5 County of Los Angeles and City of South Pasadena Projected Jobs-Housing Ratios (2016–2040) ................................................................................................... 3.12-4
3.12-6 Comparison of Existing and Projected Conditions .................................................. 3.12-17
3.12-7 Comparison of SCAG Projections and Project Buildout .......................................... 3.12-18
3.13-1 South Pasadena Part One Crime Statistics – Years 2020 and 2021 ........................ 3.13-3
3.13-2 SPUSD Schools and Enrollment For 2021-2022 School Year .................................. 3.13-3
3.13-3 South Pasadena Parks and Recreational Facilities .................................................. 3.13-4
3.14-1 City of South Pasadena Baseline Daily VMT ............................................................ 3.14-2 4-1 Comparison of SCAG Projections and Alternative 1 Buildout ...................................... 4-10 4-2 Alternative 2 Development Capacity (2040) ................................................................. 4-13 4-3 Comparison of SCAG Projections and Alternative 1 Buildout ...................................... 4-18 4-4 Comparison of Impacts for Project Alternatives ........................................................... 4-22 3 - 705
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!!TOC-0050823.docx vii Table of Contents
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Regional and Local Vicinity ............................................................................................ 2-1 2 Existing Land Use Policy Map ........................................................................................ 2-7 3 Citywide Sites Inventory Map ....................................................................................... 2-15
APPENDICES
Appendix
A-1 Cultural Resources Record Search
A-2 Native American Consultation Records
B Paleontological Records Search
3 - 706
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-1 Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The City is the subject of a Court Order1 to bring its Housing Element into compliance with State housing law, pursuant to Government Code Section 65754. Such action to comply with the Court Order by approving the Housing Element must be completed within the May 31, 2023, deadline timeframe stated within the Court Order. As part of this Court Order, pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a), an agency under such court order the City is required to prepare an initial study, with substantially the same information required pursuant to Section 15080(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) (Government Code Section 65759(a)(1)). If the local agency determines that the action may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall then prepare, within the time limitations specified, an environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report set forth in Article 9 (commencing with Section 15140) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Government Code Section 65759(a)(2)). Should the Initial Study demonstrate that associated actions may have a significant effect on the environment, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) within the time limitations specified in Government Code Section 65754, the content of which substantially conforms to the content required for a Draft Environmental Impact Report set forth in Article 9 of the California Code of Regulations. All other provisions of CEQA, Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000), do not apply to any action necessary to bring the general plan or relevant elements of the plan into compliance with any Court Order or judgment under Article 14 (Government Code Section 65759[a]). This EA has been prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 6575965769, et. seq. This EA has been prepared to identify, analyze, and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress (referred to as the Project herein). This EA has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et. seq.).
PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of South Pasadena is located on the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County (County), approximately 5 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. The City is surrounded by several municipalities, including the City of Pasadena to the north; the City of San Marino to the east; the City of Alhambra to the south; the City of Los Angeles to the southwest; and the City of Los Angeles neighborhoods, including Garvanza and Highland Park, to the west.
The planning area for the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element includes approximately 3.5 square miles, or 2,272 acres, within the incorporated City limits. The City’s estimated 11,156 residential dwelling units (DUs), housing the City’s population of 25,580, are comprised of nearly equal number of single-family and multi-family units.
The City’s land use pattern is well established and largely built out, with limited available vacant or underutilized land throughout the City. The City’s development character is predominantly lowand mid-rise residential, with low- to mid-rise neighborhood-serving retail uses, office buildings, and civic uses generally located along its main corridors: Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, 1 Stipulated Judgment (Californians For Homeownership V. City of South Pasadena, LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161)
3 - 707
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-2 Executive Summary Huntington Drive, Fremont Avenue, and Monterey Road. The City’s circulation network is largely a grid system of north/south and east/west roads. The exception to the grid system is the southwest quadrant of the City that has curvilinear streets developed to fit the topography of the area.
Regional access to the City is provided predominantly by State Route 110 (SR-110, Arroyo Seco Parkway), which transects the City. Interstate 210 (I-210) and SR-134 also provide regional access, with the nearest ramps situated approximately 1 mile north of the northern City boundary.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) L Line also provides transit/rail access to downtown Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, and the northern San Gabriel Valley.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to State law, the City of South Pasadena has an approved General Plan. The South Pasadena General Plan was last updated and adopted by the City in 1998. Similarly, the City has an approved Specific Plan for a portion of the downtown area. The Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP; now expanded to include a segment of Fair Oaks Avenue and referred to as the Downtown Specific Plan) was adopted in 1996. State law does not require a General Plan to be updated in regularly scheduled intervals, except for the Housing Element, which must be updated every five to eight years. However, a general plan needs to be updated if it is to reflect community values and priorities as they change over time.
Accordingly, a comprehensive General Plan and DTSP Update is being undertaken by the City at this time to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live; reflect an understanding of current community goals; address continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley and the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices; and respond to evolving regional and environmental issues.
The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of a General Plan. It identifies the City’s housing conditions, needs, and opportunities and establishes the goals, policies, and actions (programs) that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy. However, unlike all other General Plan elements, State law requires each municipality to update its housing element on a prescribed schedule (most commonly every eight years). The City’s 2013–2021 Housing Element was in effect through 2021. Housing needs are determined by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), which allocates numerical housing targets to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which includes the City. SCAG finalized its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), on March 9, 2021 and has allocated 2,067 DUs to the City of South Pasadena. Additionally, the California HCD has required the 2021–2029 Housing Element to demonstrate capacity for a surplus of units beyond the RHNA allocation. As discussed in Section 2.0. Environmental Setting and Project Description, the Court Order requires the City to place a ballot measure, by December 31, 2024, proposing the repeal of the City’s 45-foot height limit for residential or mixed-use residential projects on sites (i.e., not Citywide) where the base density calls for greater than 50 DUs per acre (DU/acre).
Based on research, community input, State requirements, and HCD feedback, the central strategy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element preserves existing housing stock and directs calibrated growth to identified growth areas while providing housing opportunities for all. The Housing Element update balances strategic and targeted potential housing sites adequate to meet the RHNA allocation and required surplus with the general pattern of the existing land use plan. 3 - 708
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-3 Executive Summary The Project would accommodate a total of 2,775 residential DUs, including the HCD-required surplus units, and 430,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses, comprised of retail and office development, in addition to both the existing land uses (see Table 2-2 in Section 2.0 of this EA).
The full buildout of the Project, for purposes of this EA, would generate up to an additional 6,882 residents (assuming no residential vacancies) and additional 1,978 jobs in the City through 2040, compared to existing conditions.
It is important to note that the Project would not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval, including public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. New development would continue to be subject to the City’s development review process. The proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decisionmaking regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional (i.e., SCAG) requirements. EA
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of the comparative effects of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would feasibly attain most of the proposed Project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed Project. A feasible alternative is one that can be accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time, taking economic, legal, social, and technological factors into consideration. The range of alternatives is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice.
In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 4.0, Alternatives, of this EA addresses alternatives to the proposed Project. Section 4.0 provides a description of each alternative; a comparative analysis of the potential environmental effects of each alternative to those associated with the proposed Project; a discussion of each alternative’s ability to meet the Project objectives; and a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative. The following is a summary description of the alternatives evaluated in this EA:
Alternative 1 – No Project/Existing General Plan. This alternative addresses one of the two types of “No Project” alternatives identified by CEQA: the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, which assumes the 1998 General Plan and 2014–2021 Housing Element would remain as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City of South Pasadena, with future development occurring pursuant to the City’s current General Plan goals and policies and Land Use Map. Buildout under this alternative is estimated at 265 DUs and 66,124 sf of non-residential (i.e., commercial/office) development in the City over the next approximately 20 years (through 2040).
Alternative 2 – Reduced Development Capacity. This alternative addresses buildout of the anticipated development capacity of the Project contemplated by the City prior to the inclusion of the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Buildout under this alternative assumes up to 589 DUs and 430,000 sf of non-residential (i.e., commercial/office) development in the City over the next approximately 20 years (through 2040).
3 - 709
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-4 Executive Summary
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With respect to the proposed Project, the key issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of South Pasadena, as Lead Agency, pertaining to:
Whether this environmental document adequately describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project;
Whether the recommended mitigation measures and the design of the Project should be modified and/or adopted as proposed;
Whether the Project benefits override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level;
Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the Project besides those identified in the EA; and
Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed Project that would substantially lessen any of its significant impacts while achieving most of the basic Project objectives.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Section 15123(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that a summary of areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by the public agencies and the public, should be included. The primary environmental areas of controversy that have been raised to date related to implementation of the Project are: traffic, parking, water supply, and water and wastewater infrastructure.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Through preparation of an Initial Study, it was determined that, except for agricultural resources (farmland), forestry resources, and mineral resources, which do not exist in the City, implementation of the proposed Project could have potentially significant impacts for each of the remaining topical environmental issues identified in the environmental checklist, included in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines. This EA analyzes the following environmental topics:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Based on the analysis presented in the EA, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of feasible mitigation measures:
3 - 710
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-5 Executive Summary Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Consistency, Air Quality Standards Violation, and Cumulative Air Quality Impacts);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions, Plan Consistency); Noise (Direct and Cumulative Construction and Exterior Traffic Noise Standard Violation); and
Population and Housing (Population Growth).
Table ES-1 presents a summary of significant environmental impacts identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of this EA; Mitigation Measures (MMs) that reduce any significant impacts; and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation. Significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations. 3 - 711
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-6 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 3.2 – Air Quality Because the Project identify future land uses and do not contain specific development proposals, construction-related emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Therefore, air pollutant emissions for construction activity have not been quantified. Although all feasible mitigation measures must be applied to minimize regional and/or location construction emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds, future development projects have the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
MM AQ-1: To assess regional air pollutant emissions from the construction of individual projects, the Applicant/Developer of future development projects shall provide a project-specific air quality analysis that includes mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce the any significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Applicants/Developers shall also assess the localized emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from the construction of individual projects in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), associated with the maximum daily construction activities for proposed individual developments. If project-specific mitigation is required for regional and/or localized emissions due to exceedances of any SCAQMD threshold, mitigation measures must include one or more of the following, or include equally effective measures, as follows:
For construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with minimum USEPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards during all construction phases. If the project-specific analysis indicates that Tier 3 off-road equipment would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level, off-road diesel equipment that complies with CARB Tier 4 (interim or final) emissions standards shall be used, as appropriate, or the best available emissions technology available at the time of project construction. The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use electricity to power on-site generators and other construction-related equipment and activities, if available and feasible, rather than using diesel-powered internal combustion engines. The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to maintain all construction equipment in good operation condition and ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the Significant and unavoidable
3 - 712
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-7 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
Operational activities associated with the Project (area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, and stationary sources) would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Estimated operational emissions from buildout of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC and NOx.
Refer to MM AQ-1. Significant and
unavoidable
The Project has the potential to conflict with the applicable 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because: 1) air emissions associated with buildout of the Project could create and increase in the severity of air quality violations within the air basin; and 2) buildout of the Project would exceed the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) population, housing, and employment projections and consequently air emissions that are included in the 2016 AQMP.
Refer to MM AQ-1. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the impact related to the inconsistency with the 2016 RTP/SCS.
Significant and unavoidable impact
Potential residential units that would be proposed near SR-110. The California Air Resources Board recommends site-specific evaluation prior to siting any sensitive land use near a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs).
MM AQ-2 An Applicant/Developer for residential land use projects in the City within 500 feet of a major sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 100,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall conduct and submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of CEQA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM10 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, PM2.5 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), Less than significant
3 - 713
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-8 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters (e.g., MERV 12 or better).
If the HRA cannot demonstrate that the acceptable risk level can be achieved, then no residential land uses may be developed within 500 feet of the TAC source.
Section 3.3 – Biological Resources Cooper’s hawk and western mastiff bat are special status wildlife species with potential to occur in the large trees that are located throughout the City. Removal, trimming, or other disturbance of occupied trees may result in loss or harm to individuals of these species and may negatively affect the local population.
MM BIO-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with potentially suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15). The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to commencement of activities (i.e., grubbing or grading). If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and/or applicable regulatory agency permits. Clearing and/or construction within the buffer shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. MM BIO-2 Trimming or removal activities of mature or significant trees will be conducted between August 16 and February 28, outside of the breeding season for native bird and bat species. If activities trimming or removal activities must be conducted during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall survey the tree to Less than significant
3 - 714
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-9 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
be impacted to assess the presence or absence of any active bird nest or bat maternity roost. If either are determined to be present, trimming or removal activities will be postponed until after the breeding season has concluded, or until otherwise deemed acceptable by the qualified biologist due to a discontinuation of nesting bird activity or bat roost vacancy.
Some properties adjacent to undeveloped or vacant open space areas that have potential to support various special status plant and wildlife species may be developed under the Project.
MM BIO-3 Within three months of the adoption of the General plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update, the City shall develop a list of fire resistant plant species that excludes exotic plant species with a high or moderate rating on the California Invasive Plant Council’s invasive plant inventory. This fire-resistant plant list shall be the basis of any requirements of recommendations to residents, businesses, and/or developers of future projects in hillside areas that require fire-resistant construction and landscaping.
Less than significant
The undeveloped and vacant open space areas supporting stands of native vegetation have potential to support various special status plant and wildlife species. Although future development would be focused away from these areas, there may be direct impacts of projects and indirect impacts of activities occurring adjacent to these areas.
MM BIO-4 If the disturbance limits of any future development project are within 500 feet of native vegetation located in the Arroyo Seco drainage corridor, the Applicant/Developer shall have a biological assessment conducted. A biological assessment shall also be conducted for all future development on or immediately adjacent to vacant, naturally vegetated parcels. All assessments shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall identify all potential sensitive biological resources and provide recommendations for focused surveys (if warranted) and/or avoidance or minimization conditions for project implementation. The assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation). As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all recommendations of the biological assessment such that project-level impacts are not expected to reduce regional populations of plant and wildlife species to below self-sustaining levels.
Less than significant
3 - 715
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-10 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
The Project would mostly direct future development to areas of existing development, limiting development of naturally-occurring drainage features. However, cement-lined drainage features that are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act are dispersed across the City and impacts to those features may occur because of future development.
MM BIO-5 If project construction activities of any future development project have the potential to impact (e.g., dredge and fill, demolition, dewatering or other discharge) a channel/drainage that conveys water during rainfall events, at a minimum, or as recommended by the qualified biologist conducting an assessment per MM BIO-4 above (if also applicable), shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation to determine if impacted channel/drainage meets definition of State and federal regulations. If the delineation report, prepared by a qualified biologist, indicates potential regulated drainage(s), subsequent consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies (depending on the agency jurisdiction[s]) and acquisition of permits, if required, prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation). As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all permit conditions.
Less than significant
Section 3.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation than in the past, could potentially encounter previously unknown/unrecorded archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources.
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall demonstrate to the City Community Development Department that a qualified Archaeologist has been retained by the applicant to attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction contractor to establish, based on the site plans, appropriate procedures for monitoring earth-moving activities during construction. The Archaeologist shall determine when monitoring of grading activities is needed. If any archaeological resources are discovered, construction activities must cease within 50 feet of the discovery, or as determined by the Archaeologist, and they shall be protected from further disturbance until the qualified Archaeologist evaluates them using standard archaeological protocols. The Archaeologist must first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a “Tribal Cultural Resources” pursuant to Section 21074 of the California Public Resources Code, or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the Applicant and the City Community Development Department that satisfies the requirements of the above-listed Code sections. Upon Less than significant
3 - 716
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-11 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Plan. If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource,” s/he shall record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton.
Section 3.6 – Geology and Soils Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation than in the past, could potentially cause the disturbance of previously unknown paleontological resources.
MM GEO-1 Should potential paleontological resources be found during grounddisturbing activities for any individual project implemented under the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element, ground-disturbing activity in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist will be hired to evaluate the resource. If the potential resource is found not to be significant by the paleontologist, construction activity in the area of the find can resume. If the resource is found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in consultation with the City and the developer (if present), for further exploration and/or salvage. A Disposition of the Recovered Paleontological Resources and Mitigation Report shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist and submitted to the City. Any recovered fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution or museum, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
Less than significant
3 - 717
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-12 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.6 – Greenhouse Gas EmissionsBecause the Project identifies future land uses and does not contain specific development proposals, construction-related GHG emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Therefore, GHG emissions for construction activity have not been quantified. At the program level, operational GHG emissions must be considered potentially significant and the Project may generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.
MM GHG-1 To assess GHG emissions from the construction of individual projects, the Applicant/Developer of future development projects shall provide a projectspecific GHG emissions analysis that includes mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce any significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Alternatively, the Applicant/Developer of future development projects shall demonstrate that the proposed Project is consistent with the South Pasadena 2020 Final Climate Action Plan. If consistency is demonstrated, the Project would have a less than significant GHG Emissions impact.
Significant and unavoidable
Section 3.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials There may be sites in the City impacted by hazardous materials or hazardous wastes from historic use that are not identified on current databases.
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall: Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review. If the Phase I ESA concludes there are recognized environmental conditions that indicate the potential for on-site contamination, the Applicant shall direct the performance of a subsurface investigation appropriate in scope to the likely contaminants (e.g., water, soil, soil vapor). The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the City.
If contamination is identified on the site, the City, in accordance with appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., California Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board), shall determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the site. If further investigation or remediation is required, it shall be the responsibility of the Applicant(s) to complete such investigation and/or remediation to the satisfaction of the City and the local oversight agency(ies).
Less than significant
3 - 718
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-13 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Closure reports or other reports that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, shall be submitted to and approved by acceptable to the City (as the Certified Uniform Program Agency) and the local oversight agency(ies) prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed site development. MM HAZ-2 In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately and the City shall be notified. If contamination is encountered, the Applicant for the proposed development shall be responsible for preparing and implementing a Risk Management Plan that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include, but not be limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate oversight agencies shall be notified. If determined necessary by the oversight agency(ies), a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
Section 3.11 – Noise The increase in traffic noise levels due to the Project would not be perceptible to the human ear. However, residential uses within the focus areas would experience future exterior noise levels greater than the normally acceptable compatibility criteria identified in the existing General Plan Safety and Noise Element.
MM NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the project will satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented.
Significant and unavoidable
3 - 719
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-14 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
The estimated traffic noise contours indicate some focus areas would experience exterior noise levels, which exceed 70 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) at the building facade. With typical building construction and a windows-closed condition, a minimum 25 dBA CNEL reduction is achievable for residential dwelling units. However, the minimum 25 dBA CNEL with standard building construction may result in interior noise levels greater than 45 dBA CNEL.
MM NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms will satisfy the California Building Code 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented.
Less than significant
Project-related operational stationary source noise could be generated by the operation of future commercial/retail and office uses. Such noise sources could include HVAC units, loading dock activities, outdoor restaurant dining and music activities, and parking lot vehicle movements.
MM NOI-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy for non-residential development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
Exterior noise levels at adjacent property lines will satisfy the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section s19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval. The site-specific acoustical report shall identify the necessary measures, if any, required to reduce exterior noise levels to below the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval. Acoustical isolation between units has been included in the project design for residential dwelling units situated above non-residential uses.
Less than significant
Construction activities requiring pile driving are anticipated to exceed the applicable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise thresholds at distances of 200 feet or less.
MM NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a final acoustical report to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
Exterior construction noise levels at the closest sensitive receiver locations will satisfy the FTA 80 dBA Leq residential and 85 dBA Leq commercial 8-hour construction noise level standards and the County of Los Angeles 0.01 in/sec root-mean-square velocity (RMS) vibration standard. The site-specific report shall identify the necessary reduction measures, if any, required to reduce Significant and unavoidable
3 - 720
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-15 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
exterior noise and vibration levels to below FTA noise and County of Los Angeles vibration thresholds. Measures to reduce construction noise and vibration levels, such as but not limited to those provided below, shall be incorporated in the final acoustical report:
o Install temporary construction noise barriers at the project site boundary that break the line of sight for occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall:
Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; Be properly maintained with any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g., graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5 dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. Construction activities requiring pile driving within 400 feet, large bulldozers within 100 feet, loaded trucks within 50 feet, or jackhammers within 25 feet of nearby sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, school) shall be minimized, or alternative equipment or methods shall be used, unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the County of Los Angeles RMS threshold of 0.01 in/sec.
MM NOI-7 The Project Applicant/Developer for new development shall be responsible for ensuring that following requirements are implemented by the contractor throughout the construction period. Construction contractors shall be 3 - 721
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-16 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
required to implement the following measures to reduce noise levels from construction activity:
Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive use nearest the construction activity; Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity; and Limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Section 19A.13(a) of the South Pasadena Municipal Code. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise.
Typical construction activities (i.e., non-pile-driving) associated with future development projects would exceed the County of Los Angeles vibration standard at receiver locations within 25 feet for jackhammers, 50 feet of loaded trucks, and 100 feet of large bulldozers, if used. Pile driving vibration levels would exceed the County construction vibration standard at receiver locations within 400 feet of the pile locations, if impact pile drivers are used during Project construction.
Refer to MM NOI-4 Less than significant
3 - 722
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-17 Executive Summary TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Summary of Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Vibration levels during construction exceeding standards have the potential to damage fragile historic structures.
MM NOI-5 The Project Applicant/Developer of any site-specific development within 25 feet of an extremely fragile historic building, as defined by the South Pasadena Historic Resources Survey, shall engage a qualified structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction assessment of the structural integrity of the nearby historic structure(s) and, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that the operation of vibration-generating equipment associated with the new development would not result in structural damage to the adjacent historic building(s). If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, ground borne vibration monitoring of nearby historic structures shall be required.
Less than significant
Some residential and non-residential uses within the focus areas are anticipated to be located within 50 feet of the Metro L Line railroad tracks and may experience vibration levels than can exceed the residential and non-residential vibration criteria for frequent rail events.
MM NOI-6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development projects within 50 feet of the Metro L Line, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a final vibration study to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, which shall identify and require implementation of reasonable and feasible vibration reduction measures to avoid exceeding the 72 VdB residential and 75 VdB non-residential vibration level standards.
Less than significant
Section 3.12 – Population and Housing Buildout of the Project would exceed the housing and population growth projections presented in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. This is solely because the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projections are inconsistent with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid this impact, because any such mitigation would reduce the potential housing stock to be constructed and thereby place the City in violation of State law and susceptible to a variety of penalties, including monetary fines.
Significant and unavoidable
3 - 723
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\!Exec Summary-050823.docx ES-18 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank
3 - 724
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\1.0_Introduction-050823.docx 1-1 Introduction SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.1.1 BACKGROUND
Sections 65300 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires that each city and county adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction and sphere of influence. The 2021–2029 Housing Element is one of the Statemandated elements of a General Plan. It identifies the City’s housing conditions, needs, and opportunities; and establishes the policies and actions (programs) that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy. However, unlike all other General Plan elements, State law requires each municipality to update its Housing Element on a prescribed schedule (most commonly every eight years).
The comprehensive General Plan and DTSP Update is being undertaken by the City at this time to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live; reflect an understanding of current community goals; address continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley and the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices; and respond to evolving regional and environmental issues. The General Plan and DTSP Update serve as long-term policy guides for decision-making regarding the physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City and establishes a non-residential development capacity for the City. The 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decisionmaking regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional requirements.
The City is the subject of a Court Order1 to bring its Housing Element into compliance with State housing law, pursuant to Government Code Section 65754. Such action to comply with the Court Order by approving the Housing Element must be completed within the May 31, 2023, deadline timeframe stated within the Court Order. As part of this Court Order, pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a), an agency under such court order the City is required to prepare an initial study, with substantially the same information required pursuant to Section 15080(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) (Government Code Section 65759(a)(1)). If the local agency determines that the action may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall then prepare, within the time limitations specified, an environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report set forth in Article 9 (commencing with Section 15140) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Government Code Section 65759(a)(2)). Should the Initial Study demonstrate that associated actions may have a significant effect on the environment, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) within the time limitations specified in Government Code Section 65754, the content of which substantially conforms to the content required for a Draft Environmental Impact Report set forth in Article 9 of the California Code of Regulations. All other provisions of CEQA, Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000), do not apply to any action necessary to bring the general plan or relevant elements of the plan into compliance with any Court Order or judgment under Article 14 (Government Code Section 65759[a]). This EA has been prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 6575965769, et. seq. 1 Stipulated Judgment (Californians For Homeownership V. City of South Pasadena, LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161)
3 - 725
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\1.0_Introduction-050823.docx 1-2 Introduction This EA is based on environmental analysis of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress (referred to as the Project herein). While the General Plan and DTSP Update remain in preparation, the maximum non-residential development capacity (i.e., 430,000 square feet) and distribution would be the same as contemplated in past drafts of these documents.
1.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This EA has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the City of South Pasadena General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element (proposed Project or Project), as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, §§15000 et seq.).
An action that has the potential for causing a physical change in the environment is considered a “project” under Section 21065 of CEQA and Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A “project” is required to go through an environmental review process in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. While the revision/update of a policy document (such as the 2021–2029 Housing Element) does not directly lead to environmental impacts or changes to the environment, future development in the City, would potentially result in environmental impacts.
Thus, the proposed Project update is considered a “project” and is subject to the provisions of CEQA. Since the proposed Project has the potential for indirect environmental impacts, this EA has been prepared at a programmatic level.
The purpose of this EA is to inform the City, trustee and responsible agencies, the general public, and other interested parties of the environmental effects anticipated with the approval and implementation of the Project, as well as the environmental effects associated with future development that would be allowed under the Project. This EA (1) discloses information regarding potential significant adverse environmental impacts; (2) identifies measures that would be effective in reducing or avoiding any identified significant adverse impacts; (3) analyzes feasible alternatives to the Project and to future development in the City; and (4) fosters interagency coordination and public review.
This EA analyzes potential impacts from implementation of the Project, but not any individual development project. Therefore, with the absence of more detailed information regarding future development projects as they may be proposed, this EA cannot and does not evaluate detailed, site-specific, and/or project-specific impacts associated with the development of each parcel in the City. The environmental analysis in this EA is broader in scope than found in project-level environmental analysis and seeks to identify the general and cumulative impacts of future development and the evaluated maximum buildout and allows the City to develop area-wide mitigation and other programs to address these impacts. 3 - 726
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\1.0_Introduction-050823.docx 1-3 Introduction
1.1.3 LEAD AGENCY
Section 15051 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the lead agency as the public entity with the greatest responsibility for carrying out or approving the Project as a whole. The City has the primary authority to approve and adopt and subsequently implement the Project. As such, the City is serving as the Lead Agency and is responsible for preparing this EA.
The City determined that implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to impact the following environmental topics:
Aesthetics (Section 3.1),
Air Quality (Section 3.2),
Biological Resources (Section 3.3),
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.4), Energy (Section 3.5),
Geology and Soils (Section 3.6),
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 3.7),
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 3.8),
Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 3.9),
Land Use and Planning (Section 3.10),
Noise (Section 3.11),
Population and Housing (Section 3.12),
Public Services and Recreation (Section 3.13),
Transportation (Section 3.14),
Utilities and Service Systems (Section 3.15), and
Wildfire (Section 3.16).
The City determined there would be no impacts to the following environmental topics: Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources. There are no agriculture, forestry, or mineral resources existing in the City. These topics are not separately addressed in Section 3.0 of this EA.
The EA analyzes the effects of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021– 2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress. Refer to Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, for further details.
3 - 727
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\1.0_Introduction-050823.docx 1-4 Introduction
1.2 PROJECT SPONSOR AND CONTACT PERSON
The Project is a City-sponsored endeavor. All inquiries regarding the Project and the EA should be directed to:
Ms. Alison Becker, AICP
Deputy Director –Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
[email protected]
Phone: 626.403.7220
A hard copy of the EA, including any technical appendices, is available at each of the following locations during regular business hours:
City of South Pasadena
Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
626.403.7220
South Pasadena Public Library
1100 Oxley Street
South Pasadena, California 91030
626.403.7340
3 - 728
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-1 Environmental Setting and Project Description SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of South Pasadena (City) is located on the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County (County), approximately 5 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. The City is surrounded by several municipalities, including the City of Pasadena to the north; the City of San Marino to the east; the City of Alhambra to the south; the City of Los Angeles to the southwest; and the City of Los Angeles neighborhoods, including Garvanza and Highland Park, to the west. Regional access to the City is provided predominantly by State Route 110 (SR-110, Arroyo Seco Parkway), which transects the City. Interstate 210 (I-210) and SR-134 also provide regional access, with the nearest ramps situated approximately 1 mile north of the northern City boundary. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) L Line also provides transit/rail access to downtown Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, and the northern San Gabriel Valley. The City’s location and regional setting is shown on Exhibit 1, Regional and Local Vicinity.
2.2 PROJECT SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS
The planning area includes approximately 3.5 square miles, or 2,272 acres, within the incorporated City of South Pasadena limits.
Unless otherwise specified, proposed Project or Project refers to both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and Downtown (DTSP) Update still in progress and applies to all properties within the planning area.
2.2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The City is located within the County of Los Angeles, which occupies a 4,084-square-mile area in the Southern California region and consists of 88 incorporated cities and scattered unincorporated communities. The total population in the County is estimated at 9,649,779 persons within a housing stock of 3,635,915 units, according to the most recent California Department of Finance demographic data (DOF 2022). Based on employment estimates from the most recent California Employment Development Department data, show the County’s labor force at 4,960,500 persons and a 5.2 percent unemployment rate (EDD 2022).
The San Gabriel Valley (Valley) is an approximately 400-square-mile area at the eastern portion of Los Angeles County. It is home to approximately 1.8 million persons living in 31 cities and 5 unincorporated communities (LAEDC 2018). The Valley is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Repetto Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills, and on the east by the San Jose Hills. The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers flow from the San Gabriel Mountains on the north through the San Gabriel Valley, toward the Pacific Ocean on the south.
Regional access in the Valley is provided by the I-210, I-10 and SR 60 Freeways, which run eastwest through the Valley, and by the I-605, SR-57 and SR-710 freeways, which run north-south through the Valley.
3 - 729
Pasadena
Altadena
San Marino
San Gabriel
Alhambra
Monterey Park
Huntington Dr
La Lom a Rd
Sierra Madr e B vl d
Highland
Park
Colorado Blvd
Eagle Rock
Figueroa St
Garvanza
§¨210
§¨10
§¨210
§¨5
§¨10
UV2
UV134
UV110
UV710
UV710
Maple St
York Blvd
Valley Blvd
Garvey Ave
Del Mar Blvd
Mission Rd
Figueroa St
Hellman Ave
Altadena Dr
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Washington Blvd
Del Mar Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Chevy Chase Dr
New York Dr
Broadway
Orange Grove Blvd Hill Ave
Arroyo Blvd
Allen Ave
Fremont Ave
San Rafael
Soto St
Main St Arroyo Pkwy
Mission St
Garfield Ave
Avenue 54
Alhambra Ave
Lincoln Ave
Eagle Rock Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Las Tunas Dr
Monterey Rd
Fair Oaks Ave
Lake Ave
Rancho Castilla
New Ave
Oak Grove Dr
San Pascual Ave
Mission Dr
Rosemont Ave
Saint John Ave
Medford St
Glenarm St
San Rafael Ave
Huntington Dr
Los Robles Ave
Hellman Ave
Main St
D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\MXD\Settlement_Agreement\ex_LV_RL_20220824.mxd ²
A N G E L E S
N A T I O N A L
F O R E S T
Project Site
§¨5
§¨210
§¨10
ST19
§¨5
Alhambra
Pasadena
§¨405
§¨210
§¨105
§¨10
§¨ §¨710
110
§¨605
ST170
ST72
ST134
ST110
ST60
ST710
ST91
Los Angeles
Orange
Los Angeles
Downey
Whittier
Glendale
Hawthorne
West Covina
West Hollywood
Regional and Local Vicinity
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Exhibit 1
(Rev: 4-25-2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_LV_RL.pdf 1 0.5 0 1
Miles
Project Site (City of South Pasadena)
Metro L Line
3 - 730
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-2 Environmental Setting and Project Description
2.2.2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
City Characteristics
The City of South Pasadena’s land use pattern is well established and largely built out, with limited available vacant or underutilized land throughout the City. The City’s development character is predominantly low- and mid-rise residential, with low- to mid-rise neighborhood-serving retail uses, office buildings, and civic uses generally located along its main corridors: Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Huntington Drive, Fremont Avenue, and Monterey Road/Pasadena Avenue.
The City’s circulation network is largely a grid system of north/south and east/west roads. The exception to the grid system is the southwest quadrant of the City that has curvilinear streets developed to fit the topography of the area. From a regional transportation perspective, the City lies at the crossroads of several regional transportation facilities. Regional facilities that traverse the City include SR-110 (Pasadena Freeway), Huntington Drive (regional arterial), Monterey Road (regional arterial), and Fair Oaks Avenue (regional arterial) (South Pasadena 2001). The northwesterly extension of the County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Light Rail Line, the L Line, passes through the City of South Pasadena, with a station at the intersection of Mission Street and Meridian Avenue. Both fixed-route bus transit service and paratransit service operate within the City. Demand-responsive transit service is provided by South Pasadena Senior Ride. This Dial-A-Ride service provides transportation for local trips and medical appointments primarily to senior citizens and is also available to persons with a disability.
The City’s estimated 11,156 dwelling units (DUs), that house the City’s population of 25,580 (DOF 2022), are comprised of nearly equal number of single-family and multi-family units. The City’s existing characteristics and land use are discussed further below and in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Environmental Assessment (EA).
Air Quality and Climate
The City is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SoCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SoCAB in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. Regional air quality is defined by whether the area has attained State and federal air quality standards, as determined by air quality data from various monitoring stations. All of the County is designated as a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5; portions of the County, not including the City, are designated nonattainment for NO2 and lead.
Air quality in the City may be characterized by readings at the Pasadena–South Wilson Avenue monitoring station, located approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast. Pollutants measured at this monitoring station include O3, PM2.5, and NO2. The 2019 (most recent data available) readings show that the federal 1-hour standard for O3 was exceeded a total of 11 days, while the State 8-hour standard was exceeded 29 days; and the 1-hour standard was exceeded a total of 12 days.
There are no federal or State standards for NO2 or PM2.5. Air quality is discussed in Section 3.2 of this EA.
3 - 731
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-3 Environmental Setting and Project Description Biological Resources
Vegetation within the City consists largely of non-native ornamental trees, grasses, and shrubs that are typical of urban landscaping. The City of South Pasadena contains a high percentage of tree canopy cover, and many areas with a native tree canopy due to the presence of a large number of Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees, which are protected by City ordinance Chapter 34 of the South Pasadena Municipal Code. Other vegetated or otherwise open areas include parks distributed throughout the City, along the Arroyo Seco, and undeveloped land along steep hillsides in residential areas of the southwestern portion of the City. The Arroyo Seco generally runs from north to south along the northwestern boundary of the City. This portion of the stream is concrete lined with no native substrate. The vegetation along the Arroyo Seco route is mostly comprised of ornamental trees, which are located above the manufactured, reinforced banks of the stream.
Most of the drainage features within the City do not contain water year-round, with the occasional exception of the Arroyo Seco. Jurisdictional resources (i.e., drainages under the jurisdiction of a resources agency, such as California Department of Fish and Wildlife) within the City of South Pasadena are mostly confined to concrete-lined drainages with no associated vegetation. The concrete-lined drainages across the City are numerous and disperse. Biological resources are discussed in Section 3.3 of this EA.
Cultural Resources
The City experienced substantial development activity in the 1880s, upon the arrival of railroad lines to the area, and was incorporated in 1888. Most of the developable land within the City was built out by World War II, aside from two areas that were seen as prime development sites: the location of the demolished Raymond Hotel, and the Monterey Hills area near the southwest corner of the City, which were both then targeted for development. Since the City is an established community that was largely built out by World War II, the number of properties dating to the postwar era and more contemporary periods of history is generally less than other municipalities in Southern California, and as such there is an abundance of historic properties. Based on the survey of historic resources compiled in 2017, there are 61 designated individual resources, 10 designated historic districts containing a collective total of 236 contributing properties, and 2,257 additional properties that have been identified as potentially eligible historical resources (HRG 2017). There are no known archaeological resources in the City. Cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.4 of this EA.
Geology and Topography
The City is located along the west-central boundary of the San Gabriel Valley, which is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Repetto and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills, and on the east by the San Jose Hills. Erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains has formed fan-shaped alluvial wedges that fill the San Gabriel Valley. Accordingly, the majority of the City is underlain by Pleistocene- and Holocene-age alluvial deposits comprised primarily of sand, silt, and gravel. The City is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south, with steeper hillside areas primarily in the southwest portion of the City. Elevations within the City range from approximately 530 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 910 feet amsl.
The east-west trending Raymond Fault passes through the northern portion of the City, as well as the cities of San Marino, Pasadena, Arcadia, and Los Angeles. This fault is considered active, and the California Geological Survey (CGS) has established an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone on the entire segment. Other faults that may affect the City include the Upper Elysian Park 3 - 732
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-4 Environmental Setting and Project Description blind thrust, the Eagle Rock, Sierra Madre, Hollywood, and Santa Monica faults, and other regional active faults. Fault rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslide are potential geotechnical hazards present in the City. Geology is discussed in Section 3.6 of this EA.
The setting of all other environmental topics is discussed under the header “Existing Conditions” in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of this EA.
2.2.3 RELEVANT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Regional Plans
South Pasadena is within the boundaries of several regional plans and policies. These include the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region. These plans are discussed within each applicable topical issue in Section 3.0 of this EA.
Local Plans
A number of plans and policies adopted by South Pasadena regulate development in the City.
The most applicable of these are discussed below.
South Pasadena General Plan
The State’s Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws (Section 65000-66037 of the Government Code) call for the preparation, review, and revision of a General Plan for each county and city.
Section 65300 of the Government Code states:
Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.
For cities, the general plan guides the development of the incorporated city, plus any land outside city boundaries that has a relationship to the city’s planning activities. This area outside a city’s boundaries is called the Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of South Pasadena SOI is coterminous with its corporate boundaries, as its jurisdictional boundaries align with and abut adjoining cities.
The City of South Pasadena General Plan (General Plan) was last updated in 1998, with the Housing Element last updated in 2014 to address the City’s future housing needs for the 2014 to 2021 planning period. The General Plan sections each contains an overarching goal with supporting policies and actions as well as programs for the development and conservation of land within the City and regulates all development within the City’s incorporated area. The City’s existing General Plan is described further below in Section 2.3.1. 3 - 733
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-5 Environmental Setting and Project Description Mission Street Specific Plan
Under State law (Section 65450 et. seq. of the Government Code), a municipality may use a specific plan to develop detailed regulations, programs, and/or legislation to implement its adopted general plan for a specific area within its local jurisdiction. The Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) was adopted in 1996 (South Pasadena 1996). The key actions identified in the MSSP, which must be taken by the City and by property owners, merchants, and residents to implement the MSSP, include:
Provide a central parking facility to serve the Blue Line (now L Line) station; Establish a Business Improvement District (BID) to help finance parking and streetscape improvements;
Hire a manager to attract desirable businesses, implement streetscape improvements, and promote the MSSP area;
Increase the water pressure so that on-site pumps are not required for second and third story uses.
The existing MSSP is described further below.
South Pasadena Municipal Code
The South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) regulates the operations and activities in the City.
Chapter 36 “Zoning” of the SPMC, or the Zoning Code, contains development standards and design regulations for new development in the City to assist in the implementation of the City’s General Plan and to protect and promote the City’s public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare. Applicable portions of the SPMC are discussed under the header “Relevant Programs and Regulations” in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of this EA.
Design Guidelines
In 2009, the City adopted the City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines and the City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines (South Pasadena 2009a, 2009b). The City’s design guidelines increase the awareness of building owners and designers to the architectural, historic, and site planning features that are traditional to the City and emphasize the importance of preserving and maintaining those features when making alterations or designing new construction.
Cultural Heritage Ordinance
The City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance has been utilized since 1992 as a tool for implementing the City’s preservation efforts. On July 19, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2315 that repealed the ordinance in place at that time and replaced it with a new ordinance (SPMC Section 2.61) that helps property and business owners gain a clear understanding of the Cultural Heritage Commission’s (CHC) purpose and processes, assists the CHC with its decision making, and strengthens the City's legal framework to assure continued protection of its historic character and scale. The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Ordinance “is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, landscapes, and areas representing the City’s architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social, and other heritage” (South Pasadena 2017). 3 - 734
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-6 Environmental Setting and Project Description Green Action Plan
On November 20, 2019, the City Council approved the South Pasadena Green Action Plan (Green Plan) (South Pasadena 2019). To further strengthen the City’s commitment to sustainability, City staff, with the help of South Pasadena residents and businesses, and the Natural Resources and Environmental Commission (NREC), gathered and prioritized five sustainability initiatives that comprise the Green Plan. The short-term initiatives in this plan are intended as steppingstones for the Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is a longer-term sustainability plan that will aim to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its first CAP on December 16, 2020. The CAP is a long-range planning document that guides the City towards long-term emissions reductions in accordance with State of California goals. The City’s Public Works Department has the primary responsibility to implement the CAP. The CAP analyzes emission sources within the City, forecasts future emissions, and establishes emission reduction targets. This CAP is the City of South Pasadena’s roadmap to achieving the City’s 2030 target and state mandated goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, with the ultimate goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The CAP also establishes a framework for implementation and monitoring of reduction activities, and further promotes adaptation and preparedness actions. The plan is intended to be a qualified GHG Reduction Plan and meets the requirements of Section 15183.5(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (South Pasadena 2020a). The CAP states, “In the City of South Pasadena, the most pronounced effects of climate change will be increased average temperature, more days of extreme heat, and elevated drought risk, all of which may lead to increased wildfires.” Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
The City of South Pasadena Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) is a citywide initiative to empower citizens to address traffic calming concerns. The need for the program stemmed from the City’s desire for an equitable, systematic, and easily accessible approach to handling neighborhood traffic calming requests. The NTMP provides a framework for the selection, application, and implementation of traffic calming improvement measures, contingent upon available funding, in the City of South Pasadena. Annually, the City Council designates funding for the NTMP to allow data collection, traffic studies, and implementation of traffic calming features.
2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.3.1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT
The City is a general-law city1, incorporated in 1888, with its first General Plan adopted in 1963 (except the first Housing Element, which was adopted in 1984). The South Pasadena General Plan has been amended over the years; the current General Plan was adopted by the City in 1998, and the 2014–2021 Housing Element was adopted in 2014, in accordance with State laws (South Pasadena 1998, 2014). State law requires the Housing Element to be updated every 1 A city that is organized under, and bound by, the general laws of the State (California Government Code), regardless of whether the subject concerns a municipal affair. 3 - 735
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-7 Environmental Setting and Project Description eight years to align with SCAG’s adoption of its RTP/SCS. The currently adopted (1998) General Plan includes the following seven elements:
Land Use & Community Design (addressing land use and development issues); Circulation & Accessibility (addressing transportation issues); Economic Development & Revitalization (addressing economic issues); Historic Preservation (addressing historic resource issues); Housing (addressing housing issues);
Open Space & Resource Conservation (addressing natural and open space resource issues); and
Safety & Noise (addressing public health and safety issues).
The goals and policies of the Land Use & Community Design Element (Land Use Element) are further interpreted in the form of a diagram, referred to as Land Use Policy Map, which defines the general location and development intensity/density of these uses within the City. Exhibit 2, Existing Land Use Policy Map, depicts the current land use plan for the City. The expected level of development represented by the adopted General Plan is also quantified in the existing Land Use Element, reflecting the building intensity and population density standards for various areas set forth at the time of adoption.
The 5th Cycle (2012) RHNA indicated that the City had a need for 63 DUs to be provided, distributed across the four income levels established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and shown in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1
2014–2021 HOUSING ELEMENT RHNA ALLOCATION
Income Group Number of New Units Percentage
Very Low Income 17* 27%
Low Income 10 16%
Moderate Income 11 17%
Above Moderate Income 25 40%
Total 63 100%
*Includes 9 units (approximately 50%) of Extremely Low Income group units Source: South Pasadena 2014.
Environmental Baseline
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the assessment of environmental impacts from buildout of the City pursuant to the Project is compared to land uses under existing conditions at the time the Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP) was distributed (i.e., April 2021), unless otherwise noted, rather than the increase in development proposed in the 1998 General Plan.
The latter is referred to as “plan to plan” analysis and is not permitted under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. However, for informational purposes only, Table 2-2, 1998 General Plan (2010 Forecast) and Existing Land Uses, presents the 1998 General Plan’s anticipated 2010 development capacity and existing land uses in terms of total residential and non-residential acres within the City.
3 - 736
Source: City of South Pasadena 2018
(04/25/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_Existing_LU.pdf D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\GRAPHICS\Settlement_Agreement\ex_Existing_LU_20191218.ai Exhibit 2
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Existing Land Use Policy Map
0 500 1000 2000
Feet
3 - 737
Mission Stree t Specific Pla n
c=J Altos De Monte r ey Residenti a l
Estate & Ve ry Low Density Residenti al
c::::=J Low De nsity Residenti a l
C=:J Medium Den sity Reside n tia l
High Density Residenti a l
c:=J Pt·ofession al Offi ce
Gen er al Comme rcia l
c:::::J Bu siness Pa rk/Research & Developm ent & Light Ma nufacturing CI::i} Commun ity Facilities
Parks
C:J Open Space
Ra il Transit Ro ute 110 Freeway
Unimproved Right of Way
C::J Arroyo Seco Channe l
st Office
lue Line St a tio n
\,
C
J-==tr.~ ~ I[
--·~ . ~\:\1-";::::1 {
~ '
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-8 Environmental Setting and Project Description TABLE 2-2
1998 GENERAL PLAN (2010 FORECAST) AND
EXISTING LAND USES
Land Use Category
1998 General Plan
(Acres)
Existing (2018)
(Acres)a
Residential
Altos de Monterey 236.3 234.2
Estate/Very Low Density 214.8 215.6
Low Density 624.9 645.9
Medium Density 168.0 173.0
Medium-High Density 0.0 0.0
High Density 129.7 117.8
Subtotal 1,373.7 1,386.3
Commercial
Neighborhood 0.0 0.0
General 83.4 64.8
Subtotal 83.4 64.8
Office
Professional 17.0 16.9
Other 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 17.0 16.9
Other Land Uses
Mission Street Specific Plan 40 40
Mixed Use 0.0 0.0
Light Industrial 13.0 12.2
Community Facilities 80.4 85.0
Otherb 6513.5 667.0
Total All Land Uses 2,221 2,272
Note: Some totals may not add due to rounding.
a City-wide acreage updated from the numbers provided in the 1998 General Plan based on the results of a Geographic Information System (GIS) assessment of City lands. Over time, GIS technology becomes more sophisticated and allows a higher degree of accuracy. b Includes open space, parks, utility, and right-of-way.
Source: Inloes 2018.
2.3.2 EXISTING MISSION STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
The Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) was adopted in 1996 and is now expanded to include a segment of Fair Oaks Avenue and the name changed to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). As with the proposed update, the MSSP is a companion document to the 1998 General Plan, tailored to the particular needs of a specific area of the City. The MSSP includes the Mission Street rightof-way from Pasadena Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue, parcels fronting Mission Street between Fremont Avenue and Indiana Avenues, and areas to the north and south of Mission Street between Fremont Avenue and Orange Avenues.
When adopted, the MSSP supplemented and refined the City’s Zoning Code and other relevant ordinances. The MSSP regulations are equivalent to Zoning Code regulations. All other provisions of the Zoning Code and other ordinances apply to the MSSP area. The City-wide growth projections shown in Table 2-2 above include the MSSP area. 3 - 738
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-9 Environmental Setting and Project Description
2.3.3 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE PROJECT
This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress. City of South Pasadena decisionmakers will use the Project documents, in combination with the SPMC and other City plans and programs, for direction when making land use and public service decisions.
The environmental analysis in this EA is based on the content of the Fifth Draft Housing Element (May 5, 2023 version) demonstrating capacity for up to 2,775 DUs as well as buildout of 430,000 sf of non-residential development with a baseline of April 2021 (distribution of the RNOP of the EA), unless otherwise noted (some analyses consider 2022 and 2023 conditions, dependent on public data availability).
2.3.4 PLANNING PROCESS
The Project represents the culmination of a comprehensive community outreach and involvement process that began in January 2017 to re-envision land use and community space in South Pasadena and continued through Fall 2019. After a pause in preparation of the General Plan and DTSP Update documents, a series of three public meetings were held to provide the community with the current status of the Project and its path forward. The process was put on hold as the City awaited clarification of an anticipated significant housing allocation through the State RHNA process, which would likely be different than the housing capacity being considered at that time.
The Housing Element process included several virtual public workshops, multiple presentations to Planning Commission and City Council on the housing element, feedback from HCD reviewers, and related revisions to strategies and development of new program proposals from July 2020 through May 2023. In March 2021, the City participated in HCD’s informal review process, presenting the State agency with a conceptual strategy for the housing element to comply with the RHNA. A Planning Commission study session was held in June 2021, which included discussion of HCD feedback about this approach. Input from these workshops and presentations was combined with the requirements of State housing law to develop the Project.
The City’s civic engagement process continued during preparation of public drafts of the Project, through online distribution and subsequent Planning Commission hearings, public meetings, and formal public comment periods where comments were received and considered in subsequent revisions to the draft planning documents.
2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This EA is based on environmental analysis of both the residential development capacity identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity identified in the General Plan and DTSP Update still in progress (referred to as the Project herein). While the General Plan and DTSP Update remain in preparation, the maximum non-residential development capacity (i.e., 430,000 square feet) and distribution would be the same as contemplated in past drafts of these documents.
As noted above, pursuant to State law, the City of South Pasadena has an approved General Plan. State law does not require a General Plan to be updated in regularly scheduled intervals, except for the Housing Element. However, a General Plan needs to be updated if it is to reflect community values and priorities as they change over time. General Plan updates typically range between every 20 to 30 years. In 2017, the comprehensive update to the General Plan and DTSP 3 - 739
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-10 Environmental Setting and Project Description Update was initiated to refresh City policies, with a commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live while addressing the continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley, the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices, and evolving regional and environmental issues.
The General Plan and DTSP Update each include eight chapters, and each of the chapters features an overarching goal, with policies and actions based on the goal. The eight chapters, their guiding principles, and their contents (i.e., goals, policies, actions), reflect the public visioning process while balancing State-mandated legislative requirements (including the 2021–2029 Housing Element), the City’s budget, and feasibility of future activities. The General Plan and DTSP Update in progress would serve as a long-term policy guide for decision-making regarding the appropriate physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City and establishes an overall development capacity for the City through the year 2040. As part of this effort, the City’s existing General Plan has been reorganized and reformatted to reflect both current State regulations and the community’s vision for the City.
The DTSP Update has an accompanying hybrid form-based code (herein referred to as DTSP Code or Code) to guide the DTSP’s implementation, providing all requirements for development and land use activity with the DTSP’s boundaries. Form-based code is an alternative to conventional zoning regulations and are purposeful place-based regulations with an increased focus on the design of the public realm–the public space defined by the exterior of buildings and the surrounding streets and open space.
Please refer to the entirety of the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update, available online at:
General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan Update | South Pasadena, CA (southpasadenaca.gov), for further details.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element is being analyzed in this EA. The components of the 2021– 2029 Housing Element are prescribed by State law and include a housing needs assessment, constraints analysis, review of past performance, and a housing plan. The housing plan includes goals, policies, and programs to support and encourage housing construction to achieve the RHNA allocation. The housing plan includes measurable targets that are monitored on an annual basis through HCD’s Annual Progress Reporting system.
Please refer to the entirety of the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element, available online at:
Housing Element Update 2021-2029 | South Pasadena, CA (southpasadenaca.gov), for further details.
2.4.1 2021–2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
South Pasadena remains a highly desirable place to live and includes a community with a strong interest to preserve its historic neighborhoods. The continuing high cost of housing in South Pasadena amplifies the need for providing affordable housing at all income levels. The provision of adequate affordable housing continues to be a high priority for South Pasadena.
The 2021-2029 housing element cycle (6th Cycle) for the Southern California region departs significantly from past housing element cycles due to significant changes in State law. State requirements are intended to boost housing production and provide more affordable housing units and justification for such new additions. Accordingly, the proposed Housing Element update balances strategic and targeted potential housing sites adequate to meet the RHNA allocation, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) concerns. It also introduces new policies and programs consistent with State law based on a comprehensive and inclusive strategy to 3 - 740
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-11 Environmental Setting and Project Description encourage housing production and retention to serve the entire community. Considering both community feedback and State and regional requirements, the central strategy of the Project is to preserve and enhance the distinctive neighborhoods and direct calibrated growth primarily to five focus areas including the Downtown area (i.e., DTSP), Ostrich Farm District, and three Neighborhood Centers on Huntington Drive, while providing an enhanced variety of housing opportunities. In summary, the Project encourages the majority of new housing to be provided in walkable mixed-use environments in the downtown and along major transit corridors and arterial roadways, while accommodating increased housing opportunities within existing residential neighborhoods. The 2021-2029 Housing Element provides a framework for meeting the housing goals of the City and serves as an informational document for current and prospective residents of the community, businesses, and developers.
The Housing Element is required to include an assessment of housing needs of all economic segments of the community and an implementation program formulated to meet those needs.
Local governments should consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors as well as community goals in preparing a Housing Element and should cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs. Housing Elements are also required to address the local government’s “fair share of regional housing need” as reflected in the RHNA and as determined by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO for the Southern California region, including South Pasadena, is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). For the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element, SCAG has determined that the City’s RHNA allocation is 2,067 units, almost 33 times more than the last cycle. A local government’s identified RHNA includes both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality. Additionally, HCD has required the 2021–2029 Housing Element to demonstrate capacity for a surplus of units beyond the RHNA allocation. Table 2-3 summarizes the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for the City of South Pasadena that the Project accommodates.
TABLE 2-3
2021–2029 HOUSING ELEMENT RHNA ALLOCATION
Income Group
Number of New Units
Allocated to Citya Percentage RHNA Surplusb
Extremely Low and Very Low Income 757 37%
177
Low Income 398 19%
Moderate Income 334 16% 144
Above Moderate Income 578 28% 316
Total 2,067 100% 708
Total Dwelling Units 2,775
Sources: a SCAG 2021; b South Pasadena 2023.
As part of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City must demonstrate to the State that there is available capacity within its jurisdictional boundaries to meet its targeted RHNA number.
Per State requirements, the City’s proposed Housing Element Update includes the following components:
A detailed analysis of the City’s demographic, economic, and housing characteristics. An analysis of the barriers to producing and preserving housing. A review of the City’s progress in implementing current housing policies and programs. 3 - 741
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-12 Environmental Setting and Project Description An identification of goals, policies, and actions in addition to a full list of programs that will implement the vision of the Housing Element.
A list of sites (Suitable Sites Inventory) that could accommodate new housing, demonstrating the City’s ability to meet the quantified housing number established in the RHNA.
Because of the unusually high RHNA allocation plus required surplus, built-out condition of the City, small size of the City, rapidly evolving legislative landscape, and controversy regarding the Suitable Sites Inventory, it has been arduous for the City to prepare a Housing Element that HCD finds in compliance with State law and implement required zoning modifications within the statutory time limits. Therefore, this EA has been prepared based on the Fifth Draft 2021–2029 Housing Element dated March 2023.
The City is the subject of a Court Order2 to bring its Housing Element into compliance with State housing law, pursuant to Government Code Section 65754. Such action to comply with the Court Order by approving the Housing Element must be completed within the May 31, 2023, deadline timeframe stated within the Court Order. As part of this Court Order, pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a), an agency under such court order the City is required to prepare an initial study, with substantially the same information required pursuant to Section 15080(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) (Government Code Section 65759(a)(1)). If the local agency determines that the action may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall then prepare, within the time limitations specified, an environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report set forth in Article 9 (commencing with Section 15140) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Government Code Section 65759(a)(2)). Should the Initial Study demonstrate that associated actions may have a significant effect on the environment, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) within the time limitations specified in Government Code Section 65754, the content of which substantially conforms to the content required for a Draft Environmental Impact Report set forth in Article 9 of the California Code of Regulations. All other provisions of CEQA, Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000), do not apply to any action necessary to bring the general plan or relevant elements of the plan into compliance with any Court Order or judgment under Article 14 (Government Code Section 65759[a]). This EA has been prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 6575965769, et. seq.
Height Limits
In April 2022, during preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and this EA, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the City was in violation of State Planning Law because the City had not adopted a 6th Cycle Housing Element by the State’s statutory deadline of October 15, 2021. The lawsuit was titled Californians for Homeownership V. City of South Pasadena, LASC Care Nos. 22STCP01388. It is noted that by October 15, 2021 none of the 197 jurisdictions within SCAG had adopted a housing element that HCD found to be in compliance with State law. As of August 2022, a total of 25 SCAG jurisdictions have adopted a State-law-compliant housing element (HCD 2022). This reflects the difficulties most municipalities are facing with preparing a 6th cycle housing element that accommodates the high RHNA allocations throughout the SCAG region.
In August 2022, as discussed above, a Court Order was entered on the lawsuit requiring certain actions by the City within certain timeframes to bring the Housing Element into compliance with 2 Stipulated Judgment (Californians For Homeownership V. City of South Pasadena, LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161)
3 - 742
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-13 Environmental Setting and Project Description Section 65754 of the Government Code. One of these required actions is to seek, through voter approval by December 31, 2024, the repeal of the City’s 45-foot height limit for residential or mixed-use residential projects on sites (i.e., not Citywide) where the base density calls for greater than 50 DUs per acre (DU/acre). If an initiative is not adopted by that deadline, the Court Order requires the City to complete a mid-cycle revision of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to reduce all sites with a base density in excess of 50 DU/acre to an assumed maximum density of 50/DU/acre within nine months.
This requirement to place a ballot initiative stems from the lawsuit questioning whether a density of 50 DU/acre, as proposed for some areas in the Housing Element, could be constructed under a height limit of 45 feet. As noted above, the City has a high RHNA allocation. To meet this allocation, higher density residential or mixed-use with residential is needed, particularly near transit (including both light rail and bus). What height(s) new development could be, under this scenario, if the ballot initiative passes, is not resolved at this time. It could be dependent on what height would be necessary to achieve density proposed on a given site (e.g., a one-acre site of 70 DU/acre would be taller than a one-acre site of 60 DU/acre, assuming all other variables are the same). Precisely what the content of this ballot measure will be is not settled, apart from being applicable only where a density of more than 50 DU/acre is proposed and will not be settled until City Council considers the issue in the future. The measure will have two variables: (1) height above 45 feet and (2) the footprint of where that piercing of the 45-foot limit will be allowed.
Once the language of the measure is finalized, environmental review would be presented to the City Council for formal action to place such measure on the ballot. After environmental review is complete, it could be presented for vote via a special election or at the November 2024 general election. The deadline for council action to place the matter on the November 20204 election is August 9, 2024. Nevertheless, because the 45-foot height limit was imposed by a 1983 voter initiative, a program to develop and place a measure on the ballot before December 31, 2024, is included as a program in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Accordingly, the potential for projects with buildings greater than 45 feet in height is addressed as a potential impact in this EA.
Additionally, the State’s Density Bonus Law provides an avenue for development projects meeting specific requirements related to affordable housing to supersede a local height limit to meet the maximum density limits implemented by the Project. The State’s Density Bonus Law and related housing legislation is discussed further in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of this EA.
2.4.2 DEFINITION OF PLANNING COMPONENTS AND TERMS
Goals and policies as used in the Project are defined below:
Goals are long-range, broad, and comprehensive targets. Goals are not necessarily measurable or achievable; rather, they describe a desired end-state condition for South Pasadena.
Policies describe a commitment to a particular course of action in place or to be put in place that will help achieve an associated goal. Policies are specific statements that guide decision-making.
3 - 743
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-14 Environmental Setting and Project Description The 2021–2029 Housing Element includes the following six overarching goals:
Goal 1.0–Conserve the Existing Housing Stock and Maintain Standards of Livability:
Conserve and maintain the existing housing stock so that it will continue to meet livability standards and sustain the community’s housing needs.
Goal 2.0–Encourage and Assist in the Provision of Affordable Housing: Facilitate the development of deed-restricted affordable housing units in locations distributed throughout the city in order to provide housing for a diverse community, including lowincome households that are least able to afford adequate housing. Goal 3.0–Provide Opportunities to Increase Housing Production: Provide adequate sites for residential development with appropriate land use designations and zoning provisions, objective design standards, and energy efficiency requirements, and ensure efficient and transparent review processes for residential development, including accessory dwelling units, to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing needs. Goal 4.0–Compliance with State Housing Laws: Adopt and implement policies and regulations that comply with State laws to facilitate housing for people living with disabilities or experiencing homelessness, and to accelerate the approval processes for housing projects, particularly projects that include affordable housing units. Goal 5.0–Promote Fair Housing While Acknowledging the Consequences of Past Discriminatory Housing Practices: Acknowledging that throughout much of the 20th century, discriminatory housing and lending practices excluded non-white people from purchasing housing in the city, and that such history continues to have implications for the community’s racial and cultural diversity today. Promote fair housing through policies and programs to promote inclusion of low-and moderate-income households. Goal 6.0–Expand and strengthen tenant protections for South Pasadena’s existing renters: South Pasadena renters are important members of the community and make up about 53.5% of the city’s population. The City’s efforts to advance housing that is affordable to people of all income levels must include not only longer-term strategies like facilitating housing production, but also policies and programs that help South Pasadena’s existing renters remain in (or return to) their homes and their broader community. To that end, the City is committed to ensuring that all of its renter households maintain housing stability and affordability so that they can stay and thrive in South Pasadena.
Each of these goals has supporting policies that guide decision-making. Several programs are identified to support the goals and policies, with an eight-year objective, funding source(s), responsible agency(ies), and timeframe presented for each program. The goals and policies from the 2021–2029 Housing Element applicable to each environmental topic are provided for the topical analysis in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of this EA.
2.4.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND CAPACITY
Through the public visioning process that began in 2017, the community has identified the character, intensity, and scale of infill development desired for vacant and underutilized tracts in selected areas. Specifically, the community envisions new development to be respectful of the place and its historic resources; contribute to the vibrancy of the human experience; and have positive impacts on place-making, health, economy, and the environment. Therefore, based on this community input, a market study prepared as part of the General Plan and DTSP Update 3 - 744
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-15 Environmental Setting and Project Description process, State requirements, and HCD feedback, the central strategy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element continues to be preservation of existing housing stock and directing calibrated growth.
Preserving housing supports sustainability objectives, and it is also less expensive to create affordable units in existing housing stock. However, to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation, the City must determine policies and zoning thresholds that allow and encourage production of new housing units in a manner that South Pasadena has not contemplated in the past. The multi-pronged strategy that the housing element update relies on includes inclusionary housing requirements that the City Council adopted in 2020; encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) with simpler, objective requirements; and rezoning for higher density and mixeduse commercial/residential development. The rezoning of non-residential parcels to allow densities that support and encourage both market rate and affordable housing units would follow the adoption of a revised General Plan Land Use Element together with the DTSP, an update and expansion of the 1996 Mission Street Specific Plan.
The Project encourages most of the new housing to be provided in walkable mixed-use environments in the Downtown and along major transit corridors and arterial roadways but also accommodates increased housing opportunities within existing residential neighborhoods. In addition, the Project introduces an affordable housing overlay district to allow projects with affordable housing to be distributed across the City on appropriate sites. The Housing Element update balances strategic and targeted potential housing sites adequate to meet the RHNA allocation with the existing pattern of the land uses outside of the focus areas. Exhibit 2, Existing Land Use Policy Map, and Exhibit 3, Citywide Sites Inventory Map, depict the proposed distribution and extent of the categories of public and private uses of land.
The Project does not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval, including public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements at this time.
Individual projects would continue to be subject to the City’s development review process and the CEQA process, as applicable. Therefore, this EA considers the environmental impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that would occur due to land use and infrastructure development, and from the associated population and employment growth in the City, due to buildout as projected. It is noted that buildout of a city under an adopted general plan is not tied to a specific timeline. For the purposes of this EA, development of the proposed growth identified in the General Plan is assumed to occur by the horizon year of 2040.
The Project analyzed herein would accommodate a maximum of 2,775 DUs (i.e., the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation and HCD-required surplus) and 430,000 sf of non-residential uses, comprised of retail and office development, in addition to existing land uses. It is noted, there would be a separate environmental review process when the next housing element update is prepared.
Table 2-4, Summary of Existing and Projected Demographics, presents the existing and buildout residential, non-residential, and population figures.
3 - 745
Source: City of South Pasadena 2023
(04/25/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Graphics\Settlement_Agreement\ex_CitywideSites_Inventory.pdf D:\Projects\3SPA\010100\GRAPHICS\Settlement_Agreement\ex_CitywideSites_Inventory_20230425.ai South Pasadena City Boundary
Housing Site Inventory
(RE) Residential Estate(AM) Altos De Monterey Residential(RS) Residential Low Density(RM) Residential Medium Density(RH) Residential High Density(CO) Commercial Office(CG) Commercial General(CF) Community Facility(BP) Business Park(MSSP) Mission Street Specific Plan Exhibit 3
South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element
Citywide Sites Inventory Map
3 - 746
• •
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-16 Environmental Setting and Project Description TABLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICS
Size
(acres)
Residential
(DU)
Non-Residential (sf)
Commercial Office Population
Existing Citywide Totals 2,272 11,156a 866,000b 390,000b 25,580a Proposed Citywide Totals 2,272 13,931 996,000 690,000 32,462 Difference ̶ 2,775
(25%)
130,000
(15%)
300,000
(77%)
6,882
(27%)
DU: dwelling units; sf: square feet; N/A: not available Note: The estimated population increase in this table assumes full occupancy of 2,775 DUs at the average household size of 2.48 based on 2022 California Department of Finance demographic data.
Sources:
a DOF 2022 b HR&A 2017
The buildout of up to 2,775 DUs and 430,000 sf of retail/office is estimated to generate up to 1,978 additional jobs3 and 6,882 more residents4 in the City through 2040 compared to existing conditions. The maximum of 6,882 residents equates with full occupancy of 2,775 units; however, the City had a vacancy rate of 5.5 percent in both 2017 and 2018, and the County’s vacancy rate was 6.3 percent in 2017 and 6.4 percent in 2018 (DOF 2021). Vacancy rates of 5.5 percent for the City and 6.4 for the County are applied in this analysis as they are the most recent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and are expected to be more reflective of typical conditions over the longerterm planning periods of the Project. Based on this vacancy rate (5.5 percent), the maximum 2,775 DUs in the 2021–2029 Housing Element would result in a resident population increase of approximately 6,503 persons occupying 2,622 DUs (i.e., households). Also, this approach likely overestimates the total population increase even with a reasonable vacancy rate because some of the new dwelling units would replace dwelling units removed as part of a redevelopment project.
Additionally, the Project would be expected to develop mainly multi-family residential at varying densities, and the average household size for these types of units is less than the average for the City. This is because this figure represents a housing stock almost evenly split between singlefamily and multi-family. This conservative approach to potential growth would ensure all potential environmental impacts were captured in this EA.
The maximum 2,775 DUs would represent an approximate 25 percent increase‒or about 1.25 percent per year‒in the City’s households. In terms of population, the increase would be about 6,503 persons or an 25 percent increase‒or about 1.25 percent per year. If all potential homes were occupied, the City’s population would increase to approximately 32,462 persons (6,882 additional persons). However, no municipality experiences full occupancy of all housing units.
The maximum 430,000 sf of non-residential uses represent an approximate 34.2 percent increase‒or about 1.7 percent per year‒in the City’s commercial and office space and would generate an approximate 14.4 percent increase‒or about 0.7 percent per year‒in the number of jobs within the City. The annual increase rates are based on 20 years and assume maximum buildout of all development capacity in the City by 2040. 3 Based on a rate of 1 employee per 200 sf with an 8 percent vacancy as per the Market Analysis (HR&A 2017). 4 Based on a rate of 2.48 persons per household derived from the California Department of Finance demographic data for the City (2022).
3 - 747
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-17 Environmental Setting and Project Description The majority of existing land uses in the City are not expected to change, and new development is anticipated to occur largely as infill redevelopment or development in the strategic growth areas.
2.5 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed in an EIR where identified environmental impacts are potentially “cumulatively considerable”, which is defined in Section 15065(a)(3) as “significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects”.
Section 15130(b)(1) states that the cumulative impact discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute.
Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes two allowable methods to determine the scope of projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis, as follows:
(1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
(2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
The cumulative impact analysis contained in this EA uses the second method, which focuses on regional projections, assuming future growth and development reflects these projections. The proposed Project establishes goals and policies to guide long-term (year 2040) development within the City. Similarly, SCAG’s growth projections (population, housing, and employment), prepared as part of the RTP/SCS, provide estimates of long-term development within the region where the City is located. The RTP/SCS also provides goals and direction for regional development patterns. The current RTP/SCS was adopted by SCAG in 2020 (2020–2045 RTP/SCS).
The cumulative impact analysis in this EA considers the environmental impacts of the development associated with the proposed Project in combination with the potential environmental impacts of regional growth in the San Gabriel Valley through the year 2040. In compliance with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this approach provides for the consideration of the combined effect of similar impacts (e.g., growth-focused, long-term, and program-level for the San Gabriel Valley) based on regional projections within the same time frame as buildout of the City (through the year 2040) that could be cumulatively considerable, when evaluated with the impacts of the proposed Project. Each environmental topic in Section 3.0 of this EA provides a “cumulative impacts” subsection that includes the topic-specific cumulative impact analysis.
As noted above, the geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis, unless otherwise noted, is the San Gabriel Valley. The six-county SCAG region is too large of a geographic area to assess the Project’s cumulative impacts effectively or reasonably from the .
Section 15130(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “lead agencies shall define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used”. Unless otherwise indicated in each topical 3 - 748
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-18 Environmental Setting and Project Description analysis in Section 3.0, the geographic scope used in the cumulative analysis includes the San Gabriel Valley, as discussed above. However, there are environmental topics whose relevant geographic scope for purposes of cumulative impact analysis may be larger or smaller than this area, and may be defined by local, regional, or State agency jurisdiction or by environmental factors. One example is the geographic scope of cumulative air quality impacts, defined by the SCAQMD to encompass the SoCAB. SoCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. This air basin is larger than the San Gabriel Valley and is noted in the analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. Conversely, the geographic scope of cumulative aesthetic impacts is limited to anticipated growth within immediately adjacent jurisdictions that share viewsheds or lines of sight with the City.
Finally, this EA considers regional programs directed at mitigating cumulative impacts of development, such as those instituted for urban runoff related to water quality impacts. Where there is a topic-specific geographic scope or an applicable regional program, these are discussed within the cumulative impact analysis of each environmental topic addressed.
2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a statement of the proposed project’s objectives. The proposed Project seeks to achieve the following key objectives:
1. Provide sufficient capacity for housing development in compliance with State policy mandates. Address the shortage of housing for lower-income households and promote an inclusive residential environment that welcomes all people into the community.
2. Preserve natural areas, enhance parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational opportunities and ensure access to those spaces for people of all ages and abilities.
3. Direct new growth to the downtown area along Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue, as well as opportunity sites such as the Ostrich Farm District, while ensuring the continued character of existing residential areas.
4. Develop clear and precise standards that offer predictable outcomes and processes.
5. Encourage pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development, while providing new and enhancing existing public spaces and gathering places, creating vibrant cultural hubs that weave creative expression into everyday life.
6. Create environments that encourage safe and healthy lifestyles and maximize the opportunities for physical activity. Design the public and semi-public realm to foster social interaction and develop good programming to draw people out of their homes and into the community.
2.7 INTENDED USES OF THE EA
The primary discretionary action by the City supported by this EA is adoption of the 2021–2029 Housing Element, as a policy document. It is important to note that the General Plan and DTSP Update (when adopted) and this proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element do not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval, including public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements at this time. New development would continue to be subject to the City’s development review process. The proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional (i.e., SCAG) requirements.
3 - 749
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-19 Environmental Setting and Project Description
2.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022 (January). Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.
Sacramento, CA: DOF. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. (E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022 | Department of Finance (ca.gov).
———. 2021 (May). Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 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).
California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (EDD). 2021a (March). Unemployment Rates and Labor Force: Cities and Census Designated Places by Individual County: Los Angeles. Sacramento, CA: EDD. www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/lasub.xls.
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2022 (August 22, last accessed). Housing Element Review and Compliance Report. Sacramento, CA: HCD.
Housing Element Review and Compliance Report | California Department of Housing and Community Development.
HR&A Advisors (HR&A). 2017 (April). City of South Pasadena General Plan & Mission Street Specific Plan Update Real Estate Market Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: HR&A. www.plansouthpasadena.org/market-analysis.html.
Historic Resources Group (HRG). 2017 (Revised June). City of South Pasadena Citywide Historic Resources Survey. Pasadena, CA: HRG. 636721709083330000 (southpasadenaca.gov).
Inloes, D. Jr. 2018 (February 4). Personal communication. E-mail correspondence from D. Inloes Jr. (Daniel Inloes Planning/GIS Services) to K. Rangwala (Rangwala Associates) and J.
Neary (Psomas) with attachments “Land Use Comparison By Acreage” and “GP Capacity”.
Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles (LA LAFCO). 2023 (May 2023 access date) South Pasadena Sphere of Influence Map:
lalafco.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/cities-map/South%20Pasadena.pdf Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC). 2018 (June 1, access date).
Regions of LA County: San Gabriel Valley. Los Angeles, CA: LAEDC. laedc.org/wtc/chooselacounty/regions-of-la-county/san-gabriel-valley-2/.
South Pasadena, City of. 2023 (March, Fifth Draft). South Pasadena 2021–2029 Housing Element. South Pasadena, CA: the City.
———. 2020a (Adopted December 16). South Pasadena 2020 Final Climate Action Plan. South Pasadena, CA: the City.
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/government/departments/publicworks/environmental-programs/sustainable-south-pasadena/climate-action-plan. 3 - 750
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\2.0_Env_Setting_and_Proj_Desc-050323.docx 2-20 Environmental Setting and Project Description ———. 2020b (September). Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. South Pasadena, CA:
the City. City of South Pasadena // (southpasadenaca.gov). ———. 2019 (Adopted November 20). South Pasadena Green Action Plan. South Pasadena, CA: the City. https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=18757. ———. 2014 (January). City of South Pasadena General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element Update. South Pasadena: the City.
http://www.southpasadenaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5556. ———. 2009a (January). City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines. South Pasadena: the City. http://www.southpasadenaca.gov/index.aspx?page=122. ———. 2009b (January). City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines. South Pasadena: the City. http://www.southpasadenaca.gov/index.aspx?page=122. ———. 2001 (Amended February). City of South Pasadena General Plan, Circulation & Accessibility Element. South Pasadena, the City. http://www.ci.southpasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=218. ———. 1998. City of South Pasadena General Plan. South Pasadena: the City. http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/index.aspx?page=120. ———. 1996 (April). Mission Street Specific Plan. South Pasadena: the City. http://www.ci.southpasadena.ca.us/modules/ showdocument.aspx?documentid=9763.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021 (March 22, approved). SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. ———. 2020a (September 3). 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. Read the Plan Adopted Final Plan - Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. ———. 2020b (September 3). Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Adopted September 3, 2020. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Adopted September 3, 2020.
———. 2019. (May). Profile of the City of South Pasadena. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. Local Profiles - South Pasadena. Local Profiles - South Pasadena. 3 - 751
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.0_Env_Analysis-050823.docx 3-1 Environmental Analysis SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with approval and implementation of the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity envisioned in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update (Project). While the revision/update of a policy document does not directly lead to environmental impacts or changes to the environment, future development in the City would lead to physical changes that could, in turn, potentially result in environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental analyses within this section of the Environmental Assessment (EA) focus on the potential environmental impacts of future development and redevelopment that would be allowed with implementation of the Project.
Section 15126.4(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires lead agencies to consider feasible mitigation measures (MMs) to avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. MMs are required when a potentially significant environmental effect has been identified that cannot be reduced to a level considered less than significant through the implementation of the policies and actions, as well as any applicable regulations required separate from the CEQA process.
If determined necessary in the future during consideration of proposed programs or developments, the City may substitute, at its discretion, any mitigation measure (and timing thereof) that has (1) the same or superior result as the original mitigation measure and (2) the same or superior effect on the environment (Section 21080[f] of CEQA). The City of South Pasadena, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
In Sections 3.1 through 3.16, this EA addresses the Project’s potential impacts on the following environmental topics:
Aesthetics (Section 3.1),
Air Quality (Section 3.2),
Biological Resources (Section 3.3),
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.4), Energy (Section 3.5),
Geology and Soils (Section 3.6),
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 3.7),
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 3.8),
Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 3.9),
Land Use and Planning (Section 3.10),
Noise (Section 3.11),
Population and Housing (Section 3.12),
Public Services and Recreation (Section 3.13),
Transportation (Section 3.14),
3 - 752
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.0_Env_Analysis-050823.docx 3-2 Environmental Analysis Utilities and Service Systems (Section 3.15), and
Wildfire (Section 3.16).
As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, the City determined there would be no impacts to the following environmental topics: Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources.
There are no agriculture, forestry, or mineral resources in the City.
3.0.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FORMAT
To facilitate the analysis of each topic presented in Section 3.0, a standard format was developed.
This format is presented below, with a brief discussion of the information included within each heading.
Methodology
This section describes the methods that were used in the process of analyzing impacts related to the implementation of the proposed Project in relation to that environmental topic.
Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each topic analyzed. This section provides the baseline conditions with which environmental changes associated with the Project have been compared and analyzed.
Relevant Programs and Regulations
This section includes a summary of the existing federal, State, regional, County, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances that directly relate to the environmental topic being analyzed. These are summarized to provide background information and to establish the current regulatory setting under which future development would occur. Some of these are regulations that serve to reduce or avoid a potential impact that would otherwise occur; these will be noted in the analysis. It is noted that the regulatory setting changes over time, and different or additional regulations may be in place when individual future projects are developed in the City.
Thresholds of Significance
Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an Environmental Impact Report to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project”. “Effects” and “impacts” mean the same under CEQA and are used interchangeably in this EA. A “significant effect” or “significant impact” on the environment is “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project” (Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines).
Proposed Housing Element Goals and Policies
While the 2021–2029 Housing Element allows future developments that could adversely affect the environment, it also seeks to preserve and protect the existing environment and resources in the City. Similarly, the non-residential development capacity envisioned in the General Plan and DTSP Update would allow future development that could adversely affect the environment.
However, this EA is prepared solely in support of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and thus the applicable Housing Element goals and policies are identified in this section. 3 - 753
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.0_Env_Analysis-050823.docx 3-3 Environmental Analysis Environmental Impacts
The analysis of environmental impacts presented in this EA identifies direct and indirect, as well as short-term and long-term environmental impacts of the Project. While adoption of the 2021– 2029 Housing Element itself would not result in direct or immediate changes to the environment, implementation of future development that would be allowed under the Project could result in environmental changes and potential impacts. These impacts are indirectly attributable to the Project and thus, are analyzed in this EA as “impacts” to the extent feasible, without the availability of specific development concepts at this time.
The thresholds of significance (discussed above) provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are considered less than significant. The analysis is structured to address each threshold, while considering any residual impact after implementing the proposed Project policies and actions, as well as any required regulatory compliance.
Where the impact analysis demonstrates that a potential environmental effect is too speculative or subjective for evaluation, or that the effect is beneficial, that conclusion is noted. Where the impact analysis demonstrates that a potential environmental effect could have a substantial or potentially substantial and adverse impact on existing physical conditions within the City, that conclusion is noted and followed by a discussion of how the proposed mitigation would address the potential impact.
Cumulative Impacts
While the extent of environmental changes that would occur with individual projects that are proposed, planned, or under construction in the City may not be significant, the sum of the impacts of these cumulative projects and the proposed Project may be cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 2.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this EA contains a discussion of the overall methodology to determine the scope of projects and/or regional growth considered in the cumulative impact analysis. A discussion of the anticipated environmental changes resulting from the cumulative projects, from implementation of anticipated development under the proposed Project on a cumulative level, are addressed in each topical analysis presented in Section 3.0 of this EA, which contains a more detailed discussion of the cumulative impact analysis methodology for each environmental topic.
Mitigation Measures
The MMs under each topic, as determined necessary, have been developed to reduce potentially significant adverse impacts after relevant policies and any applicable regulatory requirements are implemented. Consistent with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, MMs must be feasible and fully enforceable by the lead agency.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section identifies the level of significance of the identified impacts after the implementation of the recommended MMs, where applicable. Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or that remain significant even with a reduction in severity of the impact after mitigation.
3 - 754
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.0_Env_Analysis-050823.docx 3-4 Environmental Analysis References
Documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of the analyses of each topical issue are identified in this section.
3 - 755
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-1 Aesthetics
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 METHODOLOGY
This section describes the existing aesthetic character of the City of South Pasadena (City) and views of and from the City. It also analyzes the potential aesthetic impacts that may occur with future development projects under the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element and the nonresidential development capacity envisioned in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update (Project).
Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of visual resources, the quality of one’s view, and/or the overall visual perception of the environment. The issue of light and glare is related to both the creation of daytime glare due to the reflection of the sun (such as on glass surfaces) and/or an increase in nighttime ambient lighting levels (such as from building lights, street lights, and vehicle headlights). The information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance, review of City design and development requirements and processes, and the proposed Project.
3.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Visual Characteristics
The City is relatively small, occupying approximately 3.4 square miles, and has a population of approximately 26,580 persons (DOF 2022). Although situated about 5 miles from downtown Los Angeles, the City maintains a small-town atmosphere. Known as the City of Trees, the South Pasadena area is known for its residential neighborhoods and unique small businesses, and top-quality schools. More than 90 acres of parks and playgrounds are located throughout the City and more than 21,000 trees line its streets. The City has been designated a “Tree City USA” by the Arbor Day Foundation for 23 years, or every consecutive year since 1999 (Arbor Day Foundation 2023), and the abundance and well-maintained condition of mature trees throughout the City that is necessary to maintain this designation is a major contributing factor to the visual character experienced by residents and visitors.
Visual character is descriptive and not evaluative, which means that the development traits described for a given area are neither good or bad in and of themselves. The City contains several distinct areas that have common distinguishing characteristics that make them identifiable as places unique from other areas of a community. For instance, the area surrounding the Mission Street and Meridian Avenue intersection is unique in its development pattern, architectural styles, and presence of nightlife compared to the residential areas. In turn, the residential area in the southeast portion of the City is contrasted from the residential area in the Altos de Monterey area in the southwest of the City, both in topography and development style. A community’s visual character can be defined by the historical development pattern, architectural styles, and design elements that have been implemented in the built environment over time. A discussion of the City’s development history, and relationship to architectural styles, follows below.
The population of Southern California grew steadily in the early decades of the 20th century, and many newcomers were attracted to the suburban setting and bucolic atmosphere afforded by the City of South Pasadena. By the 1920s, the City’s subdivisions and neighborhoods were almost entirely developed with detached, single-family dwellings predominantly designed in the Craftsman and Period Revival styles that were popular at the time. New businesses and institutions also arose to meet the day-to-day needs of the growing city, with most commercial development concentrated along Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue. The City also made notable improvements to its infrastructure and increased the scope of its civic resources during 3 - 756
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-2 Aesthetics this period. Most of the developable land within the City was built out by World War II, aside from two areas that were seen as prime development sites: the location of the demolished Raymond Hotel and the Monterey Hills area near the southwest corner of the City. Both were targeted for development after World War II, at which time Southern California experienced a sudden and substantial population increase and a corresponding shortage of housing. The Raymond Hotel site was rezoned to accommodate mid-rise multi-family residential development, and the Monterey Hills were subdivided and developed predominantly with single-family houses.
The City’s existing development character is predominantly low- and mid-rise residential, with low- to mid-rise neighborhood-serving retail uses, office buildings, and civic uses primarily, though not solely, located along its main corridors: Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Huntington Drive, Fremont Avenue, and Monterey Road. In 1983, voters approved a ballet measure to adopt a Citywide 45-feet building height limit. As noted above, the City is known for its neighborhoods, and residential uses cover approximately 63.4 percent (1,386.3 acres) of the City’s land area.
Section 3.4 presents a detailed discussion of the numerous existing designated and eligible historic resources, which also contribute to the City’s visual character. Overall, the City hosts a wide range of architectural styles and eras.
The City is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south, with steeper hillside areas primarily in the southwest portion of the City (the Altos de Monterey area). Elevations within the City range from approximately 530 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 910 feet above msl. Most of the City occupies the valley floor emanating from erosion of the San Gabriel Foothills located approximately five miles to the north. As a result, public views of the San Gabriel Mountains, as well as the Repetto Hills to the west-southwest, are available and a prominent component of the background viewshed throughout much of the City. Within the City, views are generally short range, due to the density of urban development, other structures, and mature trees/vegetation.
Light and Glare
Artificial lighting is widely utilized in most urban and suburban areas to provide visibility for both traffic and security. The City has nighttime illumination typical of any urban area, which is attributable to urban land use developments (e.g., commercial, recreational, residential), street and highway lighting, and parking lot lighting throughout the City. Transient lighting from vehicular headlights also contributes to nighttime illumination in urban areas. Generally, the most prominent sources of existing nighttime light and glare are vehicular traffic and commercial land uses along the primary thoroughfares (e.g., Fair Oaks Avenue, Mission Street, Fremont Avenue, Huntington Drive, and Pasadena Avenue), traffic along SR-110 where it traverses the City, and parks with nighttime lighting and/or sports fields (i.e., Orange Grove Park). Daytime glare can also be caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces.
3.1.3 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
State
Scenic Highways Program
The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Scenic Highways Program (as contained in Sections 260 to 263 of the California Streets and Highways Code,) recognizes the visual resources and natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. These highways are designated based on the natural landscape seen by travelers, the scenic quality of 3 - 757
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-3 Aesthetics the landscape, and the extent to which development is kept away from the corridor to preclude intrusion on the traveler’s enjoyment of the view.
The program includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. The status of a scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval and adopts a Corridor Protection Program that (1) regulates land use and density of development along the highway; (2) controls outdoor advertising; (3) provides guidelines for site planning; (4) controls earth-moving and landscaping activities; and (5) provides design guidelines for the appearance of structures and equipment. Caltrans approval leads to official designation and inclusion in the list of the State’s Scenic Highways. The nearest officially designated scenic highway under the Scenic Highways program is Interstate (I) 210, starting at the I-210/SR-134 split and headed northwest, located approximately 1.8 miles due north of the City of South Pasadena. Additionally, the segment of SR-110 extending from East Colorado Boulevard in the City of Pasadena and continuing southwest to its intersection with US-101, which traverses through the northern portion of the City of South Pasadena, is also identified as the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway under the National Scenic Byway program (Caltrans 2023).
Housing Legislation
The California legislature has passed numerous bills related to housing in the last few years. The following discussion briefly describes housing laws that may affect the scale, height, and/or density of housing developed pursuant to the City’s planning documents and policies. It is anticipated that further legislation will be passed in coming years considering the continuing housing shortage in the State.
Density Bonus Laws
California’s Density Bonus Law (Section 65915 et. seq. of the Government Code) grants bonuses, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions to projects with qualifying affordable housing. The State’s Density Bonus Law continues to be the most commonly used tool to increase housing density and production. Prior to the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 1763, projects qualifying for a density bonus were entitled to one to three “incentives” and “concessions” to help make the development of affordable and senior housing more economically feasible, such as reduced setback and minimum square footage requirements as requested by the developer. AB 1763 provides a fourth incentive and concession to 100 percent affordable projects. If a project is located within a half mile of a major transit stop, AB 1763 goes even further by eliminating all local government limits on density and allowing a height increase of up to 3 stories or 33 feet. The Density Bonus Law was further amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1227, which provided density bonuses for projects that included student housing, and SB 290 adds the ability to request one concession or incentive for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lowerincome students in a student housing development. The floor area ratio (FAR) is a common mechanism in local zoning codes that limits the total floor area of a building in relation to the square footage of a lot. SB 478 prohibits agencies from imposing a FAR of less than 1.0 for a housing development project (comprised solely of residential units, a mixed-use development with at least two-thirds of the square footage attributed to residential uses, or transitional or supportive housing) consisting of three to seven units and a FAR of less than 1.25 for housing development project consisting of eight to 10 units. Additionally, an agency may not deny a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel solely on the basis that the lot area does not meet the agency's requirement for minimum lot size. To qualify, a project must consist of 3 to 10 units in a multifamily residential zone or mixed-use zone in an urbanized area and cannot be within a single-family zone or within a historic district. 3 - 758
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-4 Aesthetics City
2009 Design Guidelines
In 2009, the City adopted the City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines and the City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines (South Pasadena 2009a, 2009b). The City’s design guidelines increase the awareness of building owners and designers to the architectural, historic, and site planning features that are traditional to the City and emphasize the importance of preserving and maintaining those features when making alterations or designing new construction. Design guidelines assist in determining acceptable alterations, repairs, and additions to existing buildings and appropriate design criteria for new buildings. However, they are not meant to dictate specific design solutions or stifle creative design. The guidelines do not substitute for case-specific analysis and thoughtful input from designers, project sponsors, City employees and volunteer design review participants. These guidelines were intended to update the City’s then-existing design guidelines to provide clear and explicit guidance to all review agencies and City departments to facilitate reasonable, efficient, and fair review of proposed projects.
The design guidelines are applicable to most construction within the City. They apply to any project that requires a building permit and/or change of use approval, but, for residential projects, do not apply to signage approvals. The guidelines supplement, but do not override, those found in the City's Zoning Code and serve as the basis for decisions by the Design Review Boards and by City staff. In addition, the guidelines for historic residences assist the Cultural Heritage Commission in making the required findings under the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Municipal Code
Zoning Code
Chapter 36, Zoning Code, of the South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) implements the policies of the South Pasadena General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
Section 36.300 et. seq. of the SPMC describes general property development and use standards, includes several sections that affect the visual quality of a property. These include standards for height (Section 36.300.040), screening (Section 36.300.070), either between land uses or of unsightly features on a property; placement of mechanical equipment (Section 36.300.080); outdoor lighting requirements (Section 36.300.090); and detailed performance standards to promote land use compatibility (Section 36.300.110).
Section 36.320, Signs, regulates the placement, type, size, and number of signs allowed within the City, and requires the proper maintenance of signs. Section 36.330 provides landscape standards for proposed development to improve the livability and attractiveness of South Pasadena, and to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Section 36.340, Hillside Protection, provide development standards intended to preserve the City’s scenic resources by encouraging retention of natural topographic features and vegetation.
Section 36.350.200 et. seq. of the SPMC presents the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance, which permits ADU’s in compliance with State law and became effective June 4, 2021.
The ADU Ordinance defines the standards that apply for properties containing single-family or multi-family housing within all zoning districts that allow residential uses and are in addition to all 3 - 759
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-5 Aesthetics other applicable standards found in the Zoning Code. The ADU Ordinance describes design and development standards for all ADUs and additional standards for units in front on a primary dwelling, on an historic property, and in the City-designated high risk fire area (refer to Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this EA for more information).
Section 36.375 et. seq. of the SPMC presents the City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which became effective June 4, 2021. Inclusionary housing promotes the inclusion of housing units that are affordable for moderate- and low-income households in new residential projects by providing incentives and cost offsets to developers. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applies to all residential development of three or more dwelling units, including residential portions of mixed-use developments. Section 36.375.080 of the SPMC describes design incentives as an alternative and more streamlined State density bonus review process specific to South Pasadena. The design incentives are intended to encourage architectural designs that are well-conceived, thoughtfully detailed, consistent with the character of the City, and compatible with the zoning district in which they are located.
Tree Protection
The Public Works Department is responsible for streets, public buildings, water, sewer systems, street lighting and park maintenance. The City Council amended the SPMC to further regulate removal of trees of 12 inches in diameter or larger on any property within the City. In addition, regulations have been added to protect mature heritage, native, and oak (Quercus sp.) trees (4 inches in diameter at breast height or larger) on any property, public or private, within the City.
Chapter 34, Trees and Shrubs, of the SPMC defines the regulations for the protection (during development activity), trimming, and/or replacement of protected trees in the City.
3.1.4 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 aesthetic impact if it would:
Threshold 3.1a: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Threshold 3.1b: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway; Threshold 3.1c: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; and/or
Threshold 3.1d: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
3.1.5 PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 2.0 Encourage and Assist in the Provision of Affordable Housing Policy 2.2 Provide information to developers regarding the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and the availability of streamlined density bonus opportunities in compliance with incentives for well-designed housing and implement approval processes that reflect the priority of providing housing in the community.
3 - 760
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-6 Aesthetics
3.1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.1a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City’s existing General Plan defines that the “hillsides and ridgelines…provide a scenic backdrop for the entire community”. Therefore, protection of the City’s hillside areas is a matter of ensuring that development minimizes severe alteration of landform, flood problems, soil erosion, and landslide damage. It is also a matter of protecting the viewshed, both from and to these hillsides, and retaining as much natural vegetation as possible. The City’s zoning code includes hillside development standards to guide development and protect this natural resource.
The existing General Plan’s Open Space and Resource Conservation Element includes goals and policies to preserve scenic resources, which focus on the hillsides and native vegetation (South Pasadena 1998).
The City as a whole, as well as the focus areas, is a developed, urban landscape consisting of a mix of residential, commercial, mixed use, civic/public, open space, and some light industrial land uses. The proposed land use plan assumes that the existing, established development pattern would stay essentially the same, with an incremental intensification of existing and new land uses, where future development and redevelopment would be designed and scaled to complement surrounding uses. The majority of existing land uses in the City are not expected to change substantively, and new development is anticipated to occur largely as infill redevelopment or development. Most future development is anticipated to occur in focus areas, in particular in the Ostrich Farm area and along Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Huntington Drive.
The sites identified for housing would experience additional development due to future population growth, natural demographic changes, and revitalization needs. Development standards, such as building separation, height, and setback requirements for individual structures would lead to the development of projects that are sensitive to distant and near hillside and mountain. The maximum height proposed under the General Plan Update would remain at the limit of 45 feet for most of the City. However, as discussed in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, the City is subject to a Court Order that requires certain actions by the City within certain timeframes to bring the Housing Element into compliance with Section 65754 of the Government Code. One of these required actions is to seek, through voter approval by December 31, 2024, the repeal of the City’s 45-foot height limit for residential or mixed-use residential projects on sites (i.e., not Citywide) where the base density calls for greater than 50 DUs per acre (DU/acre). If an initiative is not adopted by that deadline, the Court Order requires the City to complete a mid-cycle revision of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to reduce all sites with a base density in excess of 50 DU/acre to an assumed maximum density of 50/DU/acre within nine months.
Additionally, the AB 1763 (amendment to the State’s Density Bonus Law) supersedes the City’s voter approved height limit and enables affordable housing projects to exceed any locally established height limit by up to 3 stories or 33 feet under specific circumstances, as discussed above. Other housing legislation that relates to the Density Bonus Law does not expressly pertain to height limits. However, increased density pursuant to any density bonus has the potential to result in a development project that exceeds the City’s current height limit.
However, the San Gabriel Mountains rise to heights over 6,000 feet above msl and would remain partially visible from most areas of the City and from many north-south public streets, despite any intensification of land uses and/or increased height from future development pursuant to the proposed Project. Although there would be an intensification of uses in some areas of the City and some would consider the proposed land use plan to be transformational, it is expected that 3 - 761
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-7 Aesthetics the existing level of visual obstruction by intervening development in the City would be overall similar to the existing condition. The number of projects that would elect to meet the density bonus requirements that would enable a height increase are not expected to be numerous enough to result in a substantial increase in obstructions. Overall public views of the hillsides and mountains would not appreciably change with implementation of the Project. Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.1b: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
As noted above, the nearest officially designated scenic highway under the State’s Scenic Highways program is a segment of the I-210 located approximately 1.8 miles due north. Due to distance and intervening development, the City is not visible from this segment of I-210.
Additionally, the segment of SR-110 that traverses the northern portion of the City is designated as the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway under the National Scenic Byway program. Views of the City from the SR-110 may change where the northernmost portion of the Downtown Specific Plan area abuts the freeway, as intensification of land uses could be developed under the proposed land use plan. This segment of the SR-110 is situated approximately 15 feet below the City’s land area.
Because of these factors, properties in the City generally have limited visibility from the freeway.
However, the Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp rises to meet the elevation of the Fair Oaks Avenue and Grevalia Street intersection. Motorists leaving SR-110 at this location would briefly have greater visibility of any new, potentially more intensive, land uses developed pursuant to the DTSP, situated immediately south of this intersection. However, the existing land uses on the south side of Grevalia Street would not be considered scenic resources, as the buildings are not historic resources, nor do they exemplify a unique form of architecture. Further, as discussed below under Threshold 3.1c, the overriding intent of the Project is to ensure maintenance of the City’s character through high-quality, context-specific design and enhancement of the public realm. Development that would have the potential to occur along an area abutting a segment of the SR-110 that traverses the City, would be designed to be visually pleasing in terms of massing, fenestration, color palette, landscape and hardscape, and other myriad standards.
The most notable scenic resource in the City visible from SR-110 is the City of South Pasadena “rock sign” situated on a grassy slope in Arroyo Park next to Arroyo Drive, near the western portal of the SR-110 into the City. This sign and the surrounding area would not be altered because of the Project. As such, the potential change in land uses from the limited portion of SR-110 that would be visible to passing motorists within the northern portion of the City, would not be considered substantially damaging to a scenic resource. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect any scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic highways, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.1c: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Future development pursuant to the Project would change the visual quality of individual development sites, as structures and site improvements are introduced on vacant lands and as older developments are replaced with newer structures and site improvements that would likely 3 - 762
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-8 Aesthetics have a different architectural style and may be more intense than the pre-existing land use.
Increased urbanization could be expected as properties are developed and/or redeveloped with higher intensity/density uses.
The determination of whether the changes in the visual quality of a site would degrade an area or its surroundings, and thus be significant and adverse, is dependent upon the perspective of the viewer. Preferences for one architectural style over another and issues related to the preservation of existing structures versus renovation/redevelopment render a determination of impacts to visual character a relatively subjective endeavor. However, except in cases where local design discretion is superseded by State law, all proposed development would be subject to the City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines and the City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines, and related design review process. The design guidelines are applicable to most construction within the City. It is noted the guidelines supplement, but do not override, those found in the City’s Zoning Code and serve as the basis for decisions by the Design Review Board and by City staff members. The Design Review Board is a five-member body that is advisory to the Planning Commission and represents the professions of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, graphics, or related fields. Design Review Board meetings are held monthly. For proposed future developments that may affect a designated or potential historic resource, that project would additionally be subject to the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance and related Cultural Heritage Commission review process. The Cultural Heritage Commission is a five-member body that is advisory to the City Council on all issues relating to the identification, retention, and preservation of landmarks and historic districts. Cultural Heritage Commission meetings are held monthly. Also, the City administers a strict tree protection policy that contributes to the maintenance of the City’s Tree City USA designation and the associated aesthetic and environmental benefits of a substantial tree canopy.
It is acknowledged that the future change in visual character in the City may be considered adverse to some segments of the community. As discussed under Threshold 3.1a, although there would be an intensification of uses in some areas of the City that some would consider to be transformational, the overriding intent of the Project is to ensure maintenance of the City’s character through high-quality, context-specific design and enhancement of the public realm. To balance preservation of existing uses and land use transitions where development or redevelopment occur, the potential housing and mixed-use or non-residential sites are primarily situated in those portions of the City where change is desired to both diversify land uses and take advantage of proximity to the Metro L Line Station. Also, the potential housing sites are identified where needed to meet the State’s mandate. Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to visual character, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 3.1d: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Future development under the proposed Project would be accompanied by new sources of light and glare. These would include exterior security lighting, lighted signs, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian pathway lighting. These new light sources would result in an increase in the lighting levels of individual sites and the surrounding areas, which have the potential to impact adjacent land uses, especially residences. Newly constructed buildings could create new sources of daytime glare in the form of glazed building surfaces, use of mirrors and glass as exterior building surfaces, and other reflective materials that would reflect the sun or light sources and create glare.
The proposed development areas are situated along major arterial corridors with both vehicular and light rail and are already subject to the most intensive light and glare from existing land uses.
Proposed land uses that would be particularly light- or glare-intensive (such as a sports arena) 3 - 763
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-9 Aesthetics are not planned in the City. Additionally, most of the land area in the City is currently developed.
Any new light sources would be required to comply with the SPMC standards (Section
36.300.090) for exterior lighting, which require a lighting plan to be submitted to the City and defines that lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height to the use they are serving. Because both the geographic extent and physical scale of proposed land use changes with the Project are limited, a substantial increase in nighttime light and glare over the existing ambient levels is not anticipated. There would be less than significant impacts related to substantial new sources of light and glare, and no mitigation is required.
3.1.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic context for cumulative visual impacts is generally the City of South Pasadena and those areas within adjacent jurisdictions that share viewsheds or lines of sight with the City, such as continuous arterial corridors between one city and another and hillside areas of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.
Regarding scenic vistas, as discussed above, views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the distance to the north or nearby views of the Repetto Hills would not appreciably change with implementation of the Project. As discussed above, the geographic scope and scale of proposed land use changes associated with implementation of the Project, while it would be noticeable would maintain the overall land use pattern of the City. Based on this, development under the Project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista.
As discussed above, views of the City from SR-110, a designated National Byway, may change with future development under the proposed Project. However, because implementation of the Project would not adversely affect visual character and quality of the City, views from the SR-110 would not be considered substantially damaged. As such, development under the Project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to scenic highways.
As discussed, the proposed development areas are all located along arterial corridors, such as Fair Oaks Avenue, Mission Street, Huntington Drive, and Pasadena Avenue, which connect adjacent jurisdictions. As such, land use development within the focus areas would lead to visual changes within the City that would occur in the context of future growth and development in adjacent jurisdictions that would be visible by residents and visitors traveling between South Pasadena and surrounding cities. Additionally, the 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies potential housing sites outside of the focus areas. As discussed above, due to State-mandated housing-related programs and regulations, including the RHNA allocation and density bonus laws, and court-ordered ballot initiative to repeal the height limit on selected sites, the future change in visual character in the City may be considered adverse to some segments of the community. As discussed previously, redevelopment would be subject to City design guidelines and associated review processes. These requirements are intended to ensure a high level of design quality. The overriding intent of the Project is to ensure maintenance of the City’s character through highquality, context-specific design and enhancement of the public realm. As such, development under the Project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to visual quality.
Existing sources of light and glare in the City and surrounding area generate ambient lighting levels that define nighttime light intensities. With limited development in the City and the surrounding area, coupled with the City’s policies to limit light spillover, development under the Project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact to light and glare in the region.
3 - 764
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-10 Aesthetics
3.1.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics have been identified with implementation of the Project. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
3.1.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
3 - 765
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-11 Aesthetics
3.1.10 REFERENCES
Arbor Day Foundation. 2023 (April 26, access date). Tree City USA, 2021 Recognized Communities: California: South Pasadena. Nebraska City, NE: Arbor Day Foundation. https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/#recognizedSection.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022 (January). Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.
Sacramento, CA: DOF. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. (E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022 | Department of Finance (ca.gov)).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023 (April 26, access date). California Scenic Highway Program Map. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. California State Scenic Highway System Map (arcgis.com).
Historic Resources Group (HRG). 2014 (December 16). City of South Pasadena Citywide Historic Context Statement, Final Administrative Draft. Pasadena, CA: HRG. http://www.plansouthpasadena.org/assets/south-pasadena-city-wide-historic-contextstatement---dated-12-18-14.pdf.
South Pasadena, City of. 2009a (January). City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines. South Pasadena, CA: the City. Design Guidelines | South Pasadena, CA (southpasadenaca.gov).
———. 2009b (January). City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines. South Pasadena, CA: the City. Design Guidelines | South Pasadena, CA (southpasadenaca.gov).
———. 1998. South Pasadena General Plan, Open Space & Resource Conservation Element.
South Pasadena, CA: the City. http://www.ci.southpasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=214.
3 - 766
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.1_Aesthetics-050823.docx 3.1-12 Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank
3 - 767
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-1 Air Quality
3.2 AIR QUALITY
3.2.1 METHODOLOGY
This section addresses air quality emissions associated with the implementation of the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity envisioned in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update (Project).
3.2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
South Coast Air Basin
The City of South Pasadena (City) is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and State air quality standards, discussed further below.
The SoCAB is a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SoCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The larger SCAQMD boundary includes 10,743 square miles.
Regional Climate
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SoCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.
The annual average temperatures throughout the SoCAB vary from the low to middle 60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SoCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SoCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SoCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.
Although the climate of the SoCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SoCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SoCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfates is heightened in air with high relative humidity.
The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SoCAB is 71 percent along the coast and 59 percent inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.
More than 90 percent of the SoCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SoCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.
Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SoCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are 3 - 768
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-2 Air Quality approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14.5 hours of possible sunshine.
The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SoCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.
Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SoCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.
In the SoCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SoCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NOx and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.
Wind Patterns and Project Location
The distinctive climate of the City and the SoCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SoCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.
3 - 769
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-3 Air Quality Criteria Pollutants
A criteria pollutant is an air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. A description of each criteria pollutant is provided below:
Ozone (O3): A highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Particulate Matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects.
PM10 also causes visibility reduction.
Fine Particulate Matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5): A similar air pollutant to PM10 consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOx release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): NO2 may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere.
As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): A colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx).
Lead (Pb): A heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of the SCAQMD’s regular air monitoring stations since 1982. Currently, emissions of lead are largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters and automobile battery manufacturing and processing. It should be noted that the Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions.
3 - 770
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-4 Air Quality Related Pollutants
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) interchangeably. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): NOx consists of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (O2). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition.
Air Quality Standards
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect, are presented in Table 3.2-1, California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
3 - 771
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-5 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-1
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
National Standards
Primarya Secondaryb
O3
c
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5
24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –
NO2
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) –
SO2
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) –
Lead
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3
Same as Primary Rolling 3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
( 0.07 per km – ≥30
miles for Lake Tahoe) No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
O3: ozone, ppm: parts per million, µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter, –: No Standard; PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean, PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, CO: carbon monoxide, mg/m3
: milligrams per cubic meter, NO2: nitrogen dioxide, SO2: sulfur dioxide, km:
kilometer.
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).
Source: CARB 2016
3 - 772
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-6 Air Quality Regional Air Quality
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 38 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single-pollutant source Lead (Pb) air monitoring sites throughout the air district. In 2019, both the NAAQS and CAAQS for O3 were exceeded for more than 100 days in the SoCAB; exceedances of PM10, and PM2.5 also occurred but less frequently. Table 3.2-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB, summarizes the attainment designations for the SoCAB. All of the County of Los Angeles (County) is designated as a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5; portions of the County, not including the City are designated nonattainment for NO2 and lead.
TABLE 3.2-2
ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOCAB
Pollutant State Federal
O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No standards
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead No Standard Nonattainment/Attainment*
All others Attainment/Unclassified No standards
O3: ozone; PM2.5: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; SoCAB: South Coast Air Basin.
a
Los Angeles County is classified nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is in attainment of the State and federal standards.
Source: CARB 2021a, USEPA 2021
Local Air Quality
The nearest long-term air quality monitoring site to the City of South Pasadena is the Pasadena– South Wilson Avenue monitoring station, located approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast.
Pollutants measured at this monitoring station include O3, PM2.5, and NO2.The most recent three years of data available at the time the air quality modeling was conducted is shown on Table 3.2-3, Local Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2019), and identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality in the City.
3 - 773
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-7 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY (2017-2019)
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Levela
State
Standard
Days Exceededb
National
Standard
Days Exceededb, c
O3
(1 hour) 0.09 ppm None
2017 0.139 18 NA
2018 0.112 8 NA
2019 0.120 11 NA
O3
(8 hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
2017 0.100 38 36
2018 0.091 20 19
2019 0.098 29 24
NO2
(1 Hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
2017 0.072 0 0
2018 0.068 0 0
2019 0.059 0 0
NO2
(AAM) 0.030 ppb 0.053 ppb
2017 0.015 No No
2018 0.014 No No
2019 0.013 No No
PM2.5
(24 Hour) None 35 µg/m3
2017 22.8 N/A 0/0
2018 32.5 N/A 0/0
2019 41.8 N/A 1/3.1
PM2.5
(AAM) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
2017 9.7 No No
2018 10.3 No No
2019 8.7 No No
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; AAM: annual arithmetic mean; NO2: nitrogen dioxide. “–” indicates that the data are not reported or there is insufficient data available to determine the value. N/A indicates that there is no applicable standard.
State and national data may differ because of differing methods for selecting hours for averaging. a California maximum levels were used. b
For annual averaging times, a “Yes” or “No” response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. c
PM is measured once every 6 days. Where 2 values are shown for PM2.5, the first is for the measured value, and the second is the estimated number of days.
Source: CARB 2021b
3.2.3 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments made by Congress were in 1990. The USEPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, which are shown above in Table 3.2-1. Regional air quality is defined by whether the area has attained or not attained State and federal standards, as determined by monitoring. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each State with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain and maintain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution by using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the SIP-identified timeframe. 3 - 774
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-8 Air Quality State
California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
The California Clean Air Act of 1988 provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. A major element of the Act is the requirement that local air districts in violation of the CAAQS must prepare attainment plans that identify air quality problems, causes, trends and actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the earliest practicable date.
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research; sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), as shown in Table 3.2-1; compiles emission inventories; develops suggested control measures; oversees local programs; and prepares the SIP. For regions that do not attain the CAAQS, CARB requires the air districts to prepare plans for attaining the standards.
These plans are then integrated into the State SIP. CARB establishes emissions standards for (1) motor vehicles sold in California; (2) consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, barbecue lighter fluid); and (3) various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling The Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)) places restrictions on vehicular idling. It requires that on or after February 1, 2005, any person that owns, operates, or causes to operate any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds must prohibit vehicle idling for more than five consecutive minutes at any location. Additionally, diesel-fueled internal combustion engine auxiliary power systems (APS) must be prohibited from operating for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of any property zoned for individual or multi-family housing units, schools, hotels, motels, hospitals, senior care facilities or childcare facilities.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. Since using natural gas produces criteria pollutant emissions, a reduction in natural gas consumption results in a related reduction in air quality emissions. Additional discussion of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards is included in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Environmental Assessment (EA).
Title 24 Green Building Standards
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential 3 - 775
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-9 Air Quality and non-residential buildings (including buildings for retail uses, office uses, public schools, and hospitals) throughout California. The 2022 CALGreen Code was effective January 1, 2023.
Development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in 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 was established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
In the SoCAB, the SCAQMD is the agency responsible for protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and State air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included in the SCAQMD’s tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the preparation of the AQMP) for the SoCAB, and the promulgation of rules and regulations.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and the State-designated transportation planning agency for six counties: Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Imperial, and Orange.
The SCAQMD and SCAG are jointly responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SoCAB. SCAG’s Regional Mobility Plan and Growth Management Plan form the basis for the land use and transportation control portion of the AQMP Air Quality Management Plan The Federal CAA requires states to prepare SIPs to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for which an area is designated as being in nonattainment. Furthermore, the CCAA requires the revision of these plans every three years to address reducing pollutant concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in coordination with local governments and the private sector, develop the AQMP for the SoCAB to satisfy these requirements. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the SoCAB because it provides the blueprint for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards.
The current regional plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. The SCAQMD is responsible for ensuring that the SoCAB meets the NAAQS and CAAQS by reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. To accomplish this goal, the SCAQMD prepares AQMPs in conjunction with the SCAG, County transportation commissions, and local governments; develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The 2022 AQMP was adopted on December 2, 2022, by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The 2022 AQMP evaluates integrated strategies and measures to meet the following NAAQS (SCAQMD 2022):
8-hour O3 target of 80 parts per billion (ppb) by 2024, 75 ppb by 2032, 70 ppb by 2038; Annual PM2.5 (12 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) by 2025; 1-hour O3 (120 ppb) by 2023; and
24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2023.
3 - 776
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-10 Air Quality SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations for maintaining clean air in the region. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to future development pursuant to the proposed Project may include, but are not limited to:
SCAQMD Rule 201 requires a “Permit to Construct” prior to the installation of any equipment “the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants . . .” and Regulation II provides the requirements for the application for a Permit to Construct. Rule 203 similarly requires a Permit to Operate. Rule 219, Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, identifies “equipment, processes, or operations that emit small amounts of contaminants that shall not require written permits . . .”.
SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust requires actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive particulate matter emissions. These actions include applying water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; managing haul road dust by applying water; covering all haul vehicles before transporting materials; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); and sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways used by construction vehicles. In addition, Rule 403 requires that vegetative ground cover be established on disturbance areas that are inactive within 30 days after active operations have ceased. Alternatively, an application of dust suppressants can be applied in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stable surface.
Rule 403 also requires grading and excavation activities to cease when winds exceed 25 mph.
SCAQMD Rule 445 has been adopted to reduce the emissions of particulate matter from wood-burning devices and prohibits the installation of such devices in any new development.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the proposed Project, it does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction and ongoing maintenance.
SCAQMD Rule 1401 under Regulation XIV requires new source review of any new, relocated, or modified permit units that emit TACs. The rule establishes allowable risks for units requiring permits pursuant to Rules 201 and 203, discussed above.
SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to 3 - 777
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-11 Air Quality transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG serves as the federally designated MPO for the Southern California region. On June 5, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources in order to improve public health and to meet the NAAQS as set forth by the CAA.
3.2.4 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 air quality impact if it would:
Threshold 3.2a: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Threshold 3.2b: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
Threshold 3.2c: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or Threshold 3.2d: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions; Table 3.2-4 presents the current significance thresholds applicable to the proposed Project. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality. 3 - 778
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-12 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-4
SOUTH COAST AQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholdsa
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
TACs, Odor, and GHG Thresholds
TACs
(including carcinogens and noncarcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutantsb, c NO2
1-hour average
annual arithmetic mean
The South Coast AQMD is in attainment; the Project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
0.18 ppm (State)
0.03 ppm (State) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)
PM10
24-hour average
annual average
10.4 µg/m3 (construction)c & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5
24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)c & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average
0.25 ppm (State) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)
0.04 ppm (State)
Sulfate
24-hour average 25 µg/m3 (State)
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
South Coast AQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20.0 ppm (State) and 35 ppm (federal)
9.0 ppm (State/federal)
Lead
30-day average
Rolling 3-month average
1.5 µg/m3 (State)
0.15 µg/m3 (federal)
NOx: nitrogen oxides, lbs/day: pounds per day, VOC: volatile organic compound, PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, SOx: sulfur oxides, CO:
carbon monoxide, TACs: toxic air contaminants, GHG: greenhouse gases, MT/yr CO2e: metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalents, NO2: nitrogen dioxide, ppm: parts per million, µg/m3 : micrograms per cubic meter; South Coast AQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District
a Source: South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (South Coast AQMD 1993) b Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on South Coast AQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated c
Ambient air quality threshold is based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403 Source: SCAQMD 2019
3 - 779
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-13 Air Quality
3.2.5 PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 1.0 Conserve the Existing Housing Stock and Maintain Standards of Livability Policy 1.1 Adopt and implement Zoning and Building Code standards and provide incentives for building owners to upgrade energy conservation in existing buildings including the use of solar energy, to reduce energy costs to residents.
3.2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 3.2a: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Pursuant to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would:
Create an increase in the frequency or severity of air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, delay attainment of air quality standards; or Exceed the assumptions of the AQMP.
For the first criterion, the analysis below demonstrates that construction-source and operationalsource emissions have the potential to exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Construction
Regional Emissions
During construction activities associated with individual projects, emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would likely be released through the burning of fossil fuels in construction equipment, grading fugitive dust, asphalt paving, and the application of architectural coatings during painting activity. Because only future land uses have been identified and this EA does not address specific development proposals, construction-related emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Additionally, due to the variables that must be considered when examining construction impacts (e.g., development rate, disturbance area per day, specific construction equipment and operating hours), it would be speculative to state conclusively that construction activity associated with the project would cause a significant air quality impact. Construction-related pollutant emissions would instead be quantified in future air quality analyses to be conducted for individual projects. In addition, for projects that are estimated to exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions significance thresholds (Table 3.3-4), all feasible mitigation measures shall be applied to minimize construction-related air quality impacts, including one or more of the measures identified in MM AQ-1, based on project-specific air quality modeling. Even with incorporation of MM AQ-1, future construction of development projects have the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Local Emissions
To assist lead agencies, SCAQMD developed screening-level Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to exceeding the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence 3 - 780
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-14 Air Quality or sensitive receptor (SCAQMD 2008). The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. SCAQMD developed LSTs to determine if emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at a project site (off-site mobile-source emissions are not included in the LST analysis) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level, and quantification of LSTs is not applicable for this program-level analysis. An LST analysis would be performed, if needed, for individual development projects, as required by MM AQ-1. Because the results of the LST analyses are not known at this time, implementation of future projects have the potential to result in significant impacts with respect to construction activity, even with implementation of MM AQ-1. This would also be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operation-related emissions are expected from the following sources:
area sources (architectural coatings, consumer products, hearths/fireplaces, landscape maintenance equipment), energy sources, mobile sources (vehicles), and stationary sources. The estimated operational-source regional (mass) emissions for the proposed Project are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds (see Table 3.2-4 above), particularly for VOCs and NOx.
This is because the primary source of VOCs would be consumer products and the primary sources for NOx would be fireplace combustion products and vehicle emissions. Therefore, operational emissions would be potentially significant. As required by MM AQ-1, the Applicant/Developer of future projects would provide a project-specific air quality analysis that includes mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce any significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
However, it cannot be established at this time that implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce the significant impact to a less than significant level. As such, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
CO Hotspots
It has long been recognized that adverse localized CO concentrations (“hot spots”) are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined.
To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SoCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated for the 2003 “hot spot” analysis was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the 3 - 781
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-15 Air Quality most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).1 At buildout of the General Plan Update, none of the study area intersections would come close to the highest daily traffic volumes generated at the busiest intersection in the CO “hot spot” analysis. Also, based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. The proposed Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot”. There would be no impact related to CO hotspots.
Summarizing the above analyses, the Project would have the potential to create an increase in the frequency or severity of air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, delay attainment of air quality standards during construction and operation during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project would have the potential to conflict with the first criterion for consistency with the 2022 AQMP.
For the second criterion, the 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. The AQMP is based on projections in population and employment within the SoCAB region projected by the SCAG, which are in turn based on data provided by cities and counties. Table 3.2-5, 2040 Demographic Comparison Based on 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, shows the differences between the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and buildout of the Project. The SCAG-provided forecast included the years 2016, 2020, 2040, 2035, and 2045, but not 2040; however, SCAG indicated the year 2040 projections could be calculated by using a linear interpolation between 2035 and 2045 data sets (Aguilar 2021).
TABLE 3.2-5
2040 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON BASED ON 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
2040 Population 2040 Households 2040 Employment
2020-2045 RTP/SCS 27,004 11,109 11,984
Project Buildout 32,462 13,245 15,678
Difference +5,458 +2,136 +3,694
Sources: SCAG 2020, Aguilar 2021
As shown in Table 3.2-5, the estimated population, household, and employment growth with buildout of the Project would exceed the projections of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project has the potential to conflict with the second criterion for consistency with the AQMP.
In summary, the Project has the potential to conflict with the applicable 2020 AQMP because: 1) air emissions associated with buildout of the Project could create and increase in the severity of air quality violations within the SoCAB; and 2) buildout of the Project would exceed the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS population, housing, and employment projections and consequently air emissions that are included in the 2020 AQMP.
Despite inconsistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS growth projections, the proposed Project would support implementation of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS goals by facilitating infill and mixeduse development and focusing growth along transportation/transit corridors. However, since the additional growth may generate emissions that would cumulatively contribute to the 1 Based on the ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm). 3 - 782
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-16 Air Quality nonattainment designations, the Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact at the programmatic level of analysis provided in this EA. Therefore, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Threshold 3.2b: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? As shown in Table 3.2-2, the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10, PM2.5, and O3. The Project would contribute PM10, PM2.5, and O3 precursors (i.e., VOC and NOx) to the region during shortterm construction and long-term operational activities. As discussed above under Threshold 3.2a, construction emissions have not been quantified because the Project does not propose any specific development projects; therefore, construction-level analyses would be speculative. As such, implementation of the Project has the potential to result in significant direct impacts with respect to construction activity, even with implementation of MM AQ-1.
SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also be cumulatively less than significant (SCAQMD 2003). Conversely, impacts that would be directly significant would also be cumulatively significant. Because the Project’s construction emissions would potentially be directly significant, construction emissions would also be potentially cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of MM AQ-1.
As discussed above, the Project would be expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds, particularly for VOC and NOx, which are O3 precursors, and would be directly significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would also result in a cumulatively considerable increase in a criteria pollutant for which the SoCAB is in non-attainment and there would be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact associated with estimated VOC and NOx emissions.
Threshold 3.2c: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Toxic Air Contaminants
To assist the Project in the analysis of health risks associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs)—specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM)—an evaluation of health risks consistent with guidance provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in their Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is utilized. It should be noted that CARB has issued advisory recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities, in proximity to sources associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), these are shown in Table 3.2-7, California Air Resource Board Advisory Recommendations.
3 - 783
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-17 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-6
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCE BOARD ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and HighTraffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation.
For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Note: These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Source: CARB 2005
CARB recommends performing site-specific evaluations when possible; however, since specific information regarding building locations, loading docks, and other uses is not currently available, it should be noted that a more detailed evaluation of health risks associated with specific land uses for this project would be speculative at this time. It is recommended that when such information is available, a more detailed environmental assessment should be prepared to determine the precise buffer zones necessary.
With respect to TAC exposure from vehicles on the SR-110 freeway, the 2019 annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on SR-110 in South Pasadena ranged from 43,500 to 80,000 vehicles (Caltrans 2021). The average number of trucks on SR-110 ranged from 331 to 935, or
0.76 percent of the total volume (Caltrans 2021). The USEPA transportation conformity procedures require PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot analyses to be performed for projects of air quality concern (POAQC). A POAQC would be a facility with 125,000 AADT and where at least 8 percent of the traffic is comprised of diesel trucks, i.e., at least 10,000 trucks per day (USEPA 2015). The current total and truck volumes are substantially less than those indicated by the USEPA as a trigger for detailed analysis.
Consistent with CARB guidance, it is recommended that site-specific evaluation be conducted prior to the siting of any sensitive land use in proximity to a land use that has the potential to emit TACs. Potential residential units that would be proposed in parcels located along the SR-110 where it traverses the City. Although not required under CEQA, the City shall require that the Applicants/Developers of individual future projects that would include sensitive land uses within 500 feet of SR-110 have a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared and that measures are included in the project design to ensure the project achieves the incremental risk thresholds; and if the HRA cannot demonstrate that the acceptable risk level can be achieved, then no residential 3 - 784
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-18 Air Quality land uses may be developed within 500 feet of the TACs source. With implementation of MM AQ2, there would be a less than significant impact related to TACs.
Threshold 3.2e: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
Agricultural uses (livestock and farming),
Wastewater treatment plants,
Food processing plants,
Chemical plants,
Composting operations,
Refineries,
Landfills,
Dairies, and
Fiberglass molding facilities.
The Project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous commercial refuse, which occurs in the existing condition. Consistent with City requirements, all Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations, thereby precluding substantial generation of odors due to temporary holding of refuse on-site.
Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. Therefore, the Project would not create or result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
3.2.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative air quality impacts are considered in terms of project contributions to air pollution levels in the San Gabriel Valley and the SoCAB. As stated above, SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the above-referenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also be cumulatively less than significant (SCAQMD 2003). Conversely, impacts that would be directly significant would also be cumulatively significant.
Construction-related (Short-Term) Cumulative Impacts
As analyzed in Threshold 3.2b, which addresses cumulative impacts, construction activities resulting from the implementation of the Project would have the potential to be cumulatively significant. Implementation of MM AQ-1 would determine the impact of each project and potentially reduce impacts to less than significant. However, until individual projects are analyzed, construction emissions are determined to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 3 - 785
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-19 Air Quality Operational (Long-Term) Cumulative Impacts
As analyzed in Threshold 3.2b, which addresses cumulative impacts, future development pursuant to the proposed Project would result in direct and cumulatively significant and unavoidable long-term regional air quality impact related to CO emissions.
Sensitive Receptors
Future development pursuant to the proposed Project would not create CO hotspots but may locate TACs near sensitive receptors, specifically, the potential housing and development sites proximate to the SR-110. MM AQ-2 requires the preparation of an HRA if individual future projects that would include sensitive land uses within 500 feet, and, if necessary, the inclusion of design features that reduce the exposure to DPM by future residents to a less than significant level. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to TACs. However, the geographic extent of the area in the City that has the potential for sensitive land uses near the SR-110 is small, particularly in comparison to the geographic coverage of land near freeways throughout the SoCAB. Also, with MM AQ-2, the Project-related potential for TAC exposure would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs in the San Gabriel Valley and SoCAB.
Objectionable Odors
Future development pursuant to the proposed Project would not create or expose people to significant objectionable odors. Thus, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative odor impacts.
3.2.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
MM AQ-1 To assess regional air pollutant emissions from the construction of individual projects, the Applicant/Developer of future development projects shall provide a project-specific air quality analysis that includes mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce the any significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Applicants/Developers shall also assess the localized emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from the construction of individual projects in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), associated with the maximum daily construction activities for proposed individual developments.
If project-specific mitigation is required for regional and/or localized emissions due to exceedances of any SCAQMD threshold, mitigation measures must include one or more of the following, or include equally effective measures, as follows:
For construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with minimum USEPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards during all construction phases. If the project-specific analysis indicates that Tier 3 off-road equipment would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level, off-road diesel equipment that complies with CARB Tier 4 (interim or final) emissions standards shall be used, as appropriate, or the best available emissions technology available at the time of project construction.
3 - 786
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-20 Air Quality The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to use electricity to power on-site generators and other construction-related equipment and activities, if available and feasible, rather than using dieselpowered internal combustion engines. The Applicant/Developer shall require the construction contractor to maintain all construction equipment in good operation condition and ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
MM AQ-2 The Applicant/Developer for residential land use projects in the City within 500 feet of a major sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 100,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall conduct and submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of South Pasadena Department of Planning and Building. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of CEQA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM10 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, PM2.5 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters (e.g., MERV 12 or better).
If the HRA cannot demonstrate that the acceptable risk level can be achieved, then no residential land uses may be developed within 500 feet of the TAC source.
3.2.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
AQMP Consistency
Significant and unavoidable.
Construction Emissions (Regional and Local)
Significant and unavoidable.
3 - 787
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-21 Air Quality Operational Emissions
Significant and unavoidable.
CO Hotspot
Less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Less than significant.
Odors
No impact.
3 - 788
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-22 Air Quality
3.2.10 REFERENCES
Aguilar, M. 2021 (June 10). Personal Communication. E-mail correspondence between M. Aguilar (Clerk of the Board, Southern California Association of Governments) and J. Neary (Project Manager, Psomas) regarding 2040 demographic projections pursuant to the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021a. (accessed May 10), Maps of Current State and Federal Area Designations. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-stateand-federal-area-designations ———. 2016 (May 4). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Sacramento, CA: CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
———. 2005 (April). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Sacramento, CA: CARB.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021 (accessed June 8). Traffic Census Program. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021 (accessed February 19). 2019 Energy Efficiency Building Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/buildingenergy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022 (December). 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-managementplan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10 ———. 2019 (April, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-qualitysignificance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. ———. 2008 (July, as revised). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Diamond Bar, CA: South Coast AQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/ Method_final.pdf.
———. 2003 (August). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulativeimpacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf. ———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020 (Adopted September 3). Connect SoCal, The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy of The Southern California Association Of Governments. Los Angeles, CA. SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Status of SIP Requirements for Designated Areas, California Areas by Pollutant.
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/ca_areabypoll.html 3 - 789
I
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-23 Air Quality ———. 2015 (November). Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NMXM.pdf.
3 - 790
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.2_AirQuality-050823.docx 3.2-24 Air Quality This page intentionally left blank
3 - 791
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-1 Biological Resources
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.3.1 METHODOLOGY
This section analyzes potential impacts to biological resource associated with implementation of the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element and the non-residential development capacity envisioned in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update (Project). The Project would apply to the entire City of South Pasadena (City); however, the majority of projected growth is within the focus areas (in particular in the Ostrich Farm area and along Mission Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Huntington Drive), as described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description. The majority of existing land uses in the City are not expected to change substantively, and new development is anticipated to occur largely as infill redevelopment or development.
This section concentrates on these areas of the City that would be most affected by the Project, although effects on the City as a whole are also considered. Information in this section is based primarily on review of literature, existing regulations, and current aerial photographs of the City.
Based on a literature review and through regional familiarity with the natural resources within the study area, Psomas biologists provided the impact analysis and proposed mitigation set forth in this section. Specific sources of information used are cited within the analysis below.
3.3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Environmental Setting
The City of South Pasadena is nearly built out; thus, the majority of plant and animal habitats are located within urban environments with non-native and ornamental landscaping. Other vegetated or otherwise open areas include parks distributed throughout the City, along the Arroyo Seco (drainage feature), and large tracts of vacant land along steep hillsides in residential areas. The Arroyo Seco generally runs from north to south along the northwestern boundary of the City. This portion of the stream is concrete-lined with no native substrate. The vegetation along the Arroyo Seco is mostly comprised of ornamental trees, which are located above the manufactured, reinforced banks of the stream. Elevations within the City range from approximately 530 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 910 feet amsl.
Open Space Areas
Outdoor recreation areas in the City are concentrated along the Arroyo Seco, including the Arroyo Park, Arroyo Woodland and Wildlife Nature Park, and the Arroyo Seco Golf Course. Additional outdoor recreation areas include Garfield Park in the northeastern portion of the City, and other smaller parks located elsewhere throughout the City. Although the vegetation in these areas consists mainly of non-native ornamental landscaping, many native trees exist including coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa). These outdoor recreation areas are part of the City’s network of open space; however, they have been specifically developed for public access and public use, such as for organized sporting activities, bike riding, or bird watching. Other portions of the City contain areas of open space not explicitly designated for public access. These areas are vacant, naturally-vegetated, and mainly found in the southwestern portion of the City, including the large area referred to as Altos de Monterey.
The vacant, naturally-vegetated open space areas generally support a variety of both native vegetation, such as sugarbush (Rhus ovata) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and non-native vegetation, such as pepper tree (Schinus spp.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.). 3 - 792
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-2 Biological Resources Wildlife
While the majority of the City is developed, the local parks and vacant parcels provide some patches of wildlife habitat. The following discussion is intended to provide a general description of wildlife species that may be expected to occur within the City, particularly the collective developed and undeveloped open space areas.
It is noted that although urban environments typically offer less suitable habitat for wildlife compared to undeveloped areas, they do offer foraging and cover resources and are thus not always unsuitable for all species (Melles et. al. 2003). A few studies on birds in low-density residential areas have shown that these areas may have potential for land management practices enhancing the value of these areas for birds (DeGraaf 1991; Blair 1996). However, vegetation is invariably altered with urbanization. Suburban areas rarely include the full complement of vertical strata found in natural forests (Beissinger and Osborne 1982), and native plant species are often removed or replaced by exotic ornamentals (Rosenberg et. al. 1987, Blair 1996). In these environments, canopy cover becomes an important factor in biodiversity (Johnson 1988). The presence and patch size of remnant native vegetation is another important factor (Chace and Walsh 2004, Emlen, 1974; Mills et. al. 1989). There is often a strong positive correlation between the volume and structure of native vegetation and native bird diversity and species richness (Emlen 1974; Mills et. al. 1989). Native birds respond positively with native vegetation density, while non-native species respond positively to exotic plant biomass (Mills et. al. 1989).
The City of South Pasadena contains a high percentage of tree canopy cover, and many areas with a high percentage of native tree canopy due to the presence of a large number of coast live oak trees. In addition, the City’s tree preservation ordinance ensures the persistence of tree canopy through impact avoidance and tree replacement requirements. As a result, urban canopies of the City are expected to support local populations of many native bird species.
Most of the drainage features within the City do not contain water year-round, with the occasional exception of the Arroyo Seco. No native fish species are expected to reside in the Arroyo Secoproximate to the City because of lack of suitable habitat; however, the introduced western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) is expected to occur.
One common amphibian species expected to occur in the Arroyo Seco is the Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla). Undeveloped, naturally-vegetated open space areas are expected to support common reptile species, including, but are limited to, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western skink (Plestiodon [Eumeces] skiltonianus), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus).
Various bird species are expected to occur in the trees and open space areas throughout the City, including, but are limited to, native species such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), barn owl (Tyto alba), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata). Introduced bird species expected to occur in the City include, but are limited to, rock pigeon (Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), 3 - 793
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-3 Biological Resources house sparrow (Passer domesticus), red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnotus jocosus), parrots (Amazona sp.), and parakeets (Brotogeris chiriri and Psittacara sp.). These non-native species were introduced into the region many years ago and have developed stable breeding populations.
Native and non-native bird species are also expected to occur within developed areas of the City specially where trees are abundant. Mammal species expected to occur in most open space areas of the City include, but are not limited to, desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Mammal species expected to occur throughout much of the City, including the more developed areas, include introduced species such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and black rat (Rattus rattus); and native species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Yuma bat (Myotis yumanensis).
Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas or individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal migration; and (3) movements related to home range activities (e.g., foraging for food or water, defending territories, or searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). A number of terms such as “wildlife corridor”, “travel route”, “habitat linkage”, and “wildlife crossing” have been used in various wildlife movement studies to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another.
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, transitions in vegetation, or human disturbance. This is exacerbated by fragmentation of undeveloped, naturally vegetated open spaces due to urbanization that creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of linkages that allow movement between areas of suitable habitat, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species—especially larger and more mobile mammals—will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat because the fragmentation prohibits the immigration of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Soule 1987; Harris and Gallagher 1989; Bennett 1990).
Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between areas of remaining habitat, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events, such as fire or disease, will result in population or local species extirpation; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move in their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other necessary resources (Noss 1983; Fahrig and Merriam 1985; Simberloff and Cox 1987; Harris and Gallagher 1989).
The City does not border any large, naturally vegetated open space area, such as the San Gabriel Mountains or other portions of the Angeles National Forest, and the City consists mostly of developed areas. Small areas of vacant, naturally vegetated open space occur in the southwestern portion of the City, which has some connectivity to additional open space areas located further to the south. However, collectively these open space areas are not substantial in size and are enclosed on all sides by urban development. Therefore, these open space areas are not part of a larger, regional network of connected habitats or wildlife corridor.
The Arroyo Seco is a linear drainage feature that extends from the Los Angeles River to the San Gabriel Mountains; however, it does not consistently contain suitable vegetation, cover, or food resources typical of wildlife movement corridors. The Arroyo Seco is likely to support local movement for local populations of common wildlife and may still provide limited passage for 3 - 794
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-4 Biological Resources regional movement of some urban-tolerant wildlife species, such as coyotes. Therefore, although the drainage may allow for some limited regional wildlife movement, it does not constitute high quality travel routes, wildlife corridors, or wildlife crossings.
Special Status Biological Resources
Special status biological resources include plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special status and/or recognition by federal and State resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations. In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (i.e., species, subspecies, or variety) is given such recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size, geographic range, and/or distribution resulting in most cases from habitat loss. In addition, special status biological resources include jurisdictional drainages and their riparian vegetation. Sources used to determine the special status of biological resources are as follows:
Plants: the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021a); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021a); various Federal Register notices from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding listing status of plant species; and the CDFW’s List of Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens (CDFW 2021b).
Wildlife: the CNDDB (CDFW 2021a); various Federal Register notices from the USFWS regarding listing status of wildlife species; and the CDFW’s List of Special Animals (CDFW 2021c).
A federally listed Endangered species is a species facing extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographic range. A federally listed Threatened species is a species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The presence of any federally listed Threatened or Endangered species on an area proposed for development leads to a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination of “significance” and, for wildlife or where there is a federal nexus, for plants, requires consultation with USFWS, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat.
Federally listed “Proposed” species are those officially proposed by the USFWS for addition to the federal Threatened and Endangered species lists. Because species may become listed as Threatened or Endangered prior to or during implementation of a project, they are treated here as though they are listed species.
The State of California considers an Endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A Threatened species is a species in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an Endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A Rare species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become Endangered if its present environment worsens.
The Rare species designation applies to California native plants listed prior to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). State-listed Threatened and Endangered species are protected against take unless an incidental take permit is obtained from the resource agencies.
California Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by the CDFW for some declining wildlife species that are not State candidates for listing. This designation does not provide legal protection but signifies that these species are recognized as special status by the CDFW. In recent years, the CDFW has downgraded some species into the Watch List category. 3 - 795
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-5 Biological Resources Species that are California Fully Protected and Protected include those protected by special legislation for various reasons, such as the mountain lion and white-tailed kite. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. California Protected species include those species that may not be taken or possessed at any time except under special permit from the CDFW issued pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (Title 14, Sections 650 and 670.7) or Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Special Plant and Special Animal are general terms that refer to all the species the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This term includes species designated as any of the above terms but also includes species that (1) may be considered biologically rare, restricted in distribution, and/or declining throughout their range; (2) are on the periphery of their range and are threatened with extirpation in California; (3) are associated with special status habitats; or (4) are considered by other State or federal agencies or private organizations to be sensitive or declining.
Species of Local Concern are those that have no official status with the resource agencies but are being watched because there is either a unique population in the region or the species is declining in the region.
The California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR), formerly known as CNPS List, is a ranking system by the Rare Plant Status Review group (which consists of over 300 botanical experts from the government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector) and is managed by the CNPS and the CDFW (CNPS 2021b). A CRPR summarizes information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California’s vascular plants. Plants with a CRPR of 1A are presumed extinct because they have not been seen in the wild for many years. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are Rare, Threatened, or Endangered throughout their range. Plants with a CRPR of 2A are presumed extirpated from California but are more common elsewhere. Plants with a CRPR of 2B are considered Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but are more common elsewhere.
Plants with a CRPR of 3 require more information before they can be assigned to another rank or rejected; this is a “review” list. Plants with a CRPR of 4 are of limited distribution or are infrequent throughout a broader area in California; this is a “watch” list. The Threat Rank is an extension that is added to the CRPR to designate the plant’s endangerment level. An extension of .1 is assigned to plants that are considered “seriously threatened” in California (i.e., over 80 percent of the occurrences are threatened or have a high degree and immediacy of threat). Extension .2 indicates the plant is “fairly threatened” in California (i.e., between 20 and 80 percent of the occurrences are threatened or have a moderate degree and immediacy of threat). Extension .3 is assigned to plants that are considered “not very threatened” in California (i.e., less than 20 percent of occurrences are threatened or have a low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats are known). The absence of a threat code extension indicates that this information is lacking for the plant(s) in question.
Habitat suitable for native wildlife species in the City is limited to the native vegetation and soils in the undeveloped open space areas, and the primarily ornamental vegetation in developed areas. While native vegetation, most notably oak trees, is present within developed areas, non-native ornamental species predominate. Habitat suitable for native plant species is restricted to the undeveloped, naturally-vegetated open space areas. Two special status wildlife species, Cooper’s hawk (a Watch List species) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus)(a California Species of Special Concern), have low potential to occur in large trees and dense ornamental woodland areas located throughout the City. No other sensitive or special status plant or wildlife species has potential to occur in the ornamental vegetation associated with the developed areas. The undeveloped, naturally-vegetated open space areas have potential to support various sensitive plant and wildlife species.
3 - 796
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-6 Biological Resources Jurisdictional Resources
Wetlands and permanent or intermittent drainages, creeks, and streams are generally subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). By USACE definition, all aquatic or riverine habitats between the “ordinary high water mark” of rivers, creeks, and streams are considered “Waters of the U.S.” and may fall under USACE jurisdiction. If adjacent wetlands occur, the jurisdictional limits extend beyond the ordinary high water mark to the outer edge of the wetlands. The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The presence and extent of wetland areas are normally determined by examining the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of a site. The USACE definition of wetlands requires that all three wetland identification parameters be met.
Streambeds are also subject to CDFW regulation under Sections 1600 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. A stream is defined under these regulations as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish or other aquatic life. This definition includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. The CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the edge of the riparian vegetation canopy. In addition, groundwater, surface water, and wetlands fall under Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional resources within the City of South Pasadena are mostly confined to concrete-lined drainages with no associated vegetation. The concrete-lined drainages across the City are numerous and disperse. The vacant naturally-vegetated open space areas are mostly located in steep, upland areas with little potential to support jurisdictional resources.
3.3.3 RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) protects plants and animals that the government has listed as “Endangered” or “Threatened”. A federally listed species is protected from unauthorized “take”, which is defined in the FESA as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or attempt to engage in any such conduct”. All persons are presently prohibited from taking a federally listed species unless and until (1) the appropriate Section 10(a) permit has been issued by the USFWS or (2) an Incidental Take Statement is obtained as a result of formal consultation between a federal agency and the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA and the implementing regulations that pertain to it (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402). “Person” is defined in the FESA as an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any private entity; any officer, employee, agent, department or instrument of the Federal government; any State, Municipality, or political subdivision of the State; or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. An Applicant for future development projects is a “person” for purposes of the FESA.
Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 United States Code 1251 et seq.) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1251 et. seq.) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the U.S.”, including wetlands. “Waters of the U.S.” include 3 - 797
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-7 Biological Resources certain inland waters, lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries under certain circumstances.
The USACE is the designated regulatory agency responsible for administering the 404-permit program and for making jurisdictional determinations. This permitting authority applies to all “Waters of the U.S.” where the material has the effect of (1) replacing any portion of “Waters of the U.S.” with dry land or (2) changing the bottom elevation of any portion of “Waters of the U.S.”.
These fill materials would include sand, rock, clay, construction debris, wood chips, and materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in the “Waters of the U.S.”. Dredge and fill activities are typically associated with development projects; water-resource related projects; infrastructure development and wetland conversion to farming; forestry; and urban development.
Under Section 401 of the CWA, an activity requiring a USACE Section 404 permit must obtain a State Water Quality Certification (or waiver thereof) to ensure that the activity will not violate established State water quality standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal regulatory agency responsible for implementing the CWA. However, the SWRCB, in conjunction with the nine RWQCBs, has been delegated the responsibility for administering the Section 401 water quality certification program.
The RWQCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California through the regulation of discharges to surface waters under the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discussed further below. The RWQCB’s CWA jurisdiction extends to all “Waters of the U.S.”. Section 401 requires the RWQCB to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity which may result in the discharge to ‘waters of the U.S.’ will not violate water quality standards”. Water Quality Certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge will comply with water quality standards, which contain numeric and narrative objectives that can be found in each of the nine RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plans.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs (16 United States Code Section 703), except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR 21. The statute states:
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill...any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird...included in the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions.
In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors).
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds. The 1972 amendments increased penalties for violating provisions of the Act and strengthened other enforcement measures. A 1978 amendment authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit the taking of golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations. 3 - 798
City of South Pasadena
2021–2029 Housing Element
Environmental Assessment
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\Settlement Agreement\EA\3.3_Bio_Resources-050923.docx 3.3-8 Biological Resources State
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to CESA and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, an incidental take permit from the CDFW is required for projects that could result in the take of a State-listed Threatened or Endangered species. Under the CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but the definition does not include “harm” or “harass”, as the federal act does. As a result, the threshold for a take under the CESA is higher than that under the FESA. A CDFW-authorized Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081(b) is required when a project could result in the take of a State-listed Threatened or Endangered Species. The application for an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081(b) has a number of requirements, including the preparation of a conservation plan, generally referred to as a Habitat Conservation Plan.
California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602
State law confers upon the CDFW the trustee responsibility and authority for the public trust resource of wildlife in California. The CDFW may play various roles under the CEQA process. By State law, the CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of the wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary to maintain biologically sustainable populations. The CDFW shall consult with lead and responsible agencies and shall provide the requisite biological expertise to review and comment upon environmental documents and impacts arising from project activities.
As a trustee agency, the CDFW has jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California. Trustee agencies are generally required to be notified of CEQA documents relevant to their jurisdiction, whether or not these agencies have actual permitting authority or approval power over aspects of the underlying project (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15386).