gladstone senior villas project initial …

DRAFT | OCTOBER 2017

GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Lead Agency: Prepared by:

Morse Planning Group

Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street

LEAD AGENCY:

City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Boulevard

Azusa, CA 91702 Contact: Mr. Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner

Phone: 626.812.5289

PREPARED BY:

Morse Planning Group Contact: Ms. Collette L. Morse, AICP

October 2, 2017

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Title of Project: Gladstone Senior Villas Project Location: The project site is located south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and east

of Azusa Boulevard in the southern portion of the City of Azusa at 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street.

Project Proponent: Mr. Chaplon Mu 360 Gladstone LLC 910 Las Rosas Drive West Covina, CA 91791

Brief Description of Project: The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-family dwelling units and construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed project are provided in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics. The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would be necessary include:

City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District

City of Azusa approval of Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District

City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use

City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518

City of Azusa approval of concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518

• 36-foot building height/3 stories

City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing Agreement

City of Azusa approval of Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements

City of Azusa approval of Design Review

City of Azusa issuance of Grading Permit

City of Azusa issuance of Building and Safety Permits

Los Angeles County Fire Department approval of proposed site improvements

Azusa Light and Power water and sewer connection permit

Cortese List: The proposed project is not on a site located on the Cortese list. Project Impacts: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the

environmental impacts from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been included for Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards & Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; and Public Services.

GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft | October 2017 Table of Contents | i

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. Statutory Authority and Requirements ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3. Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................................ 1-2 1.4. Consultation .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.5. Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3. Existing Zoning and General Plan ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.4. Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................ 2-4

3.0 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................. 3-2 3.3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.4. Lead Agency Determination ....................................................................................................... 3-4

4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 4-5 4.3. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-21 4.5. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 4-27 4.6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4-41 4.7. Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 4-49 4.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 4-53 4.9. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 4-59 4.10. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4-69 4.11. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4-75 4.12. Noise .... ....................................................................................................................................... 4-77 4.13. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 4-89 4.14. Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 4-93 4.15. Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 4-97 4.16. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................ 4-99 4.17. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 4-105 4.18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................... 4-113 4.19. References .................................................................................................................................. 4-115 4.20. Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................. 4-115

5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................. 5-1


Draft | October 2017 Table of Contents | ii

Appendices Provided on enclosed CD

A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis B Arborist Report C Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report D Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment E Hydraulic & Hydrology Calculation F Noise Impact Analysis G Trip Generation Analysis

List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 2-2 Local Vicinity ................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Exhibit 2-3 Existing Site Topographic Map .................................................................................................. 2-8 Exhibit 2-4 Site Plan – Ground Floor ............................................................................................................. 2-9 Exhibit 2-5 Site Plan – Second Floor ............................................................................................................. 2-10 Exhibit 2-6 Site Plan – Third Floor ............................................................................................................... 2-11 Exhibit 2-7 North and East Building Elevations ........................................................................................ 2-12 Exhibit 2-8 South and West Building Elevations ....................................................................................... 2-13 Exhibit 2-9 Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................................... 2-14 Exhibit 4-1 Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................................................................................... 4-68

List of Tables Table 4.3-1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary ........................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4.3-2 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet................................................................................... 4-12 Table 4.3-3 Project Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 4-12 Table 4.3-4 Project Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 4-14 Table 4.3-5 LST and Project Emissions ........................................................................................................ 4-18 Table 4.4-1 Condition of On-Site Trees ........................................................................................................ 4-25 Table 4.7-1 Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. 4-51 Table 4.7-2 Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................. 4-51 Table 4.9-1 Hydrology Calculations ............................................................................................................ 4-61 Table 4.9-2 Existing and Proposed Pervious and Impervious Site Conditions ..................................... 4-63 Table 4.10-1 Consistency with Development Standards ............................................................................. 4-72 Table 4.12-3 Typical Construction Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 4-82 Table 4.16-1 Proposed Project weekday Trip Generation ......................................................................... 4-101 Table 4.17-1 Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation .......................................................... 4-107 Table 4.17-2 Proposed Project Estimated Water Demand ........................................................................ 4-109


Draft | October 2017 Introduction | 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Gladstone Senior Villas Project (herein referenced as the “project” or the “proposed project”) involves the removal of three existing single-family dwelling units and the development of 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Azusa has determined that the proposed project is subject to the statutes and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.

1.1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS

This environmental document has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Azusa.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15051 and 15367, the City of Azusa (City) is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under CEQA Sections 21000-21177 and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (CEQA Section 21080(c)).

The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions relevant to the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.

The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period. During this review, agency and public comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City of Azusa. Following review of any comments received, the City of Azusa will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City Council.



1.2. PURPOSE

The purposes of an Initial Study are to:

1. Identify potentially significant environmental impacts;

2. Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration;

3. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is required to be prepared;

4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project;

5. Document the factual basis of the finding in a negative declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental effect;

6. Eliminate needless EIRs;

7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project; and

8. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:

A description of the project, including the location of the project Identification of the environmental setting Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,

provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries

Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other

applicable land use controls The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial

Study

1.3. RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES

Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency require subsequent oversight, approvals, or permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Such other agencies are referred to as Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386 Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies are respectively defined as follows:

“Responsible Agency” means a public agency, which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which [a] Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over the project. (Section 15381)



“Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include; The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The State Lands Commission; The State Department of Parks and Recreation and The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. (Section 15386)

For this project, the City of Azusa is the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the project.

Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other entities that may use this Initial Study in their decision-making process or for informational purposes include, but may not be limited to, the following:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

Los Angeles County Fire Department

City of Azusa Police Department

1.4. CONSULTATION

As soon as the Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.

1.5. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages “incorporation by reference” as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports.

The following documents are available for public review at the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California, 91702. The documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Information contained within these documents has been utilized for this Initial Study.

City of Azusa

City of Azusa General Plan (Azusa General Plan), April 2004.

The Azusa General Plan is comprised of six chapters, as follows:

Vision and Values

Foundation and Framework



The Built Environment

Economy and Community

Natural Environment

General Plan Team

The Azusa General Plan was utilized throughout this document as the fundamental planning document governing development at the project site. Background information and policy information from the Azusa General Plan is cited throughout this document.

City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Azusa General Plan EIR), April 2004.

The City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Azusa General Plan EIR), April 2004, identifies existing conditions within the City of Azusa, including infrastructure capacities and environmental indicators. The Azusa General Plan EIR assesses potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Azusa General Plan. The issues addressed in the EIR are population and housing; aesthetics; air quality; hazards; hydrology and water quality; public services; noise; parks and recreation; transportation and traffic; utilities and service systems; and land use and planning.

The Azusa General Plan EIR was utilized throughout this document for existing conditions and environmental impacts in Azusa and the project area.

City of Azusa Municipal Code and Development Code

The City of Azusa Municipal Code (Municipal Code) consists of all the regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City of Azusa. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with Azusa General Plan goals and policies. The City of Azusa Development Code (Municipal Code Chapter 88) identifies land uses permitted and prohibited according to the zoning category of particular parcels.

City of Azusa Zoning Map, March 25, 2005.

The Zoning Map was used to identify the zoning of the project area, including the project site.


Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION

Regionally, the project site is located in the City of Azusa. The City is located in the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Valley along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and approximately 25 miles east of Los Angeles. The City of Azusa is bordered by the Cities of Irwindale and Covina to the south, the City of Glendora to the east, and the City of Duarte to the west. Refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Location.

Locally, the project site is located on the south side of East Gladstone Street between North Donna Beth Avenue to the west and South Pasadena Avenue to the east within the City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles. The addresses associated with the project site are 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street. Refer to Exhibit 2-1, Local Vicinity.

2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 EXISTING LAND USES

The approximate 1.23-acre (53,579 square feet) project site is comprised of two parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8621-022-001 and 8621-022-002), and is currently occupied by three single-family detached residences with chain link fencing and ornamental landscaping and trees. Access to the three residences is from East Gladstone Street with secondary access from East Orkney Street. Refer to Exhibit 2-3, Existing Site Topographic Map.

2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES

The project site is surrounded by the following uses:

North: East Gladstone Street is immediately adjacent to the project site. The Edgewood Shopping Center (commercial use) is located to the north across East Gladstone Street.

East: The Howard Garden Apartment complex with 145 units (multi-family residential use) is located directly east of the project site at 500-550 East Gladstone Street. The complex includes both one- and two-story buildings. The one-story buildings front onto East Gladstone Street with the two-story buildings located to the south of the one-story buildings.

South: East Orkney Road is immediately adjacent to the project site. Single-family detached homes (single-family residential use) are located to the south across East Orkney Road on North Conwell Avenue and North Duxford Avenue.

The Murray Elementary School is located southeast of the project site. The school is immediately south of the Howard Garden Apartments, and east of single-family homes located on North Duxford Avenue.

West: Single-family detached homes (single-family residential use) are located immediately to the east and are located on East Orkney Road, North Conwell Avenue, and North Donna Beth Avenue. Immediately west of North Donna Beth Avenue at 300 East Gladstone



Street is the Villa Azusa Senior Apartment complex with 147 units (multi-family residential use).

2.3. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN

General Plan

The Azusa General Plan (General Plan) Figure CD-3, Regulating Plan, and Figure CD-4, Land Use Diagram, designate the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods Low Density Residential. The project site is located within Neighborhood 19 per General Plan Figure CD-5, Neighborhood Map. General Plan Table CD-2, Land Use Plan Classification, identifies single-family residential as the typical principal use within the Low Density Residential category with a maximum density of 0 to 8 dwelling units per net acre.

Zoning

The Zoning Map designates the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG-2 Low Density Residential). Azusa Development Code Table 2-1 defines the allowed land uses and permit requirements for neighborhood zones. Zoning for Surrounding Uses Zoning designations for surrounding uses within Azusa and Los Angeles County are noted below. North: DE (Edgewood District) and Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low

(NG-2 Low Density Residential) East: Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG-2 Low Density Residential)

and Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Moderate (NG-2 Moderate Density Residential)

South: Unincorporated property within Los Angeles County designated as A-1-6000 (Light

Agriculture, 6,000 Square Foot Lot) West: Unincorporated property within Los Angeles County designated as A-1-6000 (Light

Agriculture, 6,000 Square Foot Lot), and DE (Edgewood District)



2.4. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

2.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The project applicant, 360 Gladstone LLC, is proposing to remove the three existing residences on-site and construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre (53,578 square foot) site.

The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first floor and 21 units each on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated as low-income units. The building will include a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security office, and storage areas. Refer to Exhibit 2-4, Site Plan – Ground Floor; Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6, which show the site plan for the second and third floors; and Exhibit 2-7 and Exhibit 2-8, which illustrate the building elevations from all directions.

The building height is three stories/36 feet. The Floor Area Ratio is 0.92 and the Lot Coverage is 31 percent.

The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District, and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. The proposed General Plan and Zoning designations allow a maximum density of 27 dwelling units per acre; however, the Housing Element allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre for senior housing. In addition, the proposed project includes a Minor Use Permit for the senior apartments. Senior apartments are subject to Municipal Code Section 88.42.200 requirements and standards for senior citizen apartments, which permit a density of 40 dwelling units per gross acre. Lastly, the proposed project is seeking density bonuses and concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518. The combination of the requested approvals, noted above in this paragraph, provide the opportunity for the Applicant to propose 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site, resulting in a density of 48.8 dwelling units per acre.

Open Space

The proposed project includes a community garden totaling 9,826 square feet in the central portion of site surrounded by the building on the east, north, and west. The community garden will be landscaped with two fountains and seating areas. Landscaping is proposed around the project perimeter and throughout the parking area.

In addition, each unit will include a private balcony that averages approximately 35 square feet, and totals approximately 2,100 square feet for the 60 units.

Landscaping and Fencing

The existing on-site landscaping and 23 trees, including the three native Coast Live Oak trees, would be removed. A minimum of 69 replacement trees, of which at least nine would be a California oak species, would be installed. A 21-foot 6-inch (21’-6”) landscaped area will be provided on the northern boundary adjacent to East Gladstone Street, and a 15-foot (15’) landscaped area will be provided on the western and southern boundaries. Refer to Exhibit 2-9, Landscape Plan.

A new six-foot-high wrought iron fence will be constructed on the southern boundary, with existing six-foot-high concrete masonry walls to remain in place on the western and eastern boundaries.



Access

A singular ingress and egress access will be provided in the northeastern portion of the site to East Gladstone Street. A secondary emergency access gate will be provided in the southeastern portion of the site to East Orkney Street.

Parking

A total of 37 parking spaces will be provided. This includes 31 resident and employee spaces (assumes 0.5 spaces per unit) and six guest spaces (assumes 1 space for every 10 units). Two of the 37 spaces will be for handicapped parking. Parking will be provided on the eastern portion of the site.

Infrastructure

The project applicant will install water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure to serve the proposed on-site uses. Water and sewer service for each proposed building will connect with existing City of Azusa water and sewer mains. The site will drain to the southwest to a proposed 18-inch by 18-inch on-site catch basin that will connect to a new off-site 28-inch by 4-inch parkway drain in East Orkney Street.

2.4.2 PROJECT PHASING

The proposed project would be constructed in a single phase. The construction period is anticipated to begin in late 2017 and be completed by the end of 2018 for a total eight to 12 months.

2.5. PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The City of Azusa (lead agency under CEQA) will use this IS/MND in making decisions with regard to the approval of the Gladstone Senior Villas Project and the subsequent construction and development of the project.

Various permits, approvals, and actions by the City of Azusa, Los Angeles County, and other agencies may be required in order to execute and implement the proposed project. The implementation of the proposed improvements would require the issuance of permits from various public agencies. The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would be necessary include:

The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-family dwelling units and construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed project are provided in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics.



The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would be necessary include:

City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District

City of Azusa approval of Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District

City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use

City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518

City of Azusa approval of concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518


City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing Agreement

City of Azusa approval of Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements

City of Azusa approval of Design Review

City of Azusa issuance of Grading Permit

City of Azusa issuance of Building and Safety Permits

Los Angeles County Fire Department approval of proposed site improvements

Azusa Light and Power water and sewer connection permit



Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location

Project Site



Exhibit 2-2 Local Vicinity Source: Google™ Earth (2017)

Project Site



Exhibit 2-3 Existing Site Topographic Map

Source: Apple Engineering Group (August 2016)



Exhibit 2-4 Site Plan – Ground Floor

Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)

East Gladstone Street

East Orkney Street



Exhibit 2-5 Site Plan – Second Floor



East Orkney Street



Exhibit 2-6 Site Plan – Third Floor Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)


East Orkney Street



Exhibit 2-7 North and East Building Elevations




Exhibit 2-8 South and West Building Elevations




Exhibit 2-9 Landscape Plan

Source: Two Trees Design, Inc. (August 2017)


Draft | October 2017 Initial Study Checklist | 3-1

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

3.1. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Gladstone Senior Villas Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 92701

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner, 626.812.5289

4. Project Location: The project site is located south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and east of Azusa Boulevard in the southern portion of the City of Azusa at 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Mr. Chaplon Mu 360 Gladstone LLC 910 Las Rosas Drive West Covina, CA 91791

6. General Plan Designation: Southeast Neighborhoods Low Density Residential

7. Zoning: Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG-2) Low Density Residential)

8. Description of the Project: The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-family dwelling units and construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed project are provided in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The uses surrounding the project site include single-story apartments to the east, single-family residences to the south and west, and a strip commercial shopping center to the north, north of East Gladstone Street. For additional details refer to Section 2.2.2, Surrounding Land Uses.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). Refer to Section 2.5, Permits and Approvals.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Letters as required by both SB 18 and AB 52 were mailed to the respective Tribes in Azusa on June 19, 2017. One tribe, Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation, requested consultation under SB 18 on July 10, 2017. The City participated in a SB 18 and AB 52 consultation with the Kizh Nation on August 23, 2017. No other tribes requested consultation.



3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the Initial Study Checklist questions in Section 4.1 through Section 4.18.

Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems



The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Azusa (City) in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:

No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.

Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures would be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.



3.4. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4.0 have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Signature:

Title: Director of Economic and Community Development

Printed Name: Kurt Christiansen, FAICP

Agency: City of Azusa

Date: October 2, 2017


Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following sections include a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. At the beginning of each section is a “Sources Cited,” which identifies the sources utilized in that particular section.

4.1. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

Impact With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its

surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect

day or nighttime views in the area?

Sources Cited in Section 4.1

City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, Chapter 3: The Built Environment and Chapter 5: Natural Environment, April 2004

City of Azusa, Municipal Code Section 46-409

City of Azusa, Municipal Code Section 88.31.030

A. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON A SCENIC VISTA?

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

The project site is in located within a developed residential and commercial area within the City of Azusa, approximately 3.5 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains and south of I-210. Single-family uses are located to the immediate west and south of the project site, multi-family uses are located to the east, and commercial uses are located to the north. The project site is not located within or in proximity to a scenic vista. Nor would the proposed project result in scenic view obstructions given the built-out nature of the surrounding urban area. Building heights for adjacent single-family homes are approximately 15 to 20 feet, and 20 to 30 feet for the multi-family residential complex. The building heights for the adjacent commercial uses are approximately 30 to 35 feet. The proposed project includes a three-story building with a building height of 36 feet. As the height of the proposed buildings would be consistent with height of surrounding uses, scenic view obstructions of the San Gabriel Mountains or other scenic resources would not occur. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.



MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures are required.

B. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY?

NO IMPACT

There are no designated State scenic highways located within the vicinity of the project site or within the City of Azusa. However, Azusa Avenue (State Highway 39) north of I-210, is eligible to become a State scenic highway, but has not been officially designated. As the project site is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the I-210 and Azusa Avenue intersection, the proposed project would not be located in the viewshed of this segment of State Highway 39. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS?


Construction of the proposed project may create temporary aesthetic nuisances associated with construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic may temporarily impact views across the site. These short-term impacts would cease upon project completion, and therefore are considered less than significant.

The project site and its surroundings are urbanized with single-and multi-family residential and commercial uses. The project site currently contains three residences. Demolition of the existing on-site buildings and structures and construction of a new 60-unit senior apartment complex consistent with surrounding uses is not anticipated to result in significant negative impacts.

West and south of the project site are single-family homes in the Los Angeles County A-1-6000 (Light Agriculture, 6,000 square foot lot) zone, and east of the site are multi-family uses in the NG2 Low and NG2 Moderate. The A-1-6000 zone allows building heights up to 45 feet and the NG2 Low and Moderate zones allow building heights up to 35 feet with up to two and one-half stories. Commercial uses in the Edgewood District (DE) zone are located north of the project site; this zone also allows building heights up to 35 feet or three stories for single use buildings.

The project site includes a rezone from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District, which allows building heights up to 35 feet and three stories. The proposed project includes a three-story building with a building height of 36 feet and would be seeking approval of a concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518 for the height exceeding the Municipal Code standard by 1 foot.



Building heights for adjacent single-family homes are approximately 15 to 20 feet, and 15 to 30 feet for the multi-family residential complex. The building heights for the adjacent commercial uses are approximately 30 to 35 feet.

The single-family homes located to the immediate west and south are all single-story with heights of approximately 15 to 20 feet. The multi-family residential complex located to the immediate east includes both single- and two-story buildings with heights ranging between 15 and 30 feet. In comparison to the adjacent single-family homes, the proposed project would be approximately 16 to 21 feet taller. In comparison to adjacent multi-family residential complex, the proposed project would be approximately 6 feet taller for the two-story buildings and 21 feet taller for the single-story buildings. In comparison to the adjacent commercial uses, the proposed project would be approximately 1 foot taller than the commercial buildings.

Thus, the proposed senior apartment use would be compatible with the heights and character of the existing single-family residential uses located to the west and south, multi-family uses to the east, and commercial uses located north of the project site.

The existing 6-foot masonry block wall on the western, and eastern boundaries would be protected in place, and a 6-foot wrought iron fence would be constructed on the southern boundary. These existing and proposed walls and fences would continue to separate on-site residential and adjacent residential uses and limit views across the site.

Implementation of the proposed project would alter views onto the site; however, the change in visual character would not be significant given that the site and surrounding area is presently developed, and no degradation would occur. No additional impacts to the visual character of the site or the surrounding area are anticipated given the built-out nature of the surrounding area. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


D. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL LIGHT OR GLARE WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT DAY OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS IN THE AREA?

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

Short-Term Construction Impacts

Construction activities are anticipated to occur during the day hours; however, security lighting would potentially result in short-term light and glare impacts associated with construction activities. No schools or hospitals are located adjacent to the project site. However, single-family residential uses are immediately adjacent to the site on the west and south and north of East Gladstone Street to the northeast, and multi-family residential uses to the immediate east and southeast. The adjacent residential uses are considered light-sensitive since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to disturbance by bright light sources. Implementation of the recommended mitigation



(Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2) involving opaque screening surrounding the site and shielding of construction-related lighting would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts

The project site and its surroundings are urbanized with single-family and multi-family residential uses and commercial uses.

The proposed project would demolish the three existing on-site residences and construct a 60-unit senior apartment complex on the project site. The area surrounding the project site is currently urbanized and contains various forms of on- and off-site lighting typical of residential and commercial development.

Potential new sources of light and glare that may result from the proposed project’s implementation include parking area lighting, interior lighting, exterior safety lighting, and vehicle headlights. The 60-unit senior apartment complex may increase the amount of light and glare, but this would be consistent with other multi- and single-family residential development in the City.

Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to Municipal Code Section 88.31.030, Outdoor Lighting, which establishes lighting standards to ensure that light trespass (spill light), light pollution, and glare have a negligible impact on surrounding properties, particularly residential uses. Compliance with the Municipal Code requirements would reduce potential operational light and glare impacts from proposed structures to less than significant; refer to Mitigation Measure AES-3.

MITIGATION MEASURES

AES-1 Construction equipment staging areas shall use appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to buffer views of construction equipment and material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on Final Development Plans and Grading Plans.

AES-2 All construction-related lighting shall include shielding in order to direct lighting down and away from nearby residential uses and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site. A construction safety lighting plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Building Division for review and approval concurrent with Grading Permit application.

AES-3 A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department for review and approval prior to approval of Final Development Plans and Grading Plans to ensure compliance with applicable City of Azusa codes and provisions pertaining to light and glare.



4.2. 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.

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in

Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?


City of Azusa, Azusa Zoning Map

State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html, Los Angeles County, accessed June 26, 2017

Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2012, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Map Published January 2015

A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONVERT PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE FARMLAND, OR FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE (FARMLAND), AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE?

NO IMPACT

The project site is developed with three single-family residential units. There are no agricultural uses on the site. The surrounding uses include residential development to the west, south, and east and a commercial center to the north. There are no agricultural uses adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of the project site.



The project site does not contain any land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the California Important Farmland Finder and Los Angeles County Important Farmland Maps published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Thus, project implementation would not result in the conversion of important farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, OR A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT?

NO IMPACT

The project site does not include any land under a Williamson contract. The project site is currently zoned NG2 Low Density Residential, and the project proposes to change the zoning to DE Edgewood District. Both designations allow for community gardens or plant nurseries with a use permit. Given that the site is currently not in agricultural use, the demolition of three single-family residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units uses would not conflict with the existing or proposed zoning. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR, OR CAUSE REZONING OF, FOREST LAND (AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 12220(G)), TIMBERLAND (AS DEFINED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 4526), OR TIMBERLAND ZONED TIMBERLAND PRODUCTION (AS DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51104(G))?

NO IMPACT

Forestry operations do not occur on or within the vicinity of the project site. Also, the project site does not support any trees that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




D. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF FOREST LAND OR CONVERSION OF FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USE?

NO IMPACT

Refer to Response 4.2.C.

MITIGATION MEASURES


E. WOULD THE PROJECT INVOLVE OTHER CHANGES IN THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, WHICH, DUE TO THEIR LOCATION OR NATURE, COULD RESULT IN CONVERSION OF FARMLAND, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE OR CONVERSION OF FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USE?

NO IMPACT

The project site does not contain any forest land, but a small portion of the site is zoned for agriculture. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or forest land to a non-forest use. Thus, there would be no potential for the conversion of these resources and no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




This page intentionally left blank.



4.3. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation? c. 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources Cited in Section 4.3

Giroux and Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses, Gladstone Senior Villas Project, Azusa, California, June 23, 2017 (Air Quality/GHG Study) – included in its entirety as Appendix A

A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN?


The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that projects be analysed for consistency with an AQMP. For a project to be consistent with the 2016 AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the AQMP projection. However, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with an AQMP. An AQMP uses the assumptions and forecast projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the 2016 AQMP is based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the General Plan are found to be consistent with the AQMP.

The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project implements the 2014-2021 Housing Element goal of providing both senior housing and six low-income units. In addition, and as explained in Section 4.10, the proposed project is consistent with the growth forecasts in the Azusa General Plan. Therefore, the emissions associated with the proposed project are already accounted for in the 2016 AQMP, and do not



exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction or operation. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. The proposed project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies, and is therefore considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur relative to obstructing implementation of air quality plans.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT VIOLATE ANY AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY VIOLATION?


The project site is located in the City of Azusa in the County of Los Angeles and within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). To the west of the Basin is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and east of the Basin are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, while the southern limit of the Basin is the San Diego County line. The Basin consists of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The air quality in the Basin is impacted by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day.

The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. For evaluation purposes, the SCAQMD has divided the basin into 36 Source Receptor Areas (SRA) within the Basin operating monitoring stations in most of the areas. These SRAs are designated to provide a general representation of the local meteorological, terrain, and air quality conditions within the particular geographical area. The project site is within SRA 9, East San Gabriel Valley 1 Station in Azusa. This station monitors O3, CO, PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 pollutant levels. The pollutant levels from SRA 9 were used to comprise a “background” for the project location.

Table 4.3-1, Air Quality Monitoring summarizes 2011 through 2015 published monitoring data, which is the most recent 5-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years, SRA 9 has exceeded the O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.



TABLE 4.3-1 AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY

Air Pollutant Averaging Time Item 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Days > State Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Days >National Standard (35 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0

8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.3

Days > State Standard (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Days >National Standard (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0

Ozone (O3)

1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.111 0.134 0.115 0.123 0.122

Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 13 18 7 11 21

8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.092 0.095 0.085 0.092 0.096

Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 19 18 15 20 28 Days >National Standard (0.075 ppm) 12 10 6 11 17

Coarse Particulates (PM10) 24 Hour

Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) 63.0 78.0 76.0 96.0 101.0 Days > State Standard (50 μg/m³) 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60 12/59

Days >National Standard (150 μg/m³) 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 0/59 Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 24 Hour

Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) 41.2 39.6 29.6 32.4 44.3 Days >National Standard (35 μg/m³) 2/119 1/118 0/120 0/118 1/119

Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx0 1 Hour

Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.080 0.072 0.077 0.070 0.071 Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0.0 0 0 0

Sources: Giroux and Associates (June 2017), www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Notes: ARB = California Air Resource Board EPA= Environmental Protection Agency μg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = part per million

Short-Term Construction Emissions

CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Although exhaust emissions would result from on and off-site equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment would vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod2016.3.1 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during proposed project construction.

The proposed project entails the demolition of three existing residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units. Construction was modeled in CalEEMod2013.2.2 using default construction equipment and schedule for a project of this size as shown in Table 4.3-2.



TABLE 4.3-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT FLEET

Phase Name and Duration Equipment

Demolition (20 days)

1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 3 Loader/Backhoes

Grading (4 days)

1 Grader 1 Dozer 1 Loader/Backhoe

Construction (200 days)

1 Crane 1 Generator Set 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Forklift

Paving (10 days)

1 Paver 1 Paving Equipment 1 Cement Mixer 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Roller

Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)

Utilizing this indicated equipment fleet and durations shown in Table 4.3-2, the following daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are provided in Table 4.3-3.

TABLE 4.3-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Maximum Construction

Emissions ROG NOx CO SO3 PM10 PM2.5

2017 Unmitigated 3.3 27.4 17.0 0.0 5.9 3.4 Mitigated 3.3 27.4 17.0 0.0 3.2 2.0 2018 Unmitigated 39.0 18.3 16.2 0.0 1.6 1.2 Mitigated 39.0 18.3 16.2 0.0 1.6 1.2 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)

The only model-based measure applied for the proposed project was:

Water exposed dirt surfaces two times per day to minimize the generation of fugitive dust generation during grading.

Without mitigation, the proposed project construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. However, in an abundance of caution and to further minimize generation of fugitive dust, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been included (see below).



Fugitive Dust

Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Construction emissions, including fugitive dust emissions, can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors.

The proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust, which have been included as Mitigation Measures AQ-1. Table 4.3-3 illustrates total construction emissions, i.e., fugitive-dust emissions and construction equipment exhausts that have incorporated a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction. Table 4.3-3 illustrates that for all construction phases, the daily total construction emissions with standard control measures would be below the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant fugitive dust emissions.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

The project site is located in Los Angeles County, which is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small, and as such is considered to be less than significant.

Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk.” “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy- duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, less than significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.

Long-Term Operational Emissions

Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and stationary source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural gas consumption for on-site buildings and electricity for the lighting in the buildings and at the parking area.

Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod2016.3.1 for an assumed project opening year of 2019. Trip rates were provided in the project trip generation report. The traffic report predicts that the proposed project would generate 206 new daily trips.

In addition to mobile sources from vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of “area source” air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption and from off-site



electrical generation. These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent of other pollutants. The inclusion of such emissions adds negligibly to the total project-related emissions burden as shown in Table 4.3-4, Project Operational Emissions. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating.

Table 4.3-4 provides the proposed project's operational emissions, without mitigation. Table 4.3-4 shows that without mitigation measures, the proposed project does not exceed the corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Therefore, less than significant long-term impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project.

TABLE 4.3-4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Emissions (pounds/day)

Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Area Sources 17.2 1.3 35.5 0.1 4.6 4.6 Energy Sources 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Mobile Sources 0.5 2.2 6.1 0.0 1.5 0.4

Total: Area Sources + Energy + Mobile 17.7 3.8 41.7 0.1 6.2 5.0

SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)

MITIGATION MEASURES

As discussed above, without the incorporation of mitigation measures, both operational and construction emissions would be less than significant. Further, SCAQMD regulations require that construction activities adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, to further reduce the proposed project’s already less than significant emissions relating to fugitive dust. Although impacts are less than significant, and although SCAQMD 403 applies to the project pursuant to SCAQMD regulations, the following mitigation measures has nonetheless been identified in an abundance of caution, and to further reduce the proposed project’s already less than significant impacts relating to air quality emissions.



AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:

During construction, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring that fugitive dust be controlled with best-available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques, include but are not limited to:

Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas in active for 10 days or more).

Water active sites at least three times daily.

Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.

Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.

Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.

Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.

Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better rated heavy equipment.

Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.



C. 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 (INCLUDING RELEASING EMISSIONS WHICH EXCEED QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE PRECURSORS)?


Cumulative Construction Impacts

With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative South Coast Air Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2016 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.

Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce the proposed project’s construction-related impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts

As previously discussed, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.



D. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS?


Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

Sensitive receptors near the project site include surrounding residences to the west, east, and south of the project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction and operations impacts (area sources only).

Localized Significance Thresholds

The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility.

LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

LST screening tables are available for 25-, 50-, 100-, 200- and 500-meter source receptor distances. For the proposed project, the nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses adjacent to the project site such that the most conservative 25-meter distance was modeled.

The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1-, 2- and 5-acre sites for varying distances. For the proposed project, the most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site were applied (although the proposed project is actually 1.23 acres). The following thresholds and emissions in cited in Table 4.3-5.



TABLE 4.3-5 LST AND PROJECT EMISSIONS

LST: 1 acre/25 meters East San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Maximum On-Site Emissions (pounds/day) Unmitigated 17 27 6 3 Mitigated 17 27 3 2 LST Threshold 623 89 5 3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)

LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities, and the only model-based measure applied for the proposed project was:

Water exposed dirt surfaces two times per day to minimize the generation of fugitive dust generation during grading.

Although emissions of PM10 would exceed the LST threshold prior to the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, with incorporation of watering exposed dirt surfaces two times per day, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The above-measure relating to watering exposed dirt is included within Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Table 4.3-5 indicates that the operational emission rates would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptors at 25 meters. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relative to localized operational emissions.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.

E. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE?


According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors; however, the construction activity is short-term and would cease after the proposed project construction is completed. Potential sources that may emit odors during operation of proposed project include emissions from diesel truck emissions and trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance to SCAQMD’s Rule 402, less



than significant odor emission impacts would occur during construction and operation of the proposed project.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,

on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such

as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural

Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan EIR, April 2004

McKinley & Associates, Inc., Arborist Report, 360, 410, 416 East Gladstone Street, City of Azusa (Arborist Report), November 26, 2016 – included in its entirety as Appendix B

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California, last updated July 2017

A. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HABITAT MODIFICATIONS, ON ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE?

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION

The project site and surrounding area is fully urbanized and occupied primarily by residential and commercial uses. The project proposes to demolish three single-family residences and construct 60 senior apartment units. The project site has been previously disturbed by grading.

One plant species was identified on-site: Coast Live Oak. The Coast Live Oak is not identified as a State- or Federally-listed endangered, threatened, or rare plant on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), or as a rare plant species by the California Native Plant Society. This California native species is a massive but graceful tree. Its habit is spreading or weeping



and requires ample growing space. Its form is oval, rounded or umbrella shape with evergreen foliage; it is an important native species.

A total of three Coast Live Oak trees were identified on-site. Two of the trees (No. 7 and No. 11) are in poor health, while one tree (No. 6) has above average health. Refer to Response 4.4.F for additional information about the trees. All three trees would be removed as part of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires replacement of all native trees at a 3:1 ratio with a 24-inch box size. Thus, nine 24-inch box size replacement trees would be planted. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 reduces the impact to native trees to less than significant. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 ensure the viability of future planted mitigation native trees. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

No other special status plant or animal species listed in in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exist in the local vicinity due to the level of past disturbance and non-native plant species in the area. Thus, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any other special status species. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

BIO-1 All Coast Live Oak trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box size tree with a California native species of oak.

BIO-2 At no time shall any form of plant material be permitted within 15 feet of any newly planted mitigation trees. All landscaping that is proposed and approved within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of native drought-tolerant plant material that is compatible with California native species of oak.

BIO-3 At no time shall any form of overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with all newly planted mitigation oak trees. Irrigation approved within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of drip or bubbler type systems only.

BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, an I.S.A Certified Arborist shall review the landscape plan to ensure that the plan shows the correct tree species for each planting area.

B. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANY RIPARIAN HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE?

NO IMPACT

The project site has been developed since the 1920s with residential uses. Thus, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exist on-site. No impacts would occur in this regard.



MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MARSH, VERNAL POOL, COASTAL, ETC.) THROUGH DIRECT REMOVAL, FILLING, HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION, OR OTHER MEANS?

NO IMPACT

No Federally protected wetlands occur within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed would not have an effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Clean Water Act Section 404. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


D. WOULD THE PROJECT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES?

NO IMPACT

No identified wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries occur within the boundaries of the project site. As noted above, the project site and surrounding area is fully urbanized and occupied primarily by residential and commercial uses. Although the San Gabriel River may be considered an area for wildlife movement, the river is located more than 3.5 miles west of the project site. The proposed project would not affect any wildlife movement that may currently occur in the river. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


E. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION POLICY OR ORDINANCE?

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION

The project site consists of disturbed land with three single-family residences and native trees and non-native ornamental trees and landscaping. An Arborist Report was prepared for the project site. The Arborist Report identified 23 on-site trees, and concluded that all the trees and



landscaping were in a poor, declining condition (refer to Table 4.4-1, Condition of On-Site Trees). In addition, the trees and landscaping were not being watered, which is contributing to the stressed condition of the trees. Also, dead or dying trees have not been removed from the project site.

Given either the health of the trees, or the location of future on-site development, the proposed project would remove all 23 on-site trees, including the three native Coast Live Oak trees. The Arborist Report includes a recommendation to replace all removed trees (native and non-native) at a 3:1 ratio with a 24-inch box size. Thus, 69 24-inch box size replacement trees would be required; a minimum of 9 of the 69 would be a California native oak to replace the three Coast Live Oak trees removed.

Tree species suitable for replacement planting include, but are not limited to, Coast Live Oak, Canyon Live Oak, Mesa Oak, California Sycamore, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Stone Pine, Cork Oak, Tulip Tree Ginkgo Tree, Northern Red Oak, Crape Myrtle, Evergreen Peak, Eastern Redbud, and Western Redbud.

As shown on Exhibit 2-9, Landscape Plan, the proposed project includes the replacement planting of 74 trees: 9 Holly Oak, 7 Crape Myrtle, 8 Western Redbud, and 52 Bright ‘N” Tight Carolina Laurel Cherry. The Holly Oak is not native to California; thus, the landscape plan would require a revision for nine California native oak trees in compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

The proposed project would be subject to Municipal Code Article VI, Tree Preservation, Section 62-197. - General requirements for new subdivisions, including subsection (c):

“Destruction of trees. If said trees are destroyed, applicant shall replace them with trees whose size, number, and planting location shall be determined by the director of public works before final occupancy is granted to any new residents. The size and age of the tree will determine how many new trees may be substituted for the destroyed tree, but as a minimum three new trees will replace one tree removed. The ratio may be increased at the discretion of the director.”

The proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Article VI, Tree Preservation, Section 62-197 with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 requiring the replacement of native and non-native trees at a 3:1 ratio, along with measures to ensure the viability of future on-site planted mitigation native trees. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is required.

BIO-5 All non-native trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box size tree.



TABLE 4.4-1 CONDITION OF ON-SITE TREES

Tree No. Type Height

(Feet) Diameter at

Breast Height (Inches)

Dripline (Feet)

Crown Density

Foliage Size & Color

Health & Condition Rating

1 Italian Pine Stone 20 6 and 12 25 Normal Normal/ Normal Average D+

2 Aleppo Pine 65 24 29 Normal Normal/ Normal Good B

3 Plum -- 5 and 7 -- -- -- Dead F

4 Arizona Ash 40 17 15 Normal -10% Dead

Normal/ Normal

Below Average C-

5 Grapefruit 18 7 and 9 10 Fair Normal/ Normal Poor D

6 Coast Live Oak 50 38 29 Normal -10% Dead

Normal/ Normal

Above Average B-

7 Coast Live Oak 18 20 10 Sparse Normal/ Normal Poor D

8 White Mulberry 25 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 & 10 20 Thin Dormant Below

Average D+

9 Unknown -- 3, 3, 3, 6 & 15 -- -- -- Dead F

10 Aleppo Pine 70 22 40 Normal,

Very Dense – 20% dead

needles

Normal/ Normal

Above Average C+

11 Coast Live Oak 17 5 and 8 15 Fair Normal/ Normal Poor D

12 Silver Maple 25 4, 5, 6, 6 & 7 14 Fair Dormant Poor D

13 Silk Tree 40 9, 9, 9 & 11 25 Fair – 10% Dead

Normal/ Normal

Below Average C-

14 Avocado -- 17 -- -- -- Nearly Dead F 15 Avocado -- 18 -- -- -- Dead F

16 Valencia Orange 12 2, 3 & 4 7 Fair -10% Dead

Normal/ Normal Poor D-

17 Avocado 45 18 23 Fair Normal/ Wilted & Burned

Above Average D+

18 Avocado 25 18 22 50% Dead Normal/ Brown & Wilted

Poor D-

19 Avocado 40 17 12 40% Dead Normal/– Brown & Wilted

Poor D

20 Mexican Fan Palm 25 12 3 -- Normal/ Normal

Below Average C-

21 Avocado -- 12 -- -- -- Nearly Dead F

22 Avocado 30 15 15 60% Dead Normal/ Wilted & Stressed

Poor D

23 Avocado 45 3, 5, 10, 10 & 15 22 30% Dead Normal/

Stressed Below

Average C- Source: McKinley & Associates (November 2016) Notes: -- (No information available) Native Trees shown in bold, italic



F. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN?

NO IMPACT

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.5. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as

defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries? e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural

resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k)?

f. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.


City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004

City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2004

Correspondence from Native American Heritage Commission, June 12, 2017

A. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES §15064.5?

NO IMPACT

A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially alters the environmental context or removes identified historical resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 generally defines a historical resource as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values.



An original list of 138 buildings, places, and sites is included in the 1983 General Plan although the listing was considered tentative. This list was prioritized by the Cultural and Historical Landmarks Commission (CHLC) and resulted in 20 listings considered to be of the highest priority. No ordinances were adopted for the preservation of these resources at the time of the 1983 General Plan adoption. Since 1983, several of the original 138 listings have been demolished or modified.

In 2000, the Cultural and Historical Preservation Commission (formerly the CHLC), developed another list consisting of 60 places, objects, landscapes, and buildings that the Commission believes best represents the culture and history of Azusa. Azusa General Plan EIR Table 4.5-1 reflects the list as of July 25, 2000. The listing is tabulated by street address and the number in the right-hand column corresponds to the enumeration assigned by the CHLC. Furthermore, on October 16, 2000, the Azusa City Council adopted an historic resource ordinance, Ordinance Number 00-012, which amended the Municipal Code to include eligibility criteria and the appropriate procedure for placing property onto a Designated Historic Landmark (DHL) list.

Of the potential 60 cultural-historic landmarks on the CHLC’s most recent list, five potential landmarks should assume DHL status as of November 2003 by Azusa City Council approval, commencing the City’s historic landmark list. They are the Durrell House/Museum, which reflects the earlier architecture of Azusa and the adaptive reuse of the residence as a museum and community focal point; the Wade/Talley Building, a fine example of brick commercial architecture and a central point in downtown; the Woman’s Club, the City of Azusa Civic Center, and the Pioneer Park Channel would also be included. Azusa General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-1 pictures the Durrell House, the Wade Talley Building, and the Women’s Club while a map of the locations of the seven listed buildings or features is shown in Azusa General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2.

The project site is currently developed with three single-family residences, which are estimated to be constructed before 1948, based upon the review of Fairchild aerial photographs for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Azusa General Plan EIR Table 4.5-1 does not cite any addresses for East Gladstone Street. In addition, the project site and surrounding area are not located within a National Register District. Also, based on Azusa General Plan Figure HR-1, Potential Historic Landmarks and Potential Historic Districts, there are no known potential historic resources located on the project site.

The proposed project would demolish three existing residential units and develop the site with 60 senior apartment units. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




B. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES §15064.5?


A significant impact would occur if a known or unknown archaeological resource were removed, altered, or destroyed as a result of the proposed development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources or constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect may potentially occur if a project would adversely affect archaeological resources, which fall under either of these categories.

According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, at least 19 archaeological studies have been conducted within the City limits. These studies covered 0.5- to 45-acre areas within the City and no archaeological resources were determined to be present. However, archaeological artifacts were subsequently discovered during the grading phase of a residential development (the Rosedale development) in the northern portion of the City.

No archaeological resources have been identified or are known to exist on the project site, and the site has been disturbed by previous residential development. Therefore, it is unlikely that archaeological materials would be found. However, construction of the proposed project would require grading and excavation activities and may have the potential to encounter undiscovered archaeological resources. In the event archeological resources are unearthed or discovered during construction activities, compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant, given that the mitigation measure would require the cessation of ground disturbance in the event resources are found, and appropriate treatment measures would be implemented.

MITIGATION MEASURES

CUL-1 If cultural materials or archaeological remains are encountered during the course of construction, excavation and other construction activity, the project contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities near the find and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department. With direction from the Director of Economic and Community Development, an archaeologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. Treatment measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery, protection, and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates.



C. WOULD THE PROJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE?


Based on the Azusa General Plan EIR, certain rock units are present within the City. These include Mesozoic plutonic rocks, Quaternary terrestrial sediments, and Tertiary marine sediments. These rock units include formations that have been known to contain fossiliferous materials, including remains of marine mammals. Neither the Azusa General Plan nor the Azusa General Plan EIR note any locations of paleontological resources within the City.

A significant impact would occur if excavation or construction activities associated with the proposed project would disturb paleontological or unique geological features. The probability that construction of the proposed project would impact any paleontological resources appears to be moderately low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site. Notwithstanding, ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, could disturb previously unidentified subsurface resources. In the event paleontological resources are unearthed or discovered during construction activities, compliance with the recommended Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, given that this mitigation measure would require the cessation of ground disturbing activities in the event that resources are encountered, and require appropriate salvage and curation measures.

MITIGATION MEASURES

CUL-2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during the course of grading or construction, the construction contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department. With direction from the Director of Economic and Community Development, a paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find. Treatment measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery, protection, and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources.

D. WOULD THE PROJECT DISTURB ANY HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES?


No known human remains occur on-site, and due to the level of past disturbance, it is not anticipated that human remains exist. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, all activities would cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor would be immediately contacted. The Coroner would be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission would be contacted pursuant to Public



Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, impacts would be reduced to less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

CUL-3 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the Los Angeles County Coroner immediately notified of the find. The provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 relative to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary, shall be met.

E. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21074 AS EITHER A SITE, FEATURE, PLACE, CULTURAL LANDSCAPE THAT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE LANDSCAPE, SACRED PLACE, OR OBJECT WITH CULTURAL VALUE TO A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE, AND THAT IS LISTED OR ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, OR IN A LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5020.1(K)?


Tribal Consultation

Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”

Also per AB 52 (specifically Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on June 8, 2017, and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the proposed project, as was a list of potential Native American contacts for consultation. The NAHC responded on June 12, 2017, to notify the City that the SLF search was negative for the Project area. The NAHC provided a Tribal Consultation List that included the following six Native Americans to be contacted:

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation - Andrew Salas, Chairperson

Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians - Anthony Morales

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation - Sandonne Goad, Chairperson



Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council - Robert F. Dorame, Chairperson

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe - Charles Alvarez

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians - John Valenzuela, Chairperson

The City sent letters for the purposes of SB 181 and AB 52 consultation to all of the individuals listed above on June 26, 2017.

As of August 30, 2017, the City received one request for consultation from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation, and coordinated with the tribe to schedule a consultation meeting. The 90-day period to request consultation ended on September 25, 2017; no other tribes requested consultation.

On August 24, 2017, the City met with Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairperson, and Matthew Teutimez, Tribal Biologist, of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation for a SB 18 and AB 52 consultation. As part of the consultation, the tribal representatives provided the City with oral information regarding the history of the tribe in the Los Angeles Basin and a hard copy of suggested mitigation measures relative to tribal cultural resources and human remains and associated funerary objects within the Kizh Gabrieleño tribal territory. Following the meeting, the tribe provided the City with excerpts from the Handbook of North American Indians (1978) on Gabrieleño ethnography, and recent news articles regarding the tribe in the San Gabriel Valley News (What’s In A Name?, July 30, 2017) and the Pasadena Weekly (Native American Heritage Commission Recognizes SG Mountains as Sacred Land, August 3, 2017). In addition, the tribe provided a link to the La Misíon Vieja: The Center of Los Angeles Blog.

Human Remains

Human remains are defined as any physical remains of a human being. The term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of associated cultural resources (Funerary objects) with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) provides guidance that agencies shall consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items.

Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation as recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As stated above, the City has consulted with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.

1 SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (Public Resources Code Section 65352.3) requires cities and counties to contact and

consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space.



Gabrieleño Background

The project locale Azusa, formally known as the Village area "Ashuukshanga" (The Place of the Skunk), lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleño villages adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleños, probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin.

Kizh/Gabrieleño People and Misión Vieja2

Prior to the first European site established in Los Angeles County - Misión Vieja or Old Mission - there was thousands of years of habitation in the area by the native indigenous peoples. These native indigenous settlers are often called Gabrieleño (or Gabrieliño) because of their "association" with the Mission San Gabriel, which started at Misión Vieja in 1771, but relocated to the current site within a few years because of flooding from the San Gabriel River. A more recent appellation has been Tongva; however, this term has no historical basis, whereas the name Kizh has legitimacy in the historical record.

The Kizh/Gabrieleño, like most pre-literate peoples throughout the world, did not have a written language. Instead, they had and still have a vast oral record passed down through the generations among the Kizh/Gabrieleño, which shares their religious beliefs, history, and cultural and social practices. The fact that these attributes were not written down do not, in any way, make them subordinate to the written record; oral record represents a different method of recording history.

History and Territory

According to archaeological records, the Gabrieleño were not the first inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin, but arrived around 500 B.C. (Bean and Smith 1978:540) The Gabrieleño territory generally included the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, several smaller intermittent streams in the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, all of the Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina. (Bean and Smith: 1978:538)

Permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. The Gabrieleño population expanded with many larger, permanent villages having satellite communities lying at various distances from them and connected through economic, religious, and social ties. (Bean and Smith 1978:540)

Structures

Houses were domed, circular structures thatched with tule, fern, and carrizo. Other structures commonly found in villages included sweathouses (small, semi-circular, earth-covered buildings used for pleasure and as a clubhouse or meeting place for adult males), menstrual huts, and a ceremonial enclosure, the yuva’r. The yuva’r was built near the chief’s house and was essentially an open-air oval-shaped enclosure made with willows inserted wicker fashion among willow stakes, and decorated with eagle and raven feathers, skins, and flowers.

2 Source: La Misíon Vieja: The Center of Los Angeles Blog http://misionvieja.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-kizhgabrieleno-people-and-mision.html?m=1

http://misionvieja.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-kizhgabrieleno-people-and-mision.html?m=1



Contained within the enclosure were painted and decorated poles. The yuva’r was consecrated anew before each ceremony. Another building, similar in structure and design to the yuva’r but never consecrated, was sometimes built and used for instruction and practice for upcoming ceremonies.

Material Culture Items

The majority of Gabrieleño material culture was perishable and lasted several years, but reflected an elaborately developed artisanship, with many everyday use items decorated with shell inlaid in asphaltic, rare minerals, carvings, and painting. The best-known items of Gabrieleño material culture are objects made of steatite, which was used in making animal carvings, pipes, “ritual” objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. Other food preparation items included bedrock and portable mortars, metates, mullers, mealing brushes, wooden stirrers, paddles, shell spoons, bark platters, wooden bowls, and pottery vessels made by coiling technique and paddle and anvil. (Blackburn 1962-1963; Bean and Smith 1978:542).

A variety of tools were made, including saws from deep scapulae, bone or shell needles, fishhooks and awls, scrapers, flakers (bone or shell), wedges, hafted or unhafted flint or cane knives, and flint drills.

Baskets were made by the women from the stems of rushes (Juncus sp.), grass (Muhlenbergia rigens), and squawbush (Rhus trilobata) with a three-colored patterned decoration. (Harrington 1942: 20-23; Bean and Smith 1978:542)

Coiled wares included mortars hoppers; flat baskets used as plates, trays, winnowers, shallow carrying or serving baskets; storage baskets; and small globular baskets used to keep trinkets. Closework and openwork twining was used to make deep or globular-shaped baskets, or for baskets used in leaching, straining, or gathering. Ceremonial baskets, urn-shaped and choke-mouthed, were used for grave offerings. (Merriam 1955:84; Blackburn 1962-1963; Bean and Smith 1978:542)

Trade

Intra- and inter-group exchange was brisk and common, with people, goods, and ideas flowing in many directions and in some cases, long distances. From the inland Serranos, the coastal Gabrieleños obtained acorns, seeds, obsidian, and deerskins in exchange for shell beads, dried fish, sea otter pelts, shells, possibly salt, and steatite (obtained by coastal Gabrieleños from those living on the islands). Through middlemen located in the interior southern California, such as Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, and Mojave, shells from coastal sections controlled by Gabrieleños were traded as far east as central Arizona. Most trading was usually of the barter type, but when this was not feasible, strung Olivella beads, considered legal tender throughout most of southern California, were used to transact business. (Ruby 1970, Bean and Smith 1978:547)

Impact Analysis

Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate



within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources.

As noted above, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation requested SB 18 and AB 52 consultation with the City and did so as the project site lies within their ancestral tribal territory. And, in order to protect these irreplaceable tribal cultural resources within their ancestral tribal territory, they have requested that Native American Monitors l be from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh -Nation.

Given the long-standing history of the Gabrieleños in and around Azusa, and that the project site lies within the ancestral territories of the Kizh Gabrieleño, there is the potential for construction of the proposed project to impact tribal cultural resources. Construction and development practices in place at the time the three residences were constructed were not as sensitive to tribal cultural resources as current practices. Thus, ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, could disturb previously unidentified subsurface resources.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

CUL-4 Prior to commencement of any demolition, grading, or construction activities, the Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department that a qualified Native American Monitor has been retained to provide Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils. The Native American Monitor shall be selected by the Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Native American Monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American Monitor to be Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site.

CUL-5 Retain a Native American Monitor. The Applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or



auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project site.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall be approved by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall notify the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department once the Native American Monitor(s) has been approved.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities described above.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall prepare daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s) encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (a) through (k).

The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Native American Monitor(s) have indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

CUL-6 Professional Standards for Monitors

Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken.

Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Tribal Cultural Resources in southern California. The Native American Monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

CUL-7 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources: All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor.

If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribe shall coordinate with the Applicant and/or landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes.

If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a unique



archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the Applicant and/or landowner to develop a formal Treatment Plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources.

The Treatment Plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.

Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the Applicant and/or land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project site for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the Los Angeles County Coroner.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall immediately divert work at minimum of 50 feet or stop work, if necessary, and place an exclusion zone around the burial.

The Native American Monitor(s) shall then notify the Qualified Archaeologist and the on-site construction manager who will call the Los Angeles County Coroner.

Work shall continue to be diverted or stopped, whichever is most appropriate, while the Coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance.

If Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission as mandated by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent.

In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working hours.

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected.



If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials shall be removed. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation shall work closely with the Qualified Archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and respectfully.

If data recovery is approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, documentation shall be taken that includes, at a minimum, detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation for data recovery purposes.

Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material.

If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate Treatment Plan shall be prepared. The Applicant shall consult with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites.

Construction on-site shall be halted until the Treatment Plan is prepared. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall to be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission.

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains.

If the Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the coroner. Reburial shall be in an appropriate setting. If the coroner determines the remains to be modern, the coroner shall take custody of the remains.

Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on-site, if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery.

The site of reburial/repatriation shall be at a location determined between the Tribe and a landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity, and not on the project site.

There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.



F. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21074 AS EITHER A SITE, FEATURE, PLACE, CULTURAL LANDSCAPE THAT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE LANDSCAPE, SACRED PLACE, OR OBJECT WITH CULTURAL VALUE TO A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE, AND THAT IS A RESOURCE DETERMINED BY THE LEAD AGENCY, IN ITS DISCRETION AND SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, TO BE SIGNIFICANT PURSUANT TO CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION (C) OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5024.1?


Refer to Response 4.5.E.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8. No additional mitigation measures are required.



4.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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.

2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides?

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform

Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?


Table 4. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of January 2010. This is an updated version of Table 4 from the 2007 edition of Special Publication 42 (Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, by William A. Bryant and Earl W. Hart)*. California Department of Conservation website http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx

State of California, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones, Azusa Quadrangle, Official Map Released March 25, 1999

State of California, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle, Official Map Released November 6, 2014

State of California, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle, Official Map, Released March 25, 1999



T.K. Engineering Corp., Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report, October 7. 2016 – included in its entirety as Appendix C



A. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING:

1. 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.

NO IMPACT

Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to Table 4 of Special Publication 42 and the Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (within the Azusa Quadrangle, dated 1999), as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Therefore, no impacts would result from the potential for fault rupture of a known earthquake fault.

MITIGATION MEASURES


2. STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING?


The project site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of Southern California. The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. As defined by the CGS, active faults are faults that have ruptured within Holocene time, or within approximately the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of movement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but for which evidence of Holocene movement has not been established. Inactive faults have not ruptured in the last approximately 1.6 million years.

Southern California is considered a tectonically active area. Since the project site is located in a seismically active region, numerous faults capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes exist within the project vicinity. The two closest faults, Sierra Madre Fault and Duarte Fault, run in an east-west direction through the City. Other nearby active faults include the Raymond Fault (located five miles west), the Whittier Fault (11 miles south), and the San Andreas Fault (22 miles north).

The Sierra Madre Fault is a potentially active fault capable of causing surface rupture in the City. The fault is responsible for thousands of feet of vertical and significant left-lateral offset thrusting in the San Gabriel Mountains. Within the City limits the fault is concealed at its western end where it crosses the mouth of Van Tassel Canyon and extends across the San



Gabriel River floodplain. It is exposed in the hill above Clearhaven Drive where Wilson Diorite is thrust over Topanga Formation. The fault dips about 40 to 90 degrees into the mountain and is intermittently exposed as it continues eastward. It continues east, beyond the City limits, about 500 feet north of the intersection of Sierra Madre Boulevard and Citrus Avenue. The fault is approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site.

The Duarte Fault is the southernmost known significant fault within the City. It is deemed a potentially active fault by the State and an active fault by the County of Los Angeles. The fault crosses into the City near the southern portion of the Rancho Duarte Golf Course, continuing through the Vulcan mine, stretching southeast Slauson School (near 5th Street and Azusa Avenue). From here, it extends approximately northeast through Lee School, where it extends beyond the City boundaries. The fault is approximately 1.1 miles north of the project site.

During the life of the proposed project, the project site would likely experience moderate to high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable during a large earthquake, the proposed project would be constructed to meet existing construction ordinances and the California Building Code in order to protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. The California Building Code includes specific design measures, which are based on the determination of Site Classification and Seismic Design Categories specific to the project site. These design measures are intended to maximize structural stability in the event of an earthquake. Thus, adherence to the California Building Code requirements, would reduce the risks related to strong seismic shaking to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURES


3. SEISMIC-RELATED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION?


Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore-water pressures to increase to levels where grain-to-grain contact is lost and material temporarily behaves as a fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineered structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures, and cracking of the ground surface. A common manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils, which are short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly deposited mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface.

The project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction, as shown on the following CGS maps: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle dated November 6, 2014 and the Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle, dated March 25, 1999. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4. LANDSLIDES?


The geologic and topographic characteristics of an area often determine its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential slope failure and landslide events.

The subject property is located at an elevation of approximately 5340 feet above mean sea level (amsl), is generally flat, and slopes slightly to the south. The overall topographic trend of the surrounding area is also to the south.

The site is located within the San Gabriel Valley (or Basin), which is a structural basin that is filled with undifferentiated alluvial sediments overlying low permeability bedrock. The surface of the valley is a broad piedmont plain that generally slopes from base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the north toward Whittier Narrows in the south. To the north, the valley is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains. To the south, the valley is bounded by the Repetto, Merced, Puente, and San Jose Hills. Alluvial sediments that fill the valley include large boulders, cobbles, coarse- to medium-grained sand, and silty sand. These sediments are largely considered homogeneous on a regional scale throughout the valley. The bedrock basement of the San Gabriel Valley forms a closed elliptical depression that is approximately 2,000 feet deep. On the project site, the distribution of the poorly sorted sand and gravel with rare fine-grained silt and sand layers in the subsurface is consistent with the deposition of sediments in a high-energy proximal alluvial fan environment.

The project site is not located within an area subject to landslides, as shown on the following CGS maps: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle dated November 6, 2014 and the Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle, dated March 25, 1999. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL?


The limited on-site grading and earthwork activities to create the proposed project’s feature construction activities would result in ground surface disruption that could create the potential for short-term erosion by wind and water to occur.

All demolition and construction activities on-site would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code. Further, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water General Construction Permit for construction activities; refer to Response 4.9.A. The NPDES Storm Water General Construction Permit requires preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which identifies specific erosion and sediment control



Best Management Practices that would be implemented to protect storm water runoff during construction activities. Compliance with the California Building Code and NPDES would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan.

Once construction is complete, disturbed surfaces would be stabilized through vegetation or pavement. Therefore, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is not expected to occur during long-term operations. Following compliance with NPDES requirements, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts regarding soil erosion.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN AN ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE?


Fill Soils

No significant fill soils were encountered in any of three test borings. However, fill soils up to four feet or deeper may be encountered at the other locations within the site. To provide an adequate support for proposed buildings, construction of the proposed project requires that the fill and upper loose/soft native soils for the proposed building areas be removed and recompacted as engineered fill. Any imported soils to be used for fill would be evaluated prior to placement on-site.

The removal and recompaction of existing soils shall extend to a minimum depth of five feet below the existing grade or two feet below the bottom of footing, whichever is greater. Two feet of removal and recompaction are recommended for parking and driveway areas. However, if the encountered fill is deeper than five feet, the entire fill shall be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.

Corrosive Soils

The on-site soil was tested for corrosivity. The testing results indicate that the on-site soils are mildly corrosive to ferrous metals. Based on the soluble sulfate content, type II Portland cement may be used for concrete. The PH value is 6.88 which are slightly acidic. All underground steel utilities and cast iron pipings shall be given a high quality protective coating, or encased in an 8 mil polyethylene tube or wrapped with 20 mil plastic tapes covered by primer or hot applied coal tar enamel. Reinforcing steel shall have at least 3 inches thick concrete cover if it is placed against earth.

Impact Conclusion

In order to ensure that the proposed project is not susceptible to damage as a result of on-site soils and geological conditions, the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report has



included specific recommendations to reduce these risks to less than significant levels, which are to be reviewed and revised as necessary as part of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

MITIGATION MEASURES

GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the recommendations in Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be confirmed or modified by a geotechnical engineer to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be implemented during site grading and construction.

D. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL, AS DEFINED IN TABLE 18-1-B OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1994), CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISKS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY?


Expansive soils can be a problem, as variation in moisture content will cause a volume change in the soil. Expansive soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as they dry. During inclement weather and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the soil and causes the soil to heave (expansion). When drying occurs the soils will shrink (contraction). Repeated cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade and foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and windows.

Subsurface Conditions

Field exploration was performed on September 24, 2016. Three test borings were drilled to a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Approximate locations of the borings are shown on Appendix C Plate A-1. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration are presented in the log of test borings (Appendix C Plates B-1 to B-3). Selected samples obtained during field exploration were tested in the laboratory. A description of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C.

The native soils encountered in the test borings consist generally of silty sand to sand with variant amount of gravel. No significant fill soils were encountered in any of three test borings. But, based on the existing site conditions, fill soils up to four feet or deeper may be encountered at the other locations within the site. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the three test borings.

Expansion tests were performed on selected samples in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Test Standard No. 29-2. The representative sample of the on-site upper soils was remolded at approximately 50% degree of saturation and then soaked for 24 hours. The results are as follows:

Sample Location Soil Description Expansion Index Expansion Potential

B-1 @ 0-2 fee silty sand 23 low



A significant impact may occur if a project is built on expansive soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus, posing a hazard to life and property. The soils on-site have a “low” expansion potential as defined by the California Building Code. However, in order to ensure that the proposed project is not susceptible to damage as a result of on-site soils and geological conditions, the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report has included specific recommendations to reduce this risk to less than significant levels, which are to be reviewed and revised as necessary as part of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Thus, less than impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.

E. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE SOILS INCAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SUPPORTING THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS WHERE SEWERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE WATER?

NO IMPACT

Sewers are currently available for the on-site disposal of wastewater; therefore, it would not be necessary to install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.7. GREENHOUSE GASES

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


Giroux and Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses, Gladstone Senior Villas Project, Azusa, California, June 23, 2017 (Air Quality/GHG Study) – included in its entirety as Appendix A

Regulatory Setting

Key Federal Regulations: Greenhouse Gas Endangerment, Clean Vehicles, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, and New Source Review

Key State Regulations: Title 24, California Green Building Standards, Pavley Regulations, Executive Order S-3-05, Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Executive Order S-01-07, SB 1368 (2006), SB 97 and CEQA Guidelines Update (2007, 2009), AB 32 (2006), SB 375 (2008), Executive Order S-13-08, Renewable Electricity Standards

South Coast Air Quality Management District

The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Regulation XXVII currently includes three rules:

The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials.

The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, is to establish a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD.

Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, was adopted on February 6, 2009. The purpose of this rule is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

The SCAQMD has established recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”). SCAQMD has published a five-tiered draft GHG threshold which includes a 10,000 metric ton of CO2e per year for stationary/industrial sources and 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance threshold for residential/commercial projects (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2010c). Tier 3 is anticipated to be the primary tier by which the SCAQMD will determine significance for projects. The Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90-precent emission



capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to CEQA analysis. The 90-percent capture rate GHG significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using the SCAQMD’s annual Emissions Reporting Program.

The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:

Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.

Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.

Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose but must be consistent. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:

All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year

Based on land use types: residential is 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial is 1,400 MTCO2e per year; and mixed use is 3,000 MTCO2e per year

A. WOULD THE PROJECT GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT?


Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CalEEMod was used to estimate on-site and off-site emissions. For assumptions used in estimating these emissions, refer to the Air Quality/GHG Study. Greenhouse gas emissions from proposed project construction equipment and worker vehicle emissions are shown in Table 4.7-1, Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project is assumed to require less than two years of construction. During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.2.1 computer model predicts that the construction activities would generate annual CO2e emissions; refer to Table 4.7-1. The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 9.4 metric tons of CO2e per year. CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Air Quality/GHG Study (Appendix A). While construction-related activities associated with the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, the impacts are concluded to be individually less than significant.



TABLE 4.7-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Time Period Emissions (MTCO2e) Year 2017 175.2 Year 2018 108.0 Total 282.2 Averaged Over 30 Years 9.4 Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017) Notes: 1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane,

nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbons). 2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the

operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of a project. The operational emissions for the proposed project are 524.5 metric tons of CO2e per year as shown in Table 4.7-2, Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2e emissions are summarized in the CalEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the Appendix A.

TABLE 4.7-2 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emission Source Emissions (MTCO2e) with Regulation

Area Source 20.3 Energy Utilization 136.0 Mobile Source 314.5 Solid Waste 13.9 Water Consumption 30.4

Subtotal Operation 515.1 Subtotal Construction (averaged over 30 years) 9.4 Total Annual Emissions 524.5

SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Screening Threshold No Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017) Notes: 1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

and/or hydrofluorocarbons).

These emissions are below the SCAQMD screening threshold for all land uses of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project.

MITIGATION MEASURES




B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES?


The Azusa General Plan includes the following air quality implementation programs in the Natural Environment Element.

AQ2 Land Use Patterns Encouraging Alternative Transportation

Encourage land use patterns that enable people to use alternative transportation methods such as transit, walking, and cycling in their day-to-day activities. Expand opportunities for people to live and work in close proximity.

AQ3 Promote Mixed-Use Development

Promote mixed-use development that provides commercial services close to residential zones and employment centers, enabling citizens to walk or bicycle to services rather than drive. AQ5 Provide Sidewalks, Bicycle Lanes, and Bus Shelters

The City of Azusa has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan specific to new residential development. As discussed above, the proposed project results in GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000-ton threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.

Similarly, the proposed project would promote the goals of AB 32. The project site location is positioned within Los Angeles County’s and the City’s planned growth urban footprint. The proposed project incorporates a number of features and mitigation measures in other impact areas that would minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Although the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed above, these emissions would have a less than significant impact on the environment.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably

foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not

been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving

wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?


DCE Environmental Services, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Residential Property, 360-410 E. Gladstone Street, Azusa, CA 91702, May 23, 2017 – included in its entirety as Appendix D

City of Azusa, Azusa Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2016-O7, adopted September 19, 2016

A. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?


The proposed project involves the demolition of three existing residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units. The proposed project may involve limited amounts of use, storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials related to janitorial/maintenance cleaning materials used to clean and maintain the residences/property once the proposed project is constructed, but does not propose the use of underground storage tanks. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not require extensive or on-going use of acutely hazardous materials or substances. Construction activities would be short-term in nature, and would involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the United States Environmental



Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County/Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD), LaCoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), the Los Angeles County Health Department, and Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article IV, Hazardous Waste or Substance Spills, Releases and Other Incidents. Adherence to the regulations set forth by these agencies would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the proposed development plans would be reviewed by LACoFD for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. The LACoFD would require that conditions of approval be applied to the proposed project to reduce hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste that is generated on-site be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and Federal law. Additionally, any hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to City, State and Federal regulations. Thus, construction and operation of the proposed uses is not expected to pose a threat to people residing or working in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT?


A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the project site. The report is included in Appendix D.

Existing Site Conditions

The project site consists of two residential parcels of land developed with three single-family dwelling units and decorative landscaping. The dwelling units have occupied the site for over 85 years.

The buildings are wood framed structures on raised foundations and covered by wood framed composition roofs. Interior walls are painted plaster over wood frame with plaster ceilings. No regulated hazardous materials are being handled or stored within the buildings. Common household type chemicals are used for cleaning and general maintenance. No staining, corrosion, or other signs of chemical releases was observed in the buildings.

Access to the project site is via East Gladstone Street and East Orkney Street. The exterior lot is covered with the buildings, storage shed, asphalt-composition, cement, and decorative landscaping. The on-site pavement has some minor cracks and staining from normal vehicle traffic. Hazardous materials are not being handled or stored on the exterior lot. No significant



staining, corrosion, or other signs of illegal dumping activities was present. All municipal services, including sewer, water, telephone, gas, and electric are connected to the project site.

Records Review

BBL of Solana Beach provided DCI Environmental Services with a report containing (at a minimum) all federal, state, and tribal environmental databases required by ASTM E 1527-13 to determine any potential recognized environmental conditions connected to the project site from on-site or in the vicinity of the site. The environmental databases are included in the Environmental Records Search (ERS) in Appendix D.

Several of the databases included in the ERS report contain information not relevant to this investigation, have duplicate information, or contain no sites within a one-mile radius of the project site. The Phase I ESA determined, based on the review of the databases, there is no evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or potential environmental conditions (PECs) associated with the site.

On-Site Hazardous Material Sources and Releases

One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.

Demolition Activities

Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) surveys were not included in the Phase I ESA.

On-site structures would be demolished and removed as part of the proposed project. Given the age of the existing buildings on-site, it is likely that the buildings contain asbestos-containing materials, as well as lead-based paints and/or other contaminants. As a result, construction workers and the public could be exposed. Further, the potential exists that construction activities may release potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g., mold, lead, etc.). Federal and State regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints are present. All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paints must be conducted according to Federal and State standards, including but not limited to, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105256. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. If ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403) would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.



Grading Activities

The Phase I ESA found no adverse environmental impact due to past or present hazardous materials use or storage on the project site, and no heavy staining or corrosion was observed. Also, there was no migration of hazardous substances from off-site sources onto the project site. Thus, grading activities during construction would not upset contaminated soils and/or expose construction workers to hazardous materials. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Construction Activities

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. There is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances, such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

HAZ-1 To comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403, prior to structural demolition/renovation activities, demolition materials containing asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paints shall be removed and properly disposed of at an appropriate permitted facility per existing Federal and State regulations.

C. WOULD THE PROJECT EMIT HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS OR HANDLE HAZARDOUS OR ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SUBSTANCES, OR WASTE WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED SCHOOL?


Murray Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet southeast of the site and the closest school to the project site. There are no schools proposed for development within one-quarter mile of the project site.

Materials used during project construction or the janitorial/maintenance cleaning materials used to clean and maintain the residences/property once the proposed project is constructed and operational would not would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts to Murray Elementary School or other area public schools (existing or proposed) within one-quarter mile of the project site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.



MITIGATION MEASURES


D. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A SITE WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 AND, AS A RESULT, WOULD IT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT?

NO IMPACT

Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed as a hazardous material site on the Cortese list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Development of the proposed senior apartment project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment per Government Code Section 65962.5. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


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 FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA?

NO IMPACT

The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of the project site. The second closest airport to the site is Brackett Field Airport in La Verne, approximately 8.5 southeast of the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact airport operations at either El Monte Airport or Brackett Field Airport, nor would the proposed project expose people residing in or working on the project site to safety hazards associated with an airport or private airstrip. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


F. FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA?

NO IMPACT




MITIGATION MEASURES


G. WOULD THE PROJECT IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN?


All of the proposed improvements, including the demolition of three existing residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units, would occur on private property. East Gladstone Street, which is adjacent to and north of the project site is used as an emergency evacuation route by the City of Azusa.

Emergency vehicles would continue to have access to project-related and surrounding roadways during construction and upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not impact access to emergency response. In addition, the proposed project would not physically interfere with Los Angeles County’s or the City of Azusa’s emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


H. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES, INCLUDING WHERE WILDLANDS ARE ADJACENT TO URBANIZED AREAS OR WHERE RESIDENCES ARE INTERMIXED WITH WILDLANDS?

NO IMPACT

The project site is located within an urbanized area that is not subject to wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:


Impact

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including

through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or

redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


Apple Engineering Group, Hydraulic & Hydrology Calculation for 360 Gladstone LLC, 360, 410 & 416 E. Gladstone Street, June 16, 2017 – included in its entirety as Appendix E

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06037C1700F, effective date September 26, 2008

A. WOULD THE PROJECT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS?


Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into storm drains and, in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array of environmental, chemical, and biological compounds from both point and non-point sources. In the urban environment, storm water characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, pollution prevention, types and amounts of Best Management



Practices[BMP]), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes, multiple chemical conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogenic, and bacteria.

Urban runoff can be divided into two categories – dry and wet weather urban runoff:

Dry weather urban runoff occurs when there is no precipitation-generated runoff. Typical sources include landscape irrigation runoff; driveway and sidewalk washing; noncommercial vehicle washing; groundwater seepage; fire flow; potable water line operations and maintenance discharges; and permitted or illegal non storm water discharges.

Wet weather urban runoff refers collectively to non-point source discharges that result from precipitation events. Wet weather runoff includes storm water runoff. Storm water discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets and parking lots, building rooftops.

Wet- and dry-weather runoff typically contains similar pollutants of concern. However, except for the first flush concentrations following a long period between rainfalls, the concentration levels found in wet weather flows are typically lower than levels found in dry weather flows because the larger wet weather flows dilute the amount of pollution in runoff waters. Most urban storm water discharges are considered non-point sources and are regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal General Permit or Construction General Permit.

Existing Site Conditions

The project site is developed with three single-family residences and ornamental landscaping. The existing site drainage pattern is from the northeast to the southwest, and flows off-site to existing streets and storm drains.

Proposed Site Drainage

The existing surface drainage over the site is from on-site surface water. The water quality compliance conditions for the proposed project would require the control and clean-water treatment of the on-site surface water run-off. The requirement for the on-flow is to control the waters passage through the project site to avoid risk of flooding and to avoid property damage or health and safety issues.



Hydrology Analysis

The existing and proposed developed conditions are show in Table 4.9-1, Hydrology Calculations.

TABLE 4.9-1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS

Existing (Pre-Construction)

Proposed (Post-Construction) Delta (∆) Q50

50 Year (CFS/CF) 4.3468/11,587 4.8271/23,691 85th Percentile (CFS/CF) 0.2349/3,077

0.4803/12,104 Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017) Notes: CFS = Clear Peak Flow Rate (in cubic feet per second) CF = 24-hour Clean Runoff Volume (in cubic feet) Delta (∆) Q50 is the Clear Flow Peak Rate that will be used to size the curb drain pipe. The 85th percentile was used to size the vegetated swales.

LID Measures

The calculations in Table 4.9-1 assume the following Low Impact Development (LID) measures for the proposed (post-construction) condition:

Vegetated Swales. Swales would be installed along the eastern and southeastern boundary adjacent to the parking area; along the southwestern boundary between the proposed building and boundary; and along the western boundary of the proposed building.

Landscape and Landscape Irrigation. Plant trees near impervious surface to intercept precipitation in their leaves. Trees planted adjacent to impervious surfaces can intercept water that would otherwise become stormwater runoff. A minimum of two 15-gallon trees must be planted a maximum of 10 feet from impervious surfaces. Tree locations per landscaping plan.

Install irrigation systems that utilize weather-based smart irrigation controller to minimize water usage and reduce dry weather urban runoff per Low Impact Development Standards Manual (February 2014), page 3-3.

Short-Term Construction

There are three sources of short-term construction-related storm water pollution associated with the proposed project that could impact the beneficial uses of downstream water bodies:

Handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants

Maintenance and operation of construction equipment

Earthmoving activities

These sources, if not controlled, can generate soil erosion and on- and off-site transport via storm run-off or mechanical equipment. Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids on the project site are also common sources of storm water pollution and soil contamination. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to produce typical pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, toxic chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials



including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and sanitary wastes, fuel, and lubricants. Generally, standard safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials can adequately reduce the potential pollution of storm water by these materials. These types of standard procedures can be extended to non-hazardous storm water pollutants such as sawdust, concrete washout, and other wastes.

In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes, leading to impacts on storm drains and sediment loading to storm runoff flows. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent soil materials from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed, and secondly, the project site should be secured to control off-site transport of pollutants.

In order to reduce the amount of on-site exposed soil, grading would be limited to the extent feasible, and any graded areas would be protected against erosion once they are brought to final grade. Furthermore, development associated with implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the Construction General NPDES Permit. Prior to construction, the General Permit requires the following:

Electronic submittal of the Permit Registration Documents (PRD) to the SWRCB at least 30 days before the start of construction, which includes submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement;

Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP; and

Electronic submittal of a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site.

Construction activities for development associated with implementation of the proposed project would be subject to inspection by the City of Azusa Public Works/Engineering Department. The General Permit requires that non-storm water discharges from construction sites be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent practicable, that a SWPPP be developed governing construction activities for the proposed project, and that routine inspections be performed of all storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices being used at the site, including inspections before and after storm events.

Preparation of and compliance with the SWPPP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1) would reduce potential short-term water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Long-Term Operation

The 1.23-acre project site is developed with three residential units, accessory structures, and landscaped areas. With these existing on-site uses, the site is 83 percent pervious and 17 percent impervious.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 60 senior apartment units. Table 4.9-1, Existing and Proposed Pervious and Impervious Conditions, shows that the post-project conditions result in a decrease to 26 percent in the amount of pervious area and an increase to 74 percent in the amount of impervious area.



TABLE 4.9-2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS SITE CONDITIONS

Area Impervious Area Pervious Area Square Feet Square Feet % of Area Square Feet % of Area

Existing (Pre-Construction) 53,780 9,270 17 44,510 83

Proposed (Post-Construction) 53,780 39,568 74 14,212 26

Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017)

The long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project would be a source of pollutants, including suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, trash and debris, and household hazardous wastes. The vegetated areas are likely to produce suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The beneficial uses of downstream water bodies could be impacted due to development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a plan (i.e., SUSMP or functional equivalent document) in accordance with the guidance to be developed by the NPDES Permit permittees, that includes post-construction BMPs (such as LID, if feasible) to reduce pollutant loading. This plan, included as Mitigation Measure HYD-2, would be required prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The proposed project shall provide stormwater quality treatment by means of on-site infiltration as a top priority mitigation measure by the Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit). Design and feasibility screening shall be per methods outlined in the 2014 Los Angeles County Low Impact Development (LID) Manual.

MITIGATION MEASURES

HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall enroll electronically through the SMARTS program to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit. Proof of enrollment must be submitted to the City of Azusa before issuance of grading or building permits. Also, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or functional equivalent required at that time shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time shall outline the source control and/or treatment control Best Management Practices to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.”

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a plan (i.e., Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan [SUSMP] or functional equivalent document per current State law or other applicable statutes) in accordance with the guidance to be developed by the NPDES Permit permittees, that includes Low Impact Development and other post-construction Best Management Practices to reduce pollutant loading. The plan



shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and City Engineer. The Applicant shall be responsible for implement the measures identified in the SUSMP or functional equivalent document.

B. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT THERE WOULD BE A NET DEFICIT IN AQUIFER VOLUME OR A LOWERING OF THE LOCAL GROUNDWATER TABLE LEVEL (E.G., THE PRODUCTION RATE OF PRE-EXISTING NEARBY WELLS WOULD DROP TO A LEVEL WHICH WOULD NOT SUPPORT EXISTING LAND USES OR PLANNED USES FOR WHICH PERMITS HAVE BEEN GRANTED)?


The proposed project would continue to be connected to the City’s utility lines and is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies through the consumption of the water. Refer to Response 4.17.D. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE SITE OR AREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE COURSE OF STREAM OR RIVER, IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF-SITE?


The proposed project would increase the percentage of impervious surfaces on-site from 17 percent (pre-construction conditions) to 74 percent (post-construction) on the 1.23-acre project site. In the proposed conditions, the site’s drainage pattern would not substantially change from current conditions. Revegetation of currently improved surfaces would reduce the sediment load in storm water runoff, as well as increase the on-site percolation of runoff. While the rate and quantity of runoff from the site would slightly increase as a result of implementing the proposed project, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




D. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE SITE OR AREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE COURSE OF A STREAM OR RIVER, OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURFACE RUNOFF IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE?


Refer to Response 4.9.A.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. No additional mitigation measures are required.

E. WOULD THE PROJECT 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?



MITIGATION MEASURES


F. WOULD THE PROJECT OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY?



MITIGATION MEASURES


G. WOULD THE PROJECT PLACE HOUSING WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS MAPPED ON A FEDERAL FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY OR FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OR OTHER FLOOD HAZARD DELINEATION MAP?

NO IMPACT

Flood hazards related to storm events generally are described in terms of the “100-year flood.” As its name implies, the 100-year flood is the largest flood event, which may be expected to occur within a 100-year period. This flood is considered a severe flood, but one that can be reasonably predicted and mitigated.



The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares and maintains Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which show the extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and other thematic features related to flood risk. Based on FEMA FIRM Map 06037C1700F, the project site is located in Zone X, which is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Also, the proposed project does not include the construction of residential uses. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


H. WOULD THE PROJECT PLACE WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOOD FLOWS?

NO IMPACT

No structures are proposed within the Zone X; thus, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


I. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING FLOODING, INCLUDING FLOODING AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF A LEVEE OR DAM?


The project site is located approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the Morris Dam and approximately 6.4 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Dam. According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, the project site is located within the San Gabriel and Morris Dam failure inundation zone. The San Gabriel and Morris Dams are owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Flood Control Division. These dams, as well as others in California, are continually monitored by various governmental agencies (such as the State of California Division of Safety of Dams and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to guard against the threat of failure. Current design and construction practices and ongoing programs of review, modification, or total reconstruction of existing dams are intended to ensure that all dams are capable of withstanding the maximum credible earthquake (MCE). Further, although the project site is within a dam inundation area, the project site was previously developed with residential uses and is located within a developed residential and commercial area; as such, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving dam failure already exists. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




J. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPERIENCE INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI, OR MUDFLOW?

NO IMPACT

Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. The project site is not located within a coastal area, and no water bodies are on or adjacent to the project site that would impact the project due to seiche. The nearest water body to the project site is the San Gabriel River situated approximately 3.5 miles to the west. The nearest coastal area is the Pacific Ocean, located approximately 35 miles west of the project site. As a result, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) and seiches are not considered a significant hazard at the project site. In addition, given the developed nature of the project area, there are no features adjacent to the project site that are capable of inundating the site by mudflow. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




Exhibit 4-1 Grading and Drainage Plan Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017)



4.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:


Impact

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?



City of Azusa, Zoning Map

A. WOULD THE PROJECT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY?


The project site is located in a developed residential and commercial area in the City of Azusa, along East Gladstone Street, east of Azusa Boulevard. The project site adjoins one- and two-story apartments to the east, single-family residences to the south and west, and a commercial center to the north, north of East Gladstone Street. Implementation of the proposed project on a site currently developed with three single-family residences to a site developed with 60 senior apartment units would not represent a change in land use that would adversely affect surrounding areas.

The proposed project would be located on a site in an urbanized area, consistent with the existing on-site and surrounding established land use patterns. The physical arrangement of the surrounding community and roadway network would not be modified or divided as result of project implementation. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE LAND USE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION OF AN AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, OR ZONING ORDINANCE) ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT?


The Azusa General Plan Figure CD-3, Regulating Plan, and Figure CD-4, Land Use Diagram, designate the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 (NG2), Low



Density Residential. The project site is located within Neighborhood 19 per General Plan Figure CD-5, Neighborhood Map. General Plan Table CD-2, Land Use Plan Classification, identifies single-family residential as the typical principal use within the Low Density Residential category with a maximum density of 0 to 8 dwelling units per net acre. The Zoning Map designates the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG2 Low Density Residential).

The proposed project includes:

General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District

Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District

Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use

Density Bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518

Concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518


Affordable Housing Agreement

Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements

The proposed project would involve the demolition of all on-site buildings and the construction of 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre (53,579 square foot) project site. The proposed project includes five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units; six of the units would be designated as low-income units. The proposed project includes a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security office, storage areas, and a community garden. Surface parking would be provided on the eastern portion of the site. A singular ingress and egress access would be provided be provided in the northeastern portion of the site from East Gladstone Street. A secondary emergency access gate would be provided in the southeastern portion of the site from East Orkney Street.

General Plan and Zoning

The General Plan DE Edgewood District designation allows for a maximum density of 15.1 to 27 dwelling units per net acre. The 2014-2021 Housing Element has identified that this density is adequate to support the development of affordable housing in Azusa given the comparably lower cost of land and lower cost of housing in the City relative to surrounding communities. Further, the 2014-2021 Housing Element indicates that the City’s willingness to allow the construction of senior housing at a density of up to 40 units per acre to provide incentives for this type of new housing.

The Zoning that corresponds with the General Plan DE Edgewood District designation is DE Edgewood District. The DE Edgewood District standards are intended to result in a more pedestrian-oriented district, with stronger relationships between buildings, the sidewalks, and abutting streets. The desired future for the Edgewood District is a "village center" with two and three-story mixed-use buildings. Senior apartments are permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the DE Edgewood District zone.



Development Code

The proposed project is subject to Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Standards for Specific Plan Uses, Subsection 88.42.200, Senior Citizen Apartments and Chapter 88.30, Standards for All Development and Land Uses. Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42 provides site planning, development, and/or operating standards for certain land uses that are allowed by Article 2 (Urban Standards) within individual or multiple zones, and for activities that require special standards to mitigate their potential adverse impacts. Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Subsection 88.42.200 recognizes that the housing needs of older residents may differ from those of the general population in terms of dwelling unit size, unit accessibility, parking requirements, and housing affordability, among other considerations, and establishes special requirements for senior citizen apartments.

The site-specific development standards for the proposed project are shown in Table 4-10.1, Project Consistency with Development Standards.

DENSITY AND LOT COVERAGE

As shown in Table 4.10-1, the density development standard is 40 units per gross acre. The project site is 1.23 acres, thus up to 49 units would be permitted. The proposed project would result in a density of 48.8 dwelling units per gross acre and a lot coverage of 31 percent.

BUILDING HEIGHTS

The building height would be a maximum of three stories/36 feet.

OPEN SPACE

Azusa Development Code Subsection 88.42.200 requires a minimum of 60 square feet per unit of private open space and 125 square feet per unit of common open space for senior citizen apartments. Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 3,600 square feet of private open space and 7,500 square feet of common open space for a combined total of 11,100 square feet.

The proposed project includes a total of 2,100 square feet of private open space (balcony - average 35 square feet per unit) and 9,826 square feet of common open space with the community garden. In total, the proposed project includes a total of 11,926 square feet of private and common open space. The proposed project does not meet the private open space standard as only 35 square feet per unit was assumed, which is less than 60 square feet requirement. However, the reduction in private open space by 1,500 square feet is accounted for in the community garden area, which exceeds the standard by 2,326 square feet.

PARKING

Azusa Development Code Subsection 88.42.200 requires one covered space per unit and one guest space per for every five units. Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 72 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a total of 37 parking spaces, which includes 31 parking spaces for the units (assumes 0.5 parking stalls per unit) and 6 guest spaces (assumes one space for every ten units). The City would require the Applicant through the variance approval to prepare a parking study demonstrating that the proposed reduction in parking standards is adequate for the proposed project based upon existing senior apartment facilities in the City and in surrounding jurisdictions.



TABLE 4.10-1 CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Development Regulation for Senior Citizen Apartment Standard Proposed Project Complies with

Development Regulation

Building Height (Maximum) 2 stories/35 feet 3 stories/36 feet Yes – Concession per

Government Code Sections 69515 -69518

Density (Maximum) 40 units per gross acre 48.81 Yes – Density Bonuses per Government Code Sections

69515 -69518 Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60% 31% Yes

Front Yard Setback (Minimum) 20 feet with minimum 15 feet

between building and any private patio wall

21 feet 6 inches Yes

Side Yard Setback (Minimum)

Interior 10 feet 15 feet (west) 41 feet to porte-cochere (east) Yes

Street Side 15 feet n/a

Rear Yard Setback (Minimum) 15 feet 15 feet Yes

Dwelling Unit Size (Minimum 1-bedroom, 1-bathroom unit 550 square feet 550 square feet Yes 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom unit 600 square feet 835 square feet

(1-3/4 bathrooms) Yes 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit or larger 700 square feet n/a

Common Open Space 125 square feet per unit 9,826 square feet (163 square feet per unit) Yes

Private Open Space 60 square feet per unit 2,100 square feet2

(35 square feet per unit) No – Variance required

Off-Street Parking 1 covered space per unit and 1 guest space for each five units

373 (0.5 space per unit and 1 guest space per 10 units) No – Variance required

Source: Azusa Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Subsection 88.42.200, Senior Citizen Apartments Notes: 1. Site is 1.23 acres. 2. Private open space assumed an average of 35 square feet per unit. 3. Includes two handicapped parking spaces.

Variances

Variances are permitted per Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.51.050. A variance or minor variance may be granted to waive or modify any requirement of the Azusa Development Code except allowed land uses; residential density; specific prohibitions, or procedural requirements.

The proposed project requires approval of a variance to reduce the amount of private open space square footage required per unit and for the reduction in parking spaces (37 spaces). The Applicant is proposing the following parking standards: 1) 0.5 spaces per unit and 2) one guest space per 10 units. Under the proposed parking standards, the proposed project would need to provide 36 parking spaces.



Affordable Housing Incentives

SB 1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) amended the State density bonus program (Government Code Section 65915) and took effect on January 1, 2005. The amendments addressed density bonus; continued affordability; concessions and incentives; waivers and modifications of development standards; land donation; and parking.

Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88.32, Affordable Housing Incentives, has codified the requirements of SB 1818.

The Applicant is seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet). In addition, the Applicant is seeking a density bonus per Government Code Sections 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (g)(1). As shown in Table 4.10-1, the density for the site is 40 units per gross acre, which equates to 49 units on the 1.23 acres. Under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1), a developer may seek a density bonus if ten percent of the units are for lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. The proposed project includes six units for low-income residents. Thus, the proposed project qualifies for a 23 percent density bonus under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (g)(1). The 23 percent density bonus is applied to 49 units for a total of 60 units, which is the number of units proposed for the project.

Impact Conclusion

Development of the project site would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process, including approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Minor Use Permit, Variances, Affordable Housing Agreement, and Density Bonuses and Concessions per Government Code Section 69515 through 69518. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the proposed project would be consistent with the Azusa General Plan DE Edgewood District land use designation and the Zoning DE Edgewood District designation.

Senior apartment uses are permitted in DE Edgewood District zoning designation with a Minor Use Permit and must comply with the regulations of Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200 – Senior Citizen Apartments. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the proposed project generally complies with the development standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200, with the exception of building height, parking, and private open space. As noted above, the Applicant is seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet), and a variance for private open space and a reduction in parking spaces (37 spaces). Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200 and the requirements in Chapter 88.32 upon approval of the concession and variances. In addition, the proposed senior apartment units are consistent with adjacent multi-family and single-family uses to the east, west, and south, as well as with adjacent commercial uses to the north.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




C. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN?

NO IMPACT

Refer to Response 4.4.F.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.11. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact 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? Sources Cited in Section 4.11


A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE THAT WOULD BE OF VALUE TO THE REGION AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE?


The City of Azusa is situated on sand and gravel deposits formed at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains known as the San Gabriel Fan District. These aggregate deposits are designated by the Department of Conservation as mineral resources of regional importance. Aggregate from Azusa and surrounding areas is used for a variety of construction activities throughout the San Gabriel Valley and Los Angeles Basin, including production of concrete, road base, and related building materials. Presently, only aggregate and Portland Cement Concrete are commercial commodities within Azusa. Three active aggregate mining pits lie within the Azusa city limits, two operated by Vulcan Materials, and the third by Cemex. Other areas containing aggregate resources are not mined, but are devoted to other uses, including agriculture, residential, and industrial uses. Vulcan Material - Reliance Azusa Mine is an open pit facility located on relatively flat terrain, and located directly south of the project site. Approximately one-third of the gravel pit is in Azusa, and the remaining two-thirds, including the Reliance Pit and Reliance Plant, is located in Irwindale.

Based on Azusa General Plan Figure MR-1, Mineral Resource Zones in Azusa, the project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 consists of areas of undetermined mineral resource significance.

The proposed project consists of the demolition of three single-family residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units on the project site. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of an existing mining operation since no mining activities currently occur on-site. The site is located within MRZ-3, and is not located near large-scale aggregate mining facilities that exist within the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not represent a loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A LOCALLY-IMPORTANT MINERAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SITE DELINEATED ON A LOCAL GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN OR OTHER LAND USE PLAN?



MITIGATION MEASURES




4.12. NOISE

Would the project result in:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or

groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


Giroux and Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Gladstone Senior Villas Project, Azusa, California, June 24, 2017 (Noise Study) – included in its entirety as Appendix F

City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Noise Element, April 2004

City of Azusa, Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2016-O7, adopted September 19, 2016

City of Azusa Noise Regulations

The City of Azusa establishes noise regulations and standards within the Azusa General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code. For purposes of this analysis, the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 88.31.020(C)) is used to evaluate the noise impacts to and from the proposed project. The following summarizes Section 88.31.020(C):

C. Noise Source Standards.

1. Noise Level Limitations. No use, activity, or process within the city shall generate noise in excess of the levels identified by Tables 3-3 and 3-4, as the noise is measured at the property line of a noise sensitive land use identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.

a. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category shown in Table 3-3, the applicable standards shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level.

b. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped to allow measurement of the ambient noise level, the noise level measured while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the applicable noise level standards identified in Table 3-3.



Notwithstanding the above requirements, no person shall allow or cause the generation of any noise of a type, volume, pitch, tone, repetition, or duration that would be found to be a nuisance by a reasonable person beyond the boundaries of the property where the noise is generated.

Table 3-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Level By Receiving Land Use

Noise Sensitive Land Use

Outdoor Activity Area (1) (2) Interior Spaces

dBA Ldn dBA Ldn dBA Leq

Residential 65 45 N/A Transient lodging 65 45 N/A Hospitals, extended car 65 45 N/A Theater, auditorium (3) 45 35 Meeting facility, public or private 65 45 40 Offices 65 45 45 School, library, museum 65 45 45

Playground, park 70 N/A N/A Notes: 1. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2. Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 70 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. 3. Subject to an acoustical analysis in compliance with subsection C.2.

Table 3-4. Noise Standards For Short-Duration Events Near Residential Areas

Sound Level

Maximum Allowable Sound Level (1)

Day/Evening dB (7AM to 10PM)

Night dB (10PM - 7AM)

Hourly Leq dB 50 45 Maximum Level, dB 70 65

Maximum Level, dB, for Impulsive Noise 65 60 Notes: 1. If the offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone (e.g., a screech or hum), is a repetitive noise (e.g., hammering), or contains speech or music, the maximum allowable sound level shall be reduced by five dB.

2. Acoustical Analysis Required. Where the director determines that a proposed project may generate noise in excess of any limit established by Table 3-3, and/or where the use may generate noise in outdoor areas in excess of 60 dBA, the land use permit application for the use shall include an acoustical analysis by a qualified professional approved by the director.

a. Contents. The Analysis shall determine the potential for stationary source noise impacts to neighboring land uses, include field measurements to determine more precise locations for existing and projected future noise levels



(based on traffic projections in the circulation element of the general plan or as otherwise accepted by the city), and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.

B Preferred Mitigation Measures for Receptor Sites. When development is subject to high noise levels requiring mitigation, the following measures shall be considered and preference shall be given where feasible in the following order:

Site layout, including setbacks, open space separation and shielding of noise sensitive uses with non-sensitive uses;

Acoustical treatment of buildings; or

Structural measures such as construction of earth berms and/or wood or concrete barriers; provided that no sound wall shall be located adjacent to a public street.

3. Limitation on Hours of Construction. In order to allow construction schedules to take advantage of the weather and normal daylight hours, and to ensure that nearby residents as well as nonresidential activities are not disturbed by the early morning or late night activities, the city has established the following limits on construction, in compliance with Table 3-5 or as required by conditions of approval.

Table 3-5. Allowable Hours of Construction

Day Allowable Hours

Monday through Saturday

7AM to 6PM Extended construction hours may only be allowed by the review authority through conditions of approval between 6PM and 10PM.

Sunday and National Holidays Construction activities may only be allowed by the review authority through conditions of approval between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

4. Limitation on Truck Deliveries. Truck deliveries to a commercial or industrial parcel adjacent to a conforming residential use shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., unless the Director authorizes other delivery times based on the determination that there is either no feasible alternative, or there are overriding transportation and traffic management benefits to scheduling deliveries at night.



Existing Noise Environment

The project site is primarily affected by East Gladstone Street traffic along the northern site perimeter. Traffic noise along the East Orkney Street perimeter is minimal since this section of East Orkney Street is a cul-de-sac at the project site. The Interstate 210 (I-210) Freeway is approximately 0.5 miles north of the site, and is a major traffic noise source with multiple intervening structures. The I-210 Freeway generates a minimal low frequency hum late at night, but not enough to measurably affect background levels.

The detailed noise impact study for a proposed new refuse transfer station (2010) concluded that then existing traffic noise along East Gladstone Street was 64 dB CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The distance from the centerline to the City’s 65 dB CNEL goal for usable outdoor space was calculated at 81 feet. Although these findings are dated, the study concluded that the City of Azusa is built out, except for future small infill projects. The ultimate noise contour along East Gladstone Street is forecast to be less than +1 dB higher than the baseline. The threshold of human noise distinction, even in an acoustic laboratory, is around 1.5 dB. Future buildout traffic noise levels along the northern project perimeter would be indistinguishable from existing levels.

The closest residential units to the project site are located immediately to the west, east, and south.

Because of the substantial passage of time since the previous traffic noise impact analysis along Gladstone, an updated noise measurement was conducted on July 10, 2017. Measurements were made at the South Orkney Street cul-de-sac and at 50 feet from the South Gladstone Street centerline. Measured levels were as follows (dB):

Location Time Leq Lmax Lmin 50% Level

Orkney Street 12:00 47 56 42 45 Gladstone Street 12:20 62 70 44 58

Caltrans guidelines suggest that weighted 24-hour CNEL’s are typically 3 dB higher than mid-day Leq levels. The above readings predict an existing level of 65 dB at 50 feet from the South Gladstone Street centerline. This measurement is very similar to the historical model prediction of 67 dB CNEL at 50 feet.

As a conservative estimate, the slightly higher model prediction was used to assess project façade traffic noise impacts to account for limited future noise impacts from 20 percent maximum traffic growth, a design noise loading of 69 dB CNEL at 50 feet from Gladstone Street was assumed for the proposed project.



A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES?


The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction would vary with the different phases of construction.

Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts

The United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 4.12-3, Typical Construction Noise Levels. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet. At 200 feet from the noise source the noise level would reduce to 74 dBA. At 400 feet, the noise source would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA. Contractors are required to comply with the City of Azusa Noise Ordinance during construction.

As shown in Table 4.12-3, temporary construction noise impacts would vary markedly as the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately eight to 12 months and would include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Temporary noise impacts associated with the proposed project would occur from construction activities.

The project site is essentially flat and would not require extensive heavy grading. The primary construction equipment noise sources to develop the proposed project would be during grading and paving activities where it is anticipated that loader/backhoes and a dozer would be employed. This equipment is expected to be the noisiest with equipment noise of about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.



TABLE 4.12-3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS

Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines

Earth Moving Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76

Front Loaders 73 - 84 Backhoes 73 - 92 Tractors 75 - 95

Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92 Pavers 85 - 87 Trucks 81 - 94

Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 72 - 87 Concrete Pumps 81 - 83 Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86 Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87

Stationary Pumps 68 - 71

Generators 71 - 83 Compressors 75 - 86

Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrenches 82 - 87

Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 80 - 99 Pile Drivers (Peak) 95-105

Other Vibrators 68 - 82

Saws 71 - 82 Notes: Referenced noise levels from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

The nearest sensitive uses to the project site are the single-family homes to the immediate west and south, and multi-family apartments to the east. Also, single-family homes are located northeast of the project site. Due to the proximity of these off-site sensitive uses to the project site, they may experience a temporary noise nuisance during the most intensive periods of activity (demolition of three existing homes, excavation of foundations and utilities, limited on-site earth movement for final grade).

Each off-site sensitive receiver is partially noise-shielded by its location relative to the project site. The multi-family apartments to the east have no outdoor recreational space along the shared property line, and the closest new on-site building would be more than 50 feet away separated by a 6-foot block wall. The single-family homes south of South Orkney Street are more than 70 feet from the location of building construction and have their outdoor space in the



rear yard additionally shielded by the homes themselves. The two homes on the east side of Conwell Avenue along the site’s western property line are the closest off-site noise-sensitive receivers. These single-story homes have a solid rear yard wall, which would partially shield interior rooms and patio areas from construction activity noise.

Because of the existing pre-graded gentle slope of the site parcel, project construction would also not require the use of extremely noisy construction equipment. However, construction of the proposed project would expose surrounding off-site receptors to increased ambient exterior noise levels comparable to those previously listed in Table 4.12-3. It should be noted that any increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the proposed project would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from construction are possible. In addition, the construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., demolition and grading work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction) as the physical structures of the proposed project would break the line-of-sight noise transmission from the construction area to the nearby sensitive receptors.

The City of Azusa exempts construction noise from adherence to noise standards as long as activity occurs during permissible hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday. Unless conditional approval is provided by the review authority, construction activities are not permitted outside the allowable time window or on Sundays and National Holidays.

As such, a potentially significant impact would occur with regard to short-term construction noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Best Management Practices. Short-term construction Best Management Practices require mobile equipment to be muffled and directing equipment away from receptors in order to minimize construction-related noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

NOI-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Azusa Community Development Department, that the project complies with the following:

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

Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday, per the City’s Noise Ordinance.

The construction contractor shall ensure that equipment operators limit equipment idling to five minutes or less. If greater than five minutes, idling equipment shall be turned off not in use.

The construction contractor shall maintain equipment to ensure that vehicles and the loads are secured to limit reduce rattling or banging noises.



B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS?


The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The construction activities for the proposed project would not include blasting or pile driving, and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT?


Ambient Mobile Source Noise Impacts

The existing traffic noise at the façade of the planned units facing East Gladstone Street is 66-67 dB CNEL. The anticipated increase associated with future buildout traffic would be +0.6 dB CNEL. Such a change is imperceptible within the range of human hearing.

Based upon traffic noise computer modeling, the existing setback from the East Gladstone Street centerline is 80 feet to the 65 dB CNEL contour. Measured noise levels suggest that the modeled estimate may be a few decibels higher than observed short-term monitoring. The slightly higher modeled value was used for the impact analysis. At buildout, the ultimate 65 dB CNEL contour distance would increase to 90 feet. Any proposed exterior or balconies directly fronting East Gladstone Street would marginally exceed the City of Azusa noise standard of 65 dB CNEL for usable outdoor residential space. Any patio/deck space on the northern façade facing East Gladstone Street would require a partial shield (solid base and transparent top) to achieve a noise level reduction to create noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, which is included in Mitigation Measure NOI-2, and would reduce impacts to less than significant. One amenity of the proposed project is a community garden with outdoor seating, walking paths, etc. within the interior courtyard of the building, which creates more than 1,500 square feet of additional noise-protected space for residents.

As previously noted, noise levels at the facades of the planned northernmost units would be 67-68 dB CNEL. Structural attenuation of 22-23 dB would be needed to achieve the California Building Code interior level of 45 dB CNEL. The hierarchy of residential construction noise reduction is as follows:

Open Windows (10%) – 12 dB

Closed Single Pane - 20 dB

Closed Dual Pane – 28 dB



CALGreen normally requires dual-paned windows in new California residential construction. With closed dual paned windows, the California Building Code Standard would be met with a large margin of safety. When window closure is needed to achieve a noise requirement, the California Building Code requires the provision of supplemental fresh air ventilation typically at a rate of 30 CFM per minute. These requirements have been included in Mitigation Measure NOI-3, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact

The proposed project would generate 187 daily net trips accessed via East Gladstone Street. The existing street volume is around 11,000 average daily traffic (ADT). City future buildout traffic volumes are forecast to be 11,500 ADT as the City of Azusa is substantially built out. With limited additional growth and anticipated penetration of quiet electric cars into the future, travel fleet, negligible change in the baseline traffic noise environment is forecast.

The addition of 187 net daily trips onto an 11,000 ADT baseline would increase overall traffic noise by +0.1 dB CNEL, individually or cumulatively. The threshold of human perception even under ideal conditions is approximately 1.5 dB. Thus, no perceptible change in the traffic noise environment would result from proposed project implementation. Also, the cumulative traffic associated with the proposed project would not be great enough to result in a measurable or perceptible increase in traffic noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0 dBA or greater per the Federal Highway Administration). Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

On-Site Noise Impact

The noise level generated by the normal operations of the 60 senior apartment units would not result in a significant increase in the ambient noise levels, nor impact the sensitive receptors near the project site. Noise from the senior apartment units would primarily occur during the daytime activity hours, and would be typical of noise from residential uses. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

The proposed project does include a community garden, but this passive outdoor use at a senior apartment complex is not a noise generator of substance. Active recreation would occur indoors within a community room.

Noise measurements along East Orkney Street found that with only partial shielding of East Gladstone Street traffic and negligible vehicles on the East Orkney Street cul-de-sac, existing noise levels in the proposed community garden are in the low 50 dB CNEL range. The proposed 3-story building would additionally reduce the noise levels in the community garden. Therefore, noise is not an issue either from the community garden use impacting the neighbors or from ambient noise affecting outdoor enjoyment in the community garden.



MITIGATION MEASURES

NOI-2 Exterior Noise. Patio/deck space on the northern façade facing East Gladstone Street shall include a shield with a solid base and an upper transparent shield to a combined height of 5.5 feet above the deck surface to achieve a noise level reduction to less than 65 dB CNEL.

NOI-3 Interior Noise. The building shall be designed and constructed to achieve an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 25 dB, inclusive of the following elements:

Exterior walls shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of at least STC-39.

Stud walls shall be at least 4-inch in nominal depth finished on the outside with stucco.

Interior walls shall be gypsum board or plaster at least ½-inch thick.

Insulation material at least 3.5-inch thick shall be installed in the cavity space between studs.

Windows shall meet current CalGreen requirements rating at least STC=28.

Exterior doors shall be solid core at least 1.75-inch thick and fully weather-stripped.

Roofs shall have an STC rating of at least STC=39.

Ceilings shall be at least 0.5-inch thick.

Insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists.

A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed to provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply specified in the California Building Code.

D. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE THE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT?


Refer to Responses 4.12.A through 4.12.C.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-3. No additional mitigation measures are required.



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 EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?

NO IMPACT

The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of the project site. The second closest airport to the site is Brackett Field Airport in La Verne is approximately 8.5 southeast of the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels associated with an airport or private airstrip. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


F. FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?

NO IMPACT


MITIGATION MEASURES




4.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by

proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?




City of Azusa, 2014-2021 Housing Element, Adopted October 21, 2013

State of California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2017, With 2010 Benchmark, January 1, 2017

Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a Sustainable Future Growth Forecast Appendix, Adopted April 2012

A. WOULD THE PROJECT INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH IN AN AREA, EITHER DIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, BY PROPOSING NEW HOMES AND BUSINESSES) OR INDIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH EXTENSION OF ROADS OR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE)?


Population Growth

The project proposes to demolish the three on-site residences and construct a 60-unit senior apartment project on the 1.23-acre project site, thus providing senior housing for people that have special housing needs. Six of the 60 units would be designated as low-income units. The proposed project includes 55 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units, which could have an estimated occupancy of 96 residents based on 1.5 residents for the one-bedroom units and 2.5 residents for the two-bedroom units.

It is anticipated that many of the senior apartments would be occupied by existing Azusa residents, therefore, the City’s population would not substantially increase by the proposed project. As such, the 96 residents represent 0.19 percent of the City’s 2017 population of approximately 49,762 persons. However, if all the future residents live outside the City and move to the development, there would be a 0.19 percent growth over the City’s 2017 population.



SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing and population forecasts for local Los Angeles County governments, among other counties, and provides population projection estimates in five-year increments from 2005 to 2035. SCAG projects that the City’s population will be 53,800 persons in 2035. Thus, the proposed project is within SCAG’s 2035 population forecast for the City. Additionally, the small increase in residential units and population is consistent with the growth projections in the Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, which forecasted the City’s population to be approximately 56,336 persons in 2020. Therefore, the proposed project is within the City’s 2020 population forecast.

Housing Element

The State’s Housing Element law requires local governments to make plans to adequately address their share of existing and projected population growth, taking into consideration affordability of available and future housing. In the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Azusa totals 779 units, which includes Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate and Above Moderate affordability levels. The City is required to ensure that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide for the development of the 779 residential units.

The 2014-2021 Housing Element addresses the need for senior housing in the City. Regarding senior housing, the Housing Element states:

“The special housing needs of the elderly stem from several factors: their relatively low, fixed incomes, high health care costs, and physical limitations. Being on a low, fixed income makes it difficult for many elderly to afford adequate housing or maintain their homes. This is further compounded by rising health care costs due to health problems that arise with older age. As a person ages and faces reduced physical mobility, accessibility improvements may be necessary to maintain safe and independent living.”

According to the 2010 Census, there were 3,576 elderly persons (over age 65) in Azusa. This represents a 15 percent increase from 2000. Of this elderly population, almost 39 percent had some form of disability in 2010. Many elderly persons have limited income potential, as they are most often retired and have fixed incomes (retirement funds and Social Security income). This poses a special problem with regard to housing affordability. Azusa has 1,165 elderly households with low, very low, or extremely low incomes. Of these lower-income elderly households, 33 percent were renters and 67 percent were owners.3

Six of the 60 units would be designated as low-income units. These units would be available only to those with incomes at 50 to 80 percent of the County’s median family income (MFI). The City’s 2014-2021 RHNA allocation for low income units is 118 and 336 for above-moderate income units. The proposed project assists the City in meeting its RHNA allocation by constructing six low income units and 54 above-moderate income units, thus making the proposed project consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 2014-2021 Housing Element.

3 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy

(CHAS) database, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html#2006-2014_query, accessed June 28, 2017.



Impact Conclusion

The proposed project would not significantly increase the population of Azusa. The proposed project would provide housing for the senior adult sector as envisioned by the Housing Element. The proposed project would have a positive impact by providing 54 senior apartments for the senior adults in Azusa along with providing six affordable senior apartments with many of the future residents estimated to be existing residents of Azusa. In conclusion, implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth within the City either directly or indirectly, resulting in less than significant impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES


B. WOULD THE PROJECT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF EXISTING HOUSING, NECESSITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING ELSEWHERE?


The project proposes to demolish the three on-site single-family residences, and construct a 60-unit senior apartment project on the 1.23-acre project site. There would be a displacement of three residential housing units (ownership or rental), but not the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, as there is sufficient housing supply in the City. In 2017, the California Department of Finance reported 8,0824 single-family detached and attached homes in the City. Thus, the small decrease of three homes represents 0.04 percent of the City’s total. The proposed project would displace up to 11 residents, but this would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City, given the available housing stock (rental and for-sale) and that the proposed project would be providing 60 units in the City. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, NECESSITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING ELSEWHERE?


Refer to Response 4.13.B.

MITIGATION MEASURES


4 Source: California Department of Finance E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2017.



4.14. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with

the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public facilities?

A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES, NEED FOR NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE SERVICE RATIOS, RESPONSE TIMES OR OTHER PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR ANY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES:

1. FIRE PROTECTION?


Fire protection and paramedic services in the City of Azusa are provided by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County/Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). The City of Azusa is served by Fire Stations 32 and 97. Fire Station 32 is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, approximately 1.14 miles northwest of the project site, and would be the first station to respond to the project site in case of an emergency. This station is staffed with a 4-person engine company (1-fire captain, 1-fire fighter specialist, 1-fire fighter/paramedic and 1-firefighter) and a 2-person paramedic squad. Fire Station 97 is located at 18453 East Sierra Madre Avenue, Azusa, approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the project site. This station is staffed with a 4-person engine company (1-fire captain, 1-fire fighter specialist, and 21-firefighters).

A single fire station is located within the City of Irwindale, Fire Station 48, located at 15546 Arrow Highway. This station is approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project site, and would support the project site, if needed.

Fire protection serving the project area is currently adequate.

The proposed project would demolish three existing single-family residences and construct 60 senior apartment units. Construction activities have the potential to increase fire hazards on-



site. However, LACoFD reviews all development projects and requires standard conditions of approval to mitigate project-related impacts in this regard. Specifically, LACoFD addresses fire and life safety requirements for project construction at the fire plan check stage. This includes plan review of the design details of the architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. All projects are required to comply with applicable City, County, and State code and ordinance requirements for fire protection. Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant.

The City of Azusa has an Insurance Service Organization (ISO) rating of 3, and LACoFD does not anticipate that the proposed project would create a need for additional staffing or resources. The availability of sufficient on-site water pressure for fire flows is a basic requirement of the LACoFD. The proposed project may require fire flows of up to 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration.

Due to the stations’ close proximity to the project site, the response time from the nearest fire station (Station 32) is approximately 4.6 minutes. At this time, there are no facilities or staffing needs at the fire stations that would be required in order to serve the proposed project.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the Los Angeles County Code, Title 32, Los Angeles County Fire Code and the Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 30, Fire Code, as applicable and any conditions of approval identified by either agency. The proposed project would be reviewed by LACoFD and the City of Azusa prior to construction to ensure that adequate water pressure and emergency vehicle access is provided. Thus, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to fire protection services.

MITIGATION MEASURES

FP-1 The Applicant must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants to service all on-site buildings.

FP-2 The Applicant shall install fire sprinkler systems in all on-site buildings.

2. POLICE PROTECTION?


The Azusa Police Department is responsible for providing general law enforcement to the City of Azusa. The Azusa Police Department is located at 725 North Alameda Avenue, which is approximately 1.4 miles north of the project site. This facility was upgraded in 1999 and expanded to house a total personnel of 146 sworn and non-sworn officers, as well as other equipment and related needs. The facility would accommodate a projected citywide buildout population of approximately 63,500. The sworn officer to population ratio is approximately 1.36 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents, based on the 2011 population of 46,678 with 63 sworn officers, which is just below the target ratio of 1.4 officers to each 1,000 residents. Current staffing levels, facilities, and level of service are considered adequate for the current population. The target response time for the Azusa Police Department is less than five minutes



Priority One calls. The current response time to the project area is four and a half minutes. At this time, the Azusa Police Department does not have any plans for facility expansion or new facilities.

During construction of the proposed project, there is a potential for increased calls for service to the project site as a result of the increased number of persons at the project site. Also, due to the presence of building materials, construction and related temporary office buildings, the potential for vandalism and theft is also greater; thereby, increasing the Azusa Police Department’s calls for service demands for emergency services. The Azusa Police Department can accommodate calls for service during construction with existing staff levels.

Slow-moving construction related traffic on adjacent roadways could reduce optimal traffic flows and could impact police services by delaying emergency vehicles traveling through the area. However, potential traffic impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Construction-related traffic would not result in a significant impact on police services or traffic flows.

The proposed project would induce population growth of 96 residents with the 60 senior apartment units. The Azusa Police Department has indicated that implementation of the proposed project would not require the expansion of police facilities or services, and that adequate services exist to serve the project site. However, in order to ensure employee and visitor safety at the project site as well as overall site security, the Applicant would be required to adhere to specific conditions related to safety and security specified by the Azusa Police Department, such as perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings (Mitigation Measure PP-1). Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure PP-1, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES

PP-1 The Applicant shall incorporate safety and security conditions specified by the Azusa Police Department regarding issues including, but not limited to, perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings. The incorporation of specified conditions in building plans and specifications shall be verified by the Azusa Police Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

3. SCHOOLS?

NO IMPACT

The proposed project involves the demolition of three existing single-family residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units. The proposed project would generate no school-aged children; thus, there would be no impacts to school facilities. However, the Applicant would be required to pay statutory fees in place to the Azusa Unified School District (AUSD) in order to compensate for the impacts of development on school capacities. The AUSD currently assesses developer fees of $2.05 per square foot for residential development.



MITIGATION MEASURES


4. PARKS?


Refer to Responses 4.15.A and 4.15.B.

MITIGATION MEASURES


5. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES?

NO IMPACT

The project site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Azusa and Los Angeles County. The proposed project would not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.15. RECREATION

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or

other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

A. WOULD THE PROJECT INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL PARKS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SUCH THAT SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OF THE FACILITY WOULD OCCUR OR BE ACCELERATED?


Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of park facilities located within the City, as the proposed project would construct 60 senior apartment units and generate approximately 96 new residents.

The nearest City public park is Gladstone Park at 414 South Pasadena Avenue, which is 0.15-miles northeast of the project site. The increase in residential units and population is consistent with the growth projections in the Azusa General Plan and no additional impacts beyond those identified in the Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the population increase associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact the use of the City’s existing parks and/or other recreational facilities. However, the proposed project would be required to pay fees or dedicate land for the purpose of providing park and recreation facilities in accordance with Azusa Municipal Code Article 1, Section 14-7, Park and Recreation Fees. Azusa Municipal Code Article 1, Section 14-7 requires residential developers to pay a park and recreation fee based on the number of bedrooms included in each dwelling unit. Per Azusa Municipal Code Article 1, Section 14-7, a $150.00 fee is required for each bedroom in a single or multi-family unit, and shall be paid to the City at the time the building permit is issued. Payment of the Park and Recreation Fees is a City standard condition of approval. Thus, while the proposed project’s population increase would increase the use of parks and other recreational facilities in the City, these impacts are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES




B. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OR REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHICH MIGHT HAVE AN ADVERSE PHYSICAL EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT?



MITIGATION MEASURES




4.16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of

effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,

bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


Crain & Associates, Gladstone Senior Villas Project (360, 410-416 East Gladstone Street, City of Azusa) Trip Generation Analysis, September 19, 2016 – included in its entirety as Appendix G

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010 Congestion Management Plan

A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ESTABLISHING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING MASS TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL AND RELEVANT COMPONENTS OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTERSECTIONS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHS, AND MASS TRANSIT?


Existing Roadways

Regional access to the site is provided primarily by the Interstate 210 (I-210) Freeway, located approximately ½-half mile north of the project site. The project site is located at 360, 410-416 East Gladstone Street in the City of Azusa, and takes access off East Gladstone Street and East Orkney Street.

Project Trip Generation

The latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) was used to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project. The trip



generation equations and rates in the ITE manual are nationally recognized and are used as the basis for most traffic studies conducted in the Southern California region. The ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for LUC 210: Single- Family Detached Housing and LUC 252: Senior Adult Housing were used for the existing use and proposed use, respectively. Table 4.16-1 presents the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates used to determine the expected weekday daily and peak-hour traffic generation volumes for the proposed project.

By applying the trip rates provided in Table 4.16-1, weekday daily, AM peak-hour, and PM peak-hour trips were calculated for the proposed project. These trip estimates are also summarized in Table 4.16-1. Once completed and occupied, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 206 daily trips, with 12 AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips. The existing uses on the project site generate approximately 29 daily trips, with 2 AM peak hour trips and 3 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the estimated net trip generation to the surrounding street system for the proposed project (proposed project trips minus existing uses trips) is approximately 177 daily trips, with 10 AM peak-hour trips and 12 PM peak-hour trips.

Given the low net trip generation estimates for the proposed project, less than significant impacts would occur on the surrounding intersections or roadway segments.

Transit

Existing City and Regional Transit operates along Azusa Boulevard and Gladstone Street, thus future residents would have access to bus transportation within ¼-mile of the proposed project. These bus routes also provide access to the two Gold Line Stations in the City.

Bicycle Routes

Existing bicycle routes are located in close proximity to the project site. A signed route (Class III) exists along Azusa Boulevard south of I-210 to Arrow Highway, a bike lane (Class II) exists along East Gladstone Street east of Azusa Boulevard, and a signed route (Class III) exists along East Gladstone Street west of Azusa Boulevard. These bicycle facilities would be accessible to future residents of the proposed project.

Impact Conclusion

The proposed project generates a net amount of traffic trips that would not impact the surrounding intersections or roadway segments. In addition, the future residents of the proposed project would have access to bus transit, Gold Line Stations, and bicycle facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




TABLE 4.16-1 PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION

Land Use ITE Code Intensity1 Average Weekday

Daily Rate

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

TRIP GENERATION RATES

Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 Dwelling Unit 9.52 25% 75% 0.75 63% 37% 1.00

Senior Adult Housing - Attached 252 1 Dwelling Unit 3.44 34% 66% 0..20 54% 46% 0.25

TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Existing Use

Single-Family Detached Housing 3 Dwelling Units 29 1 1 2 2 1 3

Existing Use Trips 29 1 1 2 2 1 3

Proposed Project

Senior Adult Housing- Attached 60 Dwelling Units 206 4 8 12 8 7 15

Proposed Project Trips 206 4 8 12 8 7 15

NET TRIPS (PROPOSED PROJECT – EXISTING USE) 177 3 7 10 6 6 12

Sources: Crain & Associates (September 2016) and ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) Notes: 1. For a conservative analysis, no discount was applied for employees, guests, and residents using nearby transit facilities.



B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES, OR OTHER STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR DESIGNATED ROADS OR HIGHWAYS?


The Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County is intended to reduce traffic congestion and provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions throughout Los Angeles County. The Congestion Management Program requires the analysis of the traffic impacts of individual projects with potential regional significance. In conformance with Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted at:

Congestion Management Program arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where a project would add 50 or more vehicle trips during either morning or afternoon weekday peak hours.

Congestion Management Program mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where a project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the morning or afternoon weekday peak hours.

There are no Congestion Management Program arterial monitoring intersections located within proximity to the project site that would receive project-generated trips. Thus, no additional analysis is required. Interstate 210 is considered a Congestion Management Program mainline freeway-monitoring location within the project vicinity that would receive project-generated trips. However, the proposed project would not add 150 or more vehicle trips to this freeway-monitoring location during the peak hour. The maximum number of net peak hour trips that would result from the proposed project is 10 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 12 trips in the PM peak hour for either the I-210 westbound ramps or I-210 eastbound ramps. Thus, additional CMP Transportation Impact Analysis is not required. Impacts would be considered less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




C. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A CHANGE IN AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS, INCLUDING EITHER AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC LEVELS OR A CHANGE IN LOCATION THAT RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY RISKS?

NO IMPACT

The project proposes senior apartment units, which do not have the capacity to directly change air traffic patterns or change the location of air traffic. The project site is not within the immediate vicinity (two miles) of an airport. The proposed project would not generate a population increase that would substantially increase air traffic levels or require relocation of an existing airport. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


D. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT)?


Presently, the project site has two driveways onto East Gladstone Street and one driveway onto East Orkney Street (one for 360 East Gladstone Street and one for the 410-416 East Gladstone Street properties). All driveways on East Gladstone Street and East Orkney Street would be closed as part of the proposed project.

Access/egress for the proposed project would be provided via a single driveway onto East Gladstone Street, which would be located near the northeast corner of the project site. Additionally, a secondary emergency vehicle access would be provided via East Orkney Street, near the southeast corner of the project site. The proposed project would be subject to review and approval by the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development and Public Works Departments. Access to the project site would be required to comply with all City design standards, which preclude the potential for dangerous conditions. Further, the proposed senior apartment residential development would be similar to existing single- and multi-family residential uses in the project area.

In addition, the proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable City of Azusa laws and regulations pertaining to emergency access to the site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in hazards. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




E. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS?


Access/egress for the proposed project would be provided via a single driveway onto East Gladstone Street, which would be located near the northeast corner of the project site. Additionally, a secondary emergency vehicle access would be provided via East Orkney Street, near the southeast corner of the project site. Constructed roadways and driveways are required to meet access standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Compliance with Los Angeles County Fire Department and City of Azusa Police Department requirements would ensure impacts remain less than significant levels.

MITIGATION MEASURES


F. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ADOPTED POLICIES, PLANS, OR PROGRAMS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT, BICYCLE, OR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES, OR OTHERWISE DECREASE THE PERFORMANCE OR SAFETY OF SUCH FACILITIES?


As stated in Response 4.16.A, the proposed project would not result in substantive long-term operational traffic. The proposed project does not include any components that would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water

Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities

or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. 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?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid

waste?


SA Associates Consulting Engineers, 2010 Azusa Light and Water Urban Water Management Plan, July 2011 (2010 UWMP)

Correspondence from Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, August 15, 2017

Existing Conditions

Utility systems (i.e., water and sewer lines, hydrants, storm drains, power poles, etc.) are present in the project area.

Potable water and electricity in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the Azusa Light and Water Department (ALW), a municipal utility owned and operated by the City of Azusa.

The City of Azusa owns, operates, and maintains the local sewer lines that collect wastewater generated within the City. Local sewer lines are connected to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) main trunk lines. LACSD oversees the treatment facilities that serve Azusa.

A. WOULD THE PROJECT EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD?


The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 22 of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts). The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to



preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Azusa and Los Angeles County are within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Districts oversees the treatment facilities that serve the City and Los Angeles County.

Wastewater flow originating from the project site discharges to local sewers before it is conveyed to the Districts’ trunk sewers. The trunk sewer that serves the project area, Lark Ellen, is located approximately 0.65 miles southwest of the project site in East Arrow Highway at Homerest Avenue. The Lark Ellen Trunk Sewer Sections 4, 5, and 6 are a 15-inch diameter trunk sewer with a capacity of 3.9 million gallons per day (mgd). The trunk sewer conveyed a peak flow of 0.9 mgd when last measured in 2015.

Wastewater originating from the project site is treated at the Districts’ San Jose Creek WRP, or the Whittier Narrows WRP. San Jose Creek WRP, located at 1965 Workman Mill Road in Industry, provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 100 mgd of wastewater. Currently, the San Jose Creek WRP processes an average flow of 64.6 mgd. Whittier Narrows WRP, located at 301 N. Rosemead Boulevard in South El Monte, provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 15 mgd of wastewater. Currently, the Whittier Narrows WRP processes an average flow of 7.3 mgd.

At the present time, there is wastewater flow originating from the project site, and on-site uses are generating the need for water. The proposed project would remove existing on-site water and wastewater infrastructure and install on-site and off-site wastewater infrastructure to serve the proposed project.

Table 4.17-1, Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation, indicates that the proposed project would generate a net increase of 7,553 gallons per day (gpd) on an average day and approximately 18,883 gpd on a peak day.

According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, the City of Azusa is estimated to generate approximately 23.8 million gallons of sewage and wastewater per day in the year 2025, and the sewage pipes in the City have the capacity to accommodate the 2025 projections. Since the proposed project represents only 0.19 percent of the anticipated City growth for 2025, the proposed project would be accommodated by existing City sewer pipelines and would not require additional City sewer infrastructure to serve the proposed project. Therefore, with the installation of on-site wastewater infrastructure, the proposed project would be accommodated by existing City sewer pipelines.



TABLE 4.17-1 PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION

Land Use Dwelling Units Flow Factor (gpd) Average Flow (gpd)

Peak Flow1

(gpd) Existing Use Single-Family Residential (1 parcels) 1 260/parcel 260 650

Single-Family Residential (1 parcel) 2 312/parcel 312 780

Proposed Use Senior Apartments2 60 125/bed 8,125 20,313 Net Increase (Proposed Use – Existing Use) 7,553 18,883 Source: Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Land uses cited include Single Family Home, Duplex, and Convalescent Home. Notes: 1. To determine peak rates, a conservative value of 2.5 was multiplied to the average flow. 2. The proposed project include 55 one-bedroom and 5 two-bedroom units for a total of 65 beds. gpd = gallons per day

The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant can convey and treat up to 100 and 400 mgd, respectively. The existing wastewater treatment plant capacity is designed to accommodate the average and peak amounts of wastewater generated in the community through the year 2025. The proposed project would result in peak sewage flows of 0.019 mgd, and average flows of 0.008 mgd. Currently, the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant processes an effluent flow of 87.5 mgd and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant treated an effluent flow of 284 mgd. Therefore, the design capacity of the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant would accommodate the minimal increase in wastewater generated by the proposed project.

In conclusion, the proposed project would result in an increase of wastewater generation, but not to the extent that it would constrain the capacity of the existing wastewater infrastructure at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The increase of wastewater generated from the proposed project would be accommodated by existing and new project-related infrastructure. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Compliance with Azusa Public Works regulations and the Azusa Municipal Code would ensure the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on the existing sewer system. As such, impacts regarding wastewater associated with project implementation would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES




B. WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS?



MITIGATION MEASURES


C. WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS?


Refer to Response 4.9.A. The proposed project would not substantially increase storm water runoff from the site. The majority of the runoff from the site presently percolates into the soil or enters the San Gabriel River. This is not anticipated to substantially change as a result of the proposed project. It is anticipated that any runoff collected on-site would be treated and allowed to percolate into the soil. The proposed project is anticipated to use existing storm water drainage facilities, and not require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. Thus, no significant impacts to the existing storm drain system would result from project implementation. The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES), which ensure that storm water drainage impacts remain at or below existing levels.

MITIGATION MEASURES


D. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROJECT FROM EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS AND RESOURCES, OR ARE NEW OR EXPANDED ENTITLEMENTS NEEDED?


The Azusa Light and Water Department (ALW), a City-owned and operated water utility company, provides the City’s residents and businesses with potable water. The ALW’s service area is approximately 15 square miles and includes the City of Azusa as well as portions of Glendora, Irwindale, Covina, West Covina, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Based on the number of 2010 residential and commercial customers and a projected one percent increase every year, the 2010 Azusa Light and Water Department Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP) estimated the number of 2015 customers to be approximately 115,000 residents and



businesses. The City of Azusa makes up approximately 40 percent of Department’s total service area and resident population. The ALW’s water resources are comprised of groundwater (approximately 69 to 91 percent), surface water (16 to 27 percent), and a minimal amount of imported water (less than one percent).

The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria in Senate Bill 610 or Senate Bill 221 (California Water Code Sections 10910-10915, Business and Professions Code Section 11010, and Government Code Section 66473) regarding the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment.

Project implementation would result in a long-term water demand for the residential units, laundry room, administrative office, and landscaping. The proposed project includes 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Table 4.17-2, Proposed Project Estimated Water Demand, illustrates a breakdown of the proposed project’s estimated average total water demands. As indicated in Table 4.17-2, operation of the proposed project would create a net increase in total potable water demand of approximately 26,969 gallons per day on an average day and annual water demand of approximately 30.21 acre-feet (AF) per year. The net increase with the proposed project represents 0.30 percent of the 2020 single- and multi-family residential demand (10,065 AF).

TABLE 4.17-2 PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND

Land Use Unit Quantity Acre-Feet Per Unit Per Year

Project Water Demand

GPD AFY Existing Use Single-Family Residential 3 Dwelling Units 0.53 1,420 1.59 Proposed Use Senior Apartments 60 Dwelling Units 0.53 28,389 31.80 Net Increase (Proposed Project – Existing Use) 26,969 30.21 Sources: 2010 Azusa Light and Water Urban Water Management Plan (July 2011), Azusa General Plan EIR (2004)

Notes: GPD = Gallons Per Day; AFY = Acre-Feet Per Year

ALW anticipates in the 2010 UWMP it would be able to accommodate the proposed project’s demand for potable water services in combination with other water demands throughout the City at project completion with existing water supplies. New water meters and service would be required to accommodate the proposed project.

Section 5, Reliability Planning, of the 2010 UWMP discusses local and regional efforts to ensure a reliable supply of water and compares projected supply to projected demand. The 2010 UWMP concludes that the service area is vulnerable to water shortages due to climatic environment and seasonally hot summer months. While the data shown in Section 5 identifies availability during single and multiple dry year scenarios, response to a future drought would follow the water use efficiency mandates of the Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 78, Utilities, Article VI - Water, Division 6 - Conservation Plan and City Ordinance No. 2446, along with implementation of the appropriate stage of regional plans (Metropolitan Water District [MWD]). MWD has made investments in conservation and supply augmentation as part of its



long-term water management strategy. MWD’s approach to a long-term water management strategy was to develop an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to include sources. Thus, ALW has an adequate water supply to serve anticipated growth, including the proposed project. The Applicant would be required to contribute fees based on the project’s proportional demand for new resources, to be calculated by the directory of utilities, per Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 78, Utilities, Article VI - Water, Division 5 - System Development Fee. As such, with payment of such fees, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on water supply.

The construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to require a significant amount of water, and thus, water demand is not expected to have a significant impact on the local or regional supplies. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


E. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROVIDER WHICH SERVES OR MAY SERVE THE PROJECT THAT IT HAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED GENERATION IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS?


The proposed project results in an increase in population of 96 residents. As shown in Responses 4.17.A and 4.17.B, both the City and the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


F. WOULD THE PROJECT BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS?


The proposed project would not result in the generation of significant amounts of solid waste during construction, as construction activities would consist of limited grading, utility connections, paving, and revegetation. Any construction debris generated would be recycled or transported to the nearest landfill site for proper disposal. The amount of debris generated would not be expected to significant impact landfill capacities. Also, most daily waste generated during the operation of the proposed project would be recycled. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the need for new solid waste facilities for the County of Los Angeles.



However, the proposed project would be required to comply with Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 58, Solid Waste, as well as the California Green Building Code. The proposed project would be required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in concert with countywide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. In addition, the location of recycling/separation areas is required to comply with all applicable Federal, public health, state, or local laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, or safety. Compliance with all applicable State, Los Angeles County and/or City of Azusa regulations for the use, collection, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes is also mandated. It can be assumed that the proposed project would include adequate, accessible and convenient areas for collecting recyclable materials. Therefore, it is anticipated that construction and operational solid waste impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES


G. WOULD THE PROJECT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE?


The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and Los Angeles County and City of Azusa recycling programs. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

MITIGATION MEASURES




4.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Would the project:


Impact



Incorporated


Impact No

Impact a. Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

d. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

A. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO 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, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A RARE OR ENDANGERED PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT EXAMPLES OF THE MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY?


The project site was previously developed and is surrounded on all sides by urban development. The project site does contain threatened or endangered species, sensitive habitats, or cultural or historical resources. Three Coast Live Oak trees are located on the site, which are native trees, but are not threatened or endangered species. Thus, there is the potential to degrade the environment with respect to biological and cultural resources. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, BIO-5, and CUL-1 through CUL-8, potential impacts to biological and cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant.



B. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS THAT ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (“CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE” MEANS THAT THE INCREMENTAL EFFECTS OF A PROJECT ARE CONSIDERABLE WHEN VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EFFECTS OF PAST PROJECTS, THE EFFECTS OF OTHER CURRENT PROJECTS, AND THE EFFECTS OF PROBABLE FUTURE PROJECTS)?


Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation of project mitigation measures. Implementation of mitigation measures at the project-level would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the proposed project to be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects.

C. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?


Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise, and public services and utilities. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS?


The proposed project is an infill senior apartment project that would provide 60 units. Six of the 60 units would be designated as low-income units. A total of 96 residents are anticipated. The growth in population associated with the proposed project is within the City’s 2020 population forecast. The proposed project assists the City in meeting its RHNA allocation by constructing six low income units and 54 above-moderate income units, thus making the proposed project consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 2014-2021 Housing Element.

The proposed project has no potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project would contribute to long-term environmental goals with some short-term environmental impacts which, with the mitigation measures imposed in this document, would be reduced to a less than significant. Thus, long-term environmental goals in the Azusa General Plan would continue to be met with implementation of the proposed project.



4.19. REFERENCES

Refer to Section 4.1 through Section 4.17 for the listing of references utilized in the preparation of this Initial Study.

4.20. REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

CITY OF AZUSA 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, California 91702 Mr. Kurt Christiansen, FAICP, Director of Economic and Community Development Mr. Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Bobadilla, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer MORSE PLANNING GROUP (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT) 145 N C Street Tustin, California 92780 Ms. Collette L. Morse, AICP, Principal, Project Manager TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS Apple Engineering Group (Hydrology) 9080 Testar Avenue., Suite 309 El Monte, California 91731

Crain & Associates (Traffic) 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 450 Culver City, California 90230

DCI Environmental Services (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) 9795 Cabrini Drive, Suite 104 Burbank, California 91504

Giroux and Associates (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise) 1800 E. Garry Avenue, Suite 205 Santa Ana, CA 92705

McKinley and Associates, Inc. (Arborist) 1734 Del Valle Avenue Glendale, California 91208

T.K. Engineering Corp. (Geotechnical) 3831 Arden Drive El Monte, California 91731


Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program | 5-1

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Section 4.0 of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Gladstone Senior Villas Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6,

. . . the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those outlined in Section 4.0. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The Applicant/Developer of the project will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Azusa departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.


Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-2

GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency

Verification of Compliance

Initials Date Remarks

AESTHETICS AES-1 Construction equipment staging areas shall use appropriate

screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to buffer views of construction equipment and material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on Final Development Plans and Grading Plans.

Prior to Issuance of Grading and Building

Permits

During Grading and Construction

Azusa Economic & Community

Development Department

(Building Division)

AES-2 All construction-related lighting shall include shielding in order to direct lighting down and away from nearby residential uses and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site. A construction safety lighting plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Building Division for review and approval concurrent with Grading Permit application.

During Grading and Construction



(Building Division)

AES-3 A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department for review and approval prior to approval of Final Development Plans and Grading Plans to ensure compliance with applicable City codes and provisions pertaining to light and glare.

Prior to Approval of Final Development Plans and Grading

Plans



(Planning Division and Building

Division)

AIR QUALITY

AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the

Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit

During Grading and

Construction

Azusa Public Works Department (Engineering

Division)







Monitoring Agency



following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: During construction, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring that fugitive dust be controlled with best-available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques are as follows:

Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas in active for 10 days or more).

Water active sites at least three times daily.

Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.

Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.

Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.

Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.

Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better


(Building Division)






Monitoring Agency



rated heavy equipment.

Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

BIO-1 All Coast Live Oak trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box size tree with a California native species of oak.

Review of Landscape Plan

During Construction




Division)

BIO-2 At no time shall any form of plant material be permitted within 15 feet of any newly planted mitigation trees. All landscaping that is proposed and approved within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of native drought-tolerant plant material that is compatible with California native species of oak.


During Construction




Division)

BIO-3 At no time shall any form of overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with all newly planted mitigation oak trees. Irrigation approved within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of drip or bubbler type systems only.


During Construction




Division)






Monitoring Agency



BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, an I.S.A Certified Arborist shall review the landscape plan to ensure that the plan shows the correct tree species for each planting area.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permit

During Construction




Division)

BIO-5 All non-native trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box size tree.


During Construction




Division)

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

CUL-1 If cultural materials or archaeological remains are encountered during the course of construction, excavation and other construction activity, the project contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities near the find and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Community Development Department. With direction from the Director of Community Development, an archaeologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. Treatment measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery, protection, and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition

During Construction Azusa Economic & Community



Division)






Monitoring Agency



and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates.

CUL-2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during the course of grading or construction, the construction contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Community Development Department. With direction from the Director of Community Development, a paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find. Treatment measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery, protection, and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources.




Division)

CUL-3 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the Los Angeles County Coroner immediately notified of the find. The provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 relative to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary, shall be met.




Division)

CUL-4 Prior to commencement of any demolition, grading, or construction activities, the Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department that a qualified Native American monitor has been retained to provide Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils. The Native American monitor shall be selected by the Applicant from the list of certified Native American

Pre-Construction

During Construction




Division)






Monitoring Agency



monitors maintained by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the recommendations in Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be confirmed or modified by a geotechnical engineer to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be implemented during site grading and construction.

Prior to Issuance of Grading or Building

Permit

Azusa Public Works Department

Azusa Economic &

Community Development Department

(Building Division)

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

HAZ-1 To comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403, prior to structural demolition/renovation activities, demolition materials containing asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paints shall be removed and properly disposed of at an appropriate permitted facility per existing Federal and State regulations.

Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit



(Building Division)

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY






Monitoring Agency



HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall enroll electronically through the SMARTS program to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit. Proof of enrollment must be submitted to the City of Duarte before issuance of grading or building permits. Also, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or functional equivalent required at that time shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time shall outline the source control and/or treatment control Best Management Practices to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.”

Prior to Issuance of Grading or Building

Permit


Azusa Economic &


(Building Division)

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a plan (i.e., Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan [SUSMP] or functional equivalent document per current State law or other applicable statutes) in accordance with the guidance to be developed by the NPDES Permit permittees, that includes Low Impact Development and other post-construction Best Management Practices to reduce pollutant loading. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and City Engineer. The Applicant shall be responsible for implement the measures identified in the SUSMP or functional equivalent document.



Azusa Economic &


(Building Division)

NOISE

NOI-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Azusa Community Development Department, that the project complies with the following:


During Grading and








Monitoring Agency



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

Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday, per the City’s Noise Ordinance.

The construction contractor shall ensure that equipment operators limit equipment idling to five minutes or less. If greater than five minutes, idling equipment shall be turned off not in use.

The construction contractor shall maintain equipment to ensure that vehicles and the loads are secured to limit reduce rattling or banging noises.

Construction (Building Division)

NOI-2 Exterior Noise. Patio/deck space on the northern façade facing East Gladstone Street shall include a shield with a solid base and an upper transparent shield to a combined height of 5.5 feet above the deck surface to achieve a noise level reduction to less than 65 dB CNEL.




(Building Division)

NOI-3 Interior Noise. The building shall be designed and constructed to achieve an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 25 dB, inclusive of the following elements:

Exterior walls shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of at least STC-39.

Stud walls shall be at least 4-inch in nominal depth finished on




(Building Division)






Monitoring Agency



the outside with stucco.

Interior walls shall be gypsum board or plaster at least ½-inch thick.

Insulation material at least 3.5-inch thick shall be installed in the cavity space between studs.

Windows shall meet current CalGreen requirements rating at least STC=28.

Exterior doors shall be solid core at least 1.75-inch thick and fully weather-stripped.

Roofs shall have an STC rating of at least STC=39.

Ceilings shall be at least 0.5-inch thick.

Insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists.

A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed to provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply specified in the California Building Code.

FIRE PROTECTION

FP-1 The Applicant must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants to service all on-site buildings.



Azusa Economic &


(Building Division)






Monitoring Agency



FP-2 The Applicant shall install fire sprinkler systems in all on-site buildings.



Azusa Economic &


(Building Division)

POLICE PROTECTION

POL-1 The Applicant shall incorporate safety and security conditions specified by the Azusa Police Department regarding issues including, but not limited to, perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings. The incorporation of specified conditions in building plans and specifications shall be verified by the Azusa Police Department prior to issuance of a building permit.


Azusa Police Department

Azusa Economic &



Division)