allen and walnut tod project

InItIal Study/MItIgated negatIve declaratIon

allen and Walnut tod ProjectPaSadena, calIfornIa

OctOber 2013

P C R

PrePared fOr: cIty of PaSadena

Planning and Community Development Department175 North Garfield Avenue

Pasadena, California 91101-1704

PrePared by:

Pcr ServIceS corPoratIon

One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618

InItIal Study/MItIgated negatIve declaratIon

allen and Walnut tod ProjectPaSadena, calIfornIa

OctOber 2013

CityofPasadena AllenandWalnutTODProjectPCRServicesCorporation i

Table of Contents

Page

ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST.....................................................................................................................................EC‐1

ATTACHMENTA–PROJECTDESCRIPTION A. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................A‐1 B. ProjectLocationandSurroundingUses..................................................................................................................A‐1 C. ExistingSiteConditions..................................................................................................................................................A‐1 D. LandUseandZoningDesignations............................................................................................................................A‐2 E. DescriptionoftheProject..............................................................................................................................................A‐8 F. Construction.....................................................................................................................................................................A‐22 G. NecessaryApprovals....................................................................................................................................................A‐23

ATTACHMENTB:EXPLANATIONOFCHECKLISTDETERMINATIONS 1. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................................................................B‐1 2. AgricultureandForestryResources......................................................................................................................B‐12 3. AirQuality.........................................................................................................................................................................B‐14 4. BiologicalResources.....................................................................................................................................................B‐23 5. CulturalResources........................................................................................................................................................B‐26 6. Energy.................................................................................................................................................................................B‐30 7. GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................................................................B‐32 8. GreenhouseGasEmissions........................................................................................................................................B‐36 9. HazardsandHazardousMaterials..........................................................................................................................B‐43 10. HydrologyandWaterQuality...................................................................................................................................B‐53 11. LandUseandPlanning................................................................................................................................................B‐58 12. MineralResources.........................................................................................................................................................B‐65 13. Noise....................................................................................................................................................................................B‐65 14. PopulationandHousing..............................................................................................................................................B‐79 15. PublicServices................................................................................................................................................................B‐80 16. Recreation.........................................................................................................................................................................B‐92 17. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................................................B‐93 18. UtilitiesandServiceSystems.................................................................................................................................B‐120 19. MandatoryFindingsofSignificance....................................................................................................................B‐129

Appendices

AppendixA‐PacificCoastCivil,Inc.Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandumAppendixB‐AirQualityAndGreenhouseGasAssessmentAppendixC‐TreeReport

Appendices (Continued)

ClientName ProjectNamePCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo. ii

AppendixD‐GeotechnicalInvestigationAppendixE‐Phase1(1727,1757,And1787EastWalnutStreet)AppendixF‐Phase2(1727EastWalnutStreet)AppendixG‐Phase2(1787EastWalnutStreet)AppendixH‐NoiseDataAppendixI‐TrafficStudy

List of Figures

Page

A‐1 RegionalLocationandProjectVicinityMap......................................................................................................A‐3 A‐2 AerialPhotographofProjectSite...........................................................................................................................A‐4 A‐3a ExistingSitePhotographs..........................................................................................................................................A‐5 A‐3b ExistingSitePhotographs..........................................................................................................................................A‐6 A‐4 SubterraneanParkingLevel...................................................................................................................................A‐13 A‐5 GradeLevelSitePlan.................................................................................................................................................A‐14 A‐6 TypicalLevelFloorPlan...........................................................................................................................................A‐15 A‐7a BuildingElevations.....................................................................................................................................................A‐16 A‐7b BuildingElevations.....................................................................................................................................................A‐17 A‐7c BuildingElevations.....................................................................................................................................................A‐18 A‐8 BuildingSections.........................................................................................................................................................A‐19 B‐1 View1:ExistingConditionsandVisualSimulationoftheProjectSitefromNorthAllen

Avenue...............................................................................................................................................................................B‐3 B‐2 View2:ExistingConditionsandVisualSimulationoftheProjectSitefromEastWalnut

Street..................................................................................................................................................................................B‐7 B‐3 NoiseMeasurementLocations...............................................................................................................................B‐69 B‐4 TrafficStudyArea........................................................................................................................................................B‐95 B‐5 ExistingStreetSystem...............................................................................................................................................B‐96 B‐6 ExistingPublicTransitRoutes............................................................................................................................B‐101 B‐7 LocationofRelatedProjectsProject Generated Traffic..............................................................................B‐107

List of Tables

Page

A‐1 ProjectDevelopmentSummary................................................................................................................................A‐9 A‐2 ProposedResidentialUnitSummary...................................................................................................................A‐10 A‐3 ProjectParkingSummary.........................................................................................................................................A‐11 B‐1 Project‐EstimateofConstructionEmissions(poundsperday)..............................................................B‐17 B‐2 Project‐RelatedOperationalEmissions(poundsperday)..........................................................................B‐19 B‐3 ExistingProjectSiteTreeInventory.....................................................................................................................B‐25

List of Tables (Continued)

Page

CityofPasadena AllenandWalnutTODProjectPCRServicesCorporation iii

B‐4 ConstructionGreenhouseGasEmissions...........................................................................................................B‐40 B‐5 ConstructionandOperationalGreenhouseGasEmissions.........................................................................B‐41 B‐6 CityofPasadenaGeneralPlanConsistency.......................................................................................................B‐59 B‐7 CityofPasadenaInteriorNoiseStandards........................................................................................................B‐66 B‐8 CityofPasadenaGuidelinesforNoiseCompatibleLandUse.....................................................................B‐68 B‐9 SummaryofAmbientNoiseMeasurements......................................................................................................B‐72 B‐10 EstimatesofOff‐SiteConstructionNoiseLevels(Leq)fromOn‐siteEquipment................................B‐73 B‐11 Off‐SiteTrafficNoiseImpacts.................................................................................................................................B‐75 B‐12 CityofPasadenaFireStationFacilities...............................................................................................................B‐82 B‐13 CityofPasadenaLibraryFacilities........................................................................................................................B‐85 B‐14 ExistingPasadenaParksandRecreationalFacilitiesNeartheProjectSite.........................................B‐88 B‐15 CityofPasadenaIntersectionImpactThresholdCriteria...........................................................................B‐97 B‐16 CityofPasadenaStreetSegmentImpactThresholdCriteria.....................................................................B‐98 B‐17 ExistingTransitRoutes..............................................................................................................................................B‐99 B‐18 BicycleRoutesNearProjectSite.........................................................................................................................B‐100 B‐19 ExistingTrafficVolumes.........................................................................................................................................B‐103 B‐20 RelatedProjectsListAndTripGeneration.....................................................................................................B‐105 B‐21 ProjectTripGeneration..........................................................................................................................................B‐109 B‐22 SummaryofVolumetoCapacityRatiosandLevelsofServiceA.M.andP.M.PeakHours............B‐111 B‐23 SummaryofStreetSegmentAnalysis...............................................................................................................B‐113 B‐24 ProjectParkingSummary......................................................................................................................................B‐119 B‐25 EstimatedWastewaterGeneration....................................................................................................................B‐122 B‐26 LandfillsUsedbyPasadena...................................................................................................................................B‐127 B‐27 ProjectedSolidWasteGeneratedDuringOperation..................................................................................B‐128

CityofPasadena AllenandWalnutTODProjectPCRServicesCorporation EC‐1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Projecttitle:AllenandWalnutTransit‐OrientedDevelopmentProject

2. Leadagencynameandaddress: CityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartment175NorthGarfieldAvenuePasadena,California91101‐1704

3. Contactpersonandphonenumber: DavidSinclair ‐ Planner(626)744‐6766

4. Project location: Theproject site is locatedat1727‐1787EastWalnutStreetand235NorthAllenAvenue,intheCityofPasadena,LosAngelesCounty,California. Regionalaccesstotheprojectsiteisprovidedvia theFoothillFreeway (“I‐210”),VenturaFreeway (“SR‐134”), andArroyoSecoParkway(“SR‐110”)locatedapproximately0.15milestothenorth,1.75milestothewest,and1.9milestothesouthwestoftheprojectsite,respectively.Theprojectsiteislocatedapproximatelyone‐quartermilesouthoftheAllenAvenueGoldLinelightrailstation(“AllenAvenueGoldLineStation”).LocalaccesstotheprojectsiteisprovidedbyNorthAllenAvenue,EastWalnutStreet,andMeridithAvenue.

Projectsponsor’snameandaddress: AMCALMulti‐Housing,Inc.30141AgouraRoad,Suite100AgouraHills,CA91301

6. Generalplandesignation:

Area1:GeneralCommercial;Area2:EastColoradoBoulevardSpecificPlanArea

7. Zoning:

Area1:Commercial,General;Area2:EastColoradoSpecificPlan,GoldLine‐CommercialGeneral

8. Descriptionofproject:(Describethewholeactioninvolved,includingbutnotlimitedtolaterphasesoftheproject,andanysecondary,support,oroff‐sitefeaturesnecessaryforitsimplementation.Attachadditionalsheetsifnecessary.)

TheProjectincludestheremovaloffourexistingon‐sitebuildingsandrelatedsurfaceparkingandtheconstruction of 128 multi‐family residential units (rental) and 5,000 square feet of ground floorcommercial/restaurant uses to be housed in two buildings, including one three‐level building(“westernbuilding”)onArea1andonefour‐levelbuilding(“easternbuilding”)onArea2.ThewesternbuildingonArea1wouldinclude15units,theleasingoffice,andcommunityroom,whiletheeasternbuilding on Area 2 would include 113 rental units and ground‐floor commercial/restaurant space.Residentialamenitieswouldincludeapoolandspa,communityroom/fitnessfacility,totlot,barbecuefacilities, and a self‐serve pet spa. Community open space amenities would include at‐gradelandscaped and hardscape open space, courtyards and gardens, the community room, rooftop viewdecks,andbalconiesonsomeunits.

Subject to project approval and issuance of grading, construction, and other permits, projectconstructionisanticipatedtocommencein2014andtakeapproximately18months.Excavationandshoringareexpectedtooccuroveranapproximately four‐monthperiodbeginning inMay2014andending inAugust2014. Buildingerection is expected tooccuroveraperiodof14monthsbetweenSeptember 2014 and October 2015. Based on the anticipated construction schedule, occupancy isanticipatedinOctober2015.

ItisanticipatedthatapprovalsrequiredfortheProjectwouldinclude,butmaynotbelimitedto,thefollowing:

Environmental Checklist October 2013


StreetVacationofMeridithAvenue:Toallowvacationof thenorthern terminusofMeridithAvenue,between EastWalnut Street and the northern boundary of the project site, to serve as the projectingress/egressdriveway;

ConditionalUsePermit:Requiredtodevelophousingaspartofamixed‐useprojectontheCG‐zonedArea1portionof theprojectsite(westofMeridithAvenue)perSection17.50.340,Transit‐OrientedDevelopment.of theZoningCode, since thisportionof theproject site is locatedwithinone‐quartermileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStation;and

DesignReview: Required as theProject exceeds5,000 square feet in size and is located alongEastWalnutStreet,aCity‐designatedMajorCorridor.

9. Surroundinglandusesandsetting:Brieflydescribetheproject’ssurroundings:

TheprojectsiteislocatedinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityandisgenerallysurroundedby amixofretail, commercial, and residential uses. Adjacent uses include automotive repair andmulti‐familyresidentialusestothenorth;acoffeeshop,self‐storage,andautomotiverepairtotheeast;fastfood,aglassshop,dentaloffice,antiqueshop,realestateoffice,andmulti‐familyresidentialusestothesouth;andastereoshopandautomotiverepairtothewest.

10. Otherpublicagencieswhoseapprovalisrequired(e.g.,permits,financingapproval,orparticipationagreement.)N/A.

PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY

The proposed Allen and Walnut TOD Project is analyzed in this Initial Study, in accordance with theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA),todetermineifapprovaloftheProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpact on the environment. This Initial Studyhasbeenpreparedpursuant to the requirements of CEQA,underPublicResources Code21000‐21177, of the State CEQAGuidelines (California Code ofRegulations,Title14,Division6,Chapter3,Sections15000‐15387)andundertheguidanceoftheCityofPasadena.TheCityofPasadena is theLeadAgencyunderCEQAand is responsible forpreparing the InitialStudy for theProject.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

Theenvironmentalfactorscheckedbelowwouldbepotentiallyaffectedbythisproject,involvingatleastoneimpactthatisa“PotentiallySignificantImpact”asindicatedbythechecklistonthefollowingpages.

Aesthetics GreenhouseGases Noise

AgriculturalResources GeologyandSoils PopulationandHousing

AirQuality HazardsandHazardousMaterials PublicServices

BiologicalResources HydrologyandWaterQuality Recreation

CulturalResources LandUseandPlanning Transportation/Traffic

Energy MineralResources UtilitiesandServiceSystems

MandatoryFindingsofSignificance

October 2013 Environmental Checklist


DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

Onthebasisofthisinitialevaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and aNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.

I findthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,therewillnotbeasignificanteffectinthiscasebecauserevisionsintheprojecthavebeenmadebyoragreedtobytheprojectproponent.AMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and anENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired.

IfindthatproposedprojectMAYhavea“potentiallysignificantimpact”or“potentiallysignificantunlessmitigated”impactontheenvironment,butatleastoneeffect1)hasbeenadequatelyanalyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegalstandards,and2)hasbeenaddressedbymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysisasdescribedonattachedsheets.AnENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired,butitmustanalyzeonlytheeffectsthatremaintobeaddressed.

Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,becauseallpotentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVEDECLARATIONpursuant toapplicablestandards,and(b)havebeenavoidedormitigatedpursuant to thatearlierEIRorNEGATIVEDECLARATION,includingrevisionsormitigationmeasuresthatareimposedupontheproposedproject,nothingfurtherisrequired.

PreparedBy Date ReviewedBy Date PrintedName PrintedNameNegativeDeclaration/MitigatedNegativeDeclarationadoptedon: DateAdoptionattestedtoby: Signature Date

Printedname



EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

The following CEQA Initial Study checklist provides an overviewof the potential impacts thatmay resultfromprojectimplementation.Additionalinformationconcerningeachoftheenvironmentalissueslistedinthechecklistalongwithjustificationforeachresponseisincludedinthediscussionfollowingthechecklistbelow(AttachmentB).Theimpactcolumnsheadingdefinitionsintheproceedingtableareasfollows:

a) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effectmaybesignificant. If thereareoneormore“PotentiallySignificant Impact”entrieswhenthedeterminationismade,anEIRisrequired.

b) “SignificantUnlessMitigation is Incorporated” applieswhere the incorporationofmitigationmeasures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less ThanSignificantImpact.”Themitigationmeasuresmustbedescribed,alongwithabriefexplanationofhowtheyreducetheeffecttoalessthansignificantlevel.

c) “LessThanSignificant Impact”applieswhere theproject createsnosignificant impacts,onlyLessThanSignificantimpacts.

d) “NoImpact”applieswhereaprojectdoesnotcreateanimpactinthatcategory.A“NoImpact”answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impactsimplydoesnotapplytoprojectsliketheoneproposed(e.g.,theprojectfallsoutsideofafaultrupturezone).A“NoImpact”answershouldbeexplainedwhereitisbasedonproject‐specificfactors aswell as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors topollutants,basedonaproject‐specificscreeninganalysis).



Issues: Potentially Significant Impact

Significant Unless

Mitigation is Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

1.AESTHETICS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?

b) Substantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?

c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?

d) Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarewhichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea?

2.AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRYRESOURCES – Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodeltouseinassessingimpactsonagricultureandfarmland.Wouldtheproject::

a) ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportance(Farmland),asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse,oraWilliamsonActcontract?

c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,forestland(asdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection1220(g)),timberland(asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodesection4526),ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction(asdefinedbyGovernmentCodeSection51104(g))?

d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

e) Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmland,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

3.AIRQUALITY–Whereavailable,thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?




Significant Unless



No Impact

b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallyto anexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?

c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnon‐attainmentunderanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionswhichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?

d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations?

e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?

4.BIOLOGICALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,regulationsorbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorUSFishandWildlifeService?

c) HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marsh,vernalpool,coastal,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

d) Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativenurserysites?

e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance?

f) ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservationPlan,NaturalCommunityConservationPlan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?

5.CULTURALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin§15064.5?

b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto§15064.5?




Significant Unless



No Impact

c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

6.ENERGY–Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithadoptedenergyconservationplans?

b) Useno‐renewableresourcesinawastefulandinefficientmanner?

7.GEOLOGYANDSOILS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineatedonthemostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecialPublication42.

ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking?

iii) Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?

c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject,andpotentiallyresultinon‐oroff‐sitelandslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?

d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable18‐1‐BoftheUniformBuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

e) Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

8.GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS–WouldtheProject:

a) Generategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment,basedonanyapplicablethresholdofsignificance?

b) Conflictwithanyapplicableplan,policyorregulationofan




Significant Unless



No Impact

agencyadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases?

9.HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?

b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?

c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithinone‐quartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?

d) BelocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

g) Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan?

h) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands?

10.HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY–Wouldtheproject:

a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements?

b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuchthattherewouldbeanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelwhichwouldnotsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?




Significant Unless



No Impact

c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerwhichwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationon‐oroff‐site?

d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealternationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultinfloodingon‐oroff‐site?

e) Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?

f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?

g) Placehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?

h) Placewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?

i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam?

j) Inundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow?

11.LANDUSEANDPLANNING–Wouldtheproject:

a) Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?

b) Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan,specificplan,localcoastalprogram,orzoningordinance)adoptedforthepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?

c) Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?

12.MINERALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethatwouldbeofvaluetotheregionandtheresidentsofthestate?

b) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocally‐importantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplanorotherlanduseplan?




Significant Unless



No Impact

13.NOISE–Wouldtheprojectresultin:

a) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofnoiselevelinexcessofstandardsestablishedinthelocalgeneralplanornoiseordinance,orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?

b) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?

c) Asubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

d) Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

14.POPULATIONANDHOUSING–Wouldtheproject:

a) Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinanarea,eitherdirectly(forexample,byproposingnewhomesandbusinesses)orindirectly(forexample,throughextensionofroadsorotherinfrastructure)?

b) Displacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

c) Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

15.PUBLICSERVICES

a) Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,theneedforneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts,inordertomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimesorotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthepublicservices:

Fireprotection? Policeprotection? Schools? Parks? Otherpublicfacilities?




Significant Unless



No Impact

16.RECREATION

a) Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?

b) Doestheprojectincluderecreationalfacilitiesorrequiretheconstructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhichmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?

17.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC–Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportationincludingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,includingbutnotlimitedtointersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit?

b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,levelofservicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasures,orotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?

c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?

f) Resultininadequateparkingcapacity?

g) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities??

18.UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS–Wouldtheproject:

a) ExceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard?

b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

c) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,the




Significant Unless



No Impact

constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsandresources,orareneworexpandedentitlementsneeded?

e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderwhichservesormayservetheprojectthatithasadequatecapacitytoservetheproject'sprojecteddemandinadditiontotheprovider'sexistingcommitments?

f) Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject'ssolidwastedisposalneeds?

g) Complywithfederal,state,andlocalstatutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?

XVIII.MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE

a) Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtodegradethequalityoftheenvironment,substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself‐sustaininglevels,threatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity,reducethenumberorrestricttherangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?

b) Doestheprojecthaveimpactsthatareindividuallylimited,butcumulativelyconsiderable?("Cumulativelyconsiderable"meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects)?

c) Doestheprojecthaveenvironmentaleffectswhichwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?

attachMent a: Project deScrIPtIon

CityofPasadena AllenandWalnutTODProjectPCRServicesCorporation A‐1

ATTACHMENT A – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. INTRODUCTION

TheProjectApplicant,AMCALEquities,LLC,proposes to construct theAllenandWalnutTransit‐OrientedDevelopment(TOD)Project(“Project”),whichwouldconsistofresidential,commercial,andrestaurantusesonanapproximately1.92‐acresite(approximately83,594grosssquarefeet)onthenorthwestcorneroftheintersection of North Allen Avenue and EastWalnut Street in the City of Pasadena (“City”). The Projectwould consist of up to 128 residential units, 5,000 square feet of commercial/restaurant space, and 203parkingspaces. TheProjectwouldalso includethevacationand incorporation into theProjectsiteof thenorthernterminusofMeridithAvenuebetweenEastWalnutStreetandthenorthernProjectsiteboundary,toprovidesiteaccess.TheProjectsiteencompassesfiveparcels,currentlyoccupiedbyvacantbuildings,andthenorthern terminus ofMeridithAvenue. Theparcel on thewest sideofMeridithAvenue (“Area1”) isdeveloped with facilities associated with the former Scientific Automotive Repair Garage (“formerautomotiverepairgarage”).ThefourparcelsontheeastsideofMeridithAvenue(collectively,“Area2”)aredevelopedwiththeformerDavisLumberCompanylumberyard(“formerlumberyard”).Allexistingon‐sitebuildingsandsurfaceparkingwouldberemovedtoaccommodatedevelopmentoftheProject.

B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES

The Project site is located at 1727‐1787 EastWalnut Street and 235 North Allen Avenue, in the City ofPasadena, Los Angeles County, California. Regional access to the Project site is provided via the FoothillFreeway(“I‐210”),VenturaFreeway(“SR‐134”),andArroyoSecoParkway(“SR‐110”)locatedapproximately0.15milestothenorth,1.75milestothewest,and1.9milestothesouthwestoftheProjectsite,respectively.The Project site is located approximately one‐quartermile south of the Allen Avenue Gold Line light railstation (“Allen Avenue Gold Line Station”). Local access to the Project site is provided by North AllenAvenue,EastWalnutStreet,andMeridithAvenue. FigureA‐1,RegionalLocationandProjectVicinityMap,depictstheProjectsiteinitsregionalandlocalcontext.

TheProject site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City and is generally surroundedby amix ofretail, commercial, and residential uses. Adjacent uses include automotive repair and multi‐familyresidentialusestothenorth;acoffeeshop,self‐storage,andautomotiverepairtotheeast;fastfood,aglassshop, dental office, antique shop, real estate office, andmulti‐family residential uses to the south; and astereoshopandautomotiverepair to thewest. FigureA‐2,AerialPhotographofProjectSite,providesanaerialviewoftheProjectsiteandsurroundingarea.

C. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

TheProjectsite’sArea1,onthewestsideofMeridithAvenue,isapproximately0.44‐acresandisdevelopedwith facilitiesassociatedwith the formerautomotiverepairgarage, includingasingle‐story,2,735square‐footautomotiverepairgarageconstructedin1960and20surfaceparkingstalls.Area2,ontheeastsideofMeridithAvenue, isapproximately1.48acresand isdevelopedwith threevacantbuildingsconstructed in1945andtotaling12,013squarefeet,and20surfaceparkingstalls.Theformerlumberyardbuildingswere

Attachment A – Project Description October 2013


used for production and storage of redwood lumber, basic building materials, and hand tools; custommilling;specialtymillwork;andlumbertakeoffs.1Theapproximately125‐footsegmentofMeridithAvenuebetweenArea1andArea2,whichiscurrentlypubliclyaccessible,ispavedandlinedwithsidewalksonbothsidesandaplanterstripontheeastsideadjacenttoArea2.

VehicularaccesstotheProjectsiteiscurrentlyprovidedbytwodrivewaysrespectivelyaccessingtheformerautomotiverepairgarageandtheformerlumberyardfromEastWalnutStreet. AccessisfurtherprovidedbydrivewaysaccessingbothpropertiesfromMeridithAvenue,andadrivewayaccessingtheformerlumberyardfromNorthAllenAvenue.FiguresA‐3aandA‐3b,ExistingSitePhotographs,provideviewsofexistingconditionson‐site(FigureA‐2illustratesthelocationanddirectionofthephotoscontainedinFiguresA‐3aandA‐3b).Photograph1providesanorth‐facingviewoftheterminusofMeridithAvenuewiththeformerlumberyardtotheeastandtheformerautomotiverepairgaragetothewest.Photographs2and3provideviews to the northeast and northwest, respectively, from East Walnut Street of the former lumberyard.Photograph 4 provides a viewwest fromNorth Allen Avenue of the former lumber yard. Photograph 5providesaviewtothenorthwestlookingtowardsthenorthernterminusofMeridithAvenueandtheformerautomotive repair garage and paved surface parking. Photograph 6 provides a view south of MeridithAvenuefromitsterminusatthenorthernProjectsiteboundary.Photographs7and8provideviewstotheeastandnorth,respectively,oftheformerlumberyardandassociatedpavedareasandsurfaceparking.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pasadena, CA 7.5 Minute Series TopographicQuadrangle,theProjectsiteisapproximately793feetabovemeansealevel.TheProjectsitegentlyslopestothe south with three to four feet of vertical relief across the property, and is approximately 98 percentimpervious.2StormwaterrunoffisdischargedfromtheProjectsiteviaoverlandsheetflowintotheguttersliningMeridithAvenue, EastWalnut Street, andNorthAllenAvenue. Flows enter stormdrain inlets to acatchbasinnearthe intersectionofNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetandareconveyedtoa60‐inchstormdrainbeneathNorthAllenAvenuethat ismaintainedbytheLosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrict.

VegetationontheProjectsiteislargelyconfinedtoon‐siteplanterstripsalongparcelperimetersandoff‐siteCity‐ownedparkwaysliningMeridithAvenueandNorthAllenAvenue.On‐sitevegetationconsistsofamixofmature treesofvaryingheightsand trunkdiameters. Please refer to Section4,BiologicalResources, inAttachmentB,foradescriptionoftheon‐andoff‐sitevegetation.

D. LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS

TheProjectsitecomprisestwoareas:Area1,thewesternarea,whichis0.44acres,andArea2,theeasternarea,whichis1.48acres.Area1iscurrentlydesignatedGeneralCommercialintheCityofPasadenaGeneralPlan(“GeneralPlan”).AccordingtotheGeneralPlan,theGeneralCommerciallandusedesignation“isanon‐specializedcommercialcategoryintendedtopermitabroadrangeofretailandservicebusinesses.”

1 DavisLumberCompanyWebsite,http://davislumberpasadena.com/m/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=53,

accessedAugust16,2013.2 PacificCoastCivil,Inc.,Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandum,July31,2013(refertoAppendixA).

Allen Avenue Gold Line Station

PROJECT SITE

^

PROJECT SITE

§̈¦210

§̈¦10

§̈¦5

UV134

FIGURE

Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0250500 Feet

Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Project

Regional Location and Project Vicinity Mapo A-1

! ! !

!

!

!!

!E. Walnut Street

N.

Alle

n A

venu

eLocust Street

N.

Sie

rra

Bo

nita

Ave

nue

N.

Bon

nie

Ave

nue

N.

Me

ridith

Ave

nue

N.

Par

kwoo

d A

ven

ue

E. Corson Street

E EE

E E E

E

E

CommercialMulti-Family

Single-Family and Multi-Family

Commercial

Commercial

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial CommercialCommercial Commercial

Commercial

Commercial

Allen Avenue Gold Line Station §̈¦210

Multi-Family Multi-FamilyMulti-Family

Multi-FamilyMulti-Family

8

76

5

4

321

! Photograph Location

Project Boundary


FIGURE

Source: Microsoft, 2010; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 250 500 Feet


Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Photograph Locationso A-2

Visual SimulationVantage Point

(East Walnut Street)

Visual SimulationVantage Point

(North Allen Avenue)

��

�� !��"��"��

��#� �� !��"��"��

��$�%�� !��"��"��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"��#��#��

��$�%��

��&� ��!��"��#��#��

��

��

��

��

October 2013 Attachment A – Project Description


Area 2 is designated Specific Plan by the City’s General Plan and is within the East Colorado BoulevardSpecific PlanArea (“East Colorado Specific Plan” or “Specific PlanArea”),which includesmost propertieswith East Colorado Boulevard frontage between Catalina Boulevard and Sycamore Avenue as well as allparcelswith frontageonNorthAllenAvenuebetweenColoradoBoulevardand theFoothillFreeway. TheSpecificPlanAreadenotes“areasthataretargetedforasignificantportionofprojectedfuturedevelopmentwhilepreserving and enhancing areasof historical architectural significance.” TheEastColoradoSpecificPlandesignation is intended to includeproperties inproximity to light rail transit stationswhereexistinglandusescanbemodifiedtocreateopportunitiesforresidentstolivenearemploymentandtransitcenters,tohelpalleviatecongestionandimprovethequalityofair.

In 1994, the General Plan allocated 750 housing units and 650,000 square feet on non‐residentialdevelopment to the East Colorado Specific Plan. As of April 29, 2013, the East Colorado Specific Planretained a General Plan allocation of 737 housing units and 243,322 square feet of non‐residentialdevelopmentpotential. The113rentalunitsand5,000squarefeetofgroundfloorcommercial/restaurantusesproposedontheSpecificPlanportionoftheProjectsitearewithintheseallocations,leavingtheSpecificPlanwith624housingunitsand238,322squarefeetofnon‐residentialspace.

Chapter17.31oftheEastColoradoSpecificPlan,Section17.31.020,PurposesofECSPZoningDistrictsoftheCity of PasadenaZoningCode (“ZoningCode”), states that, “thepurpose of theECSP zoningdistricts is toimplement the East Colorado Specific Plan by balancing and optimizing economic development, historicpreservation,andthemaintenanceoflocalcommunityculture”,andto:

Promoteavibrantmixoflanduses,aunifiedstreetscape,andaseriesofdistinctive‘places’alongtheBoulevard;

Improvetheappearance,function,andurbanambianceofEastColoradoBoulevard;

Identify areas of East Colorado Boulevard,which are appropriate locations for developingmixed‐useandhousingprojects,andareaswherecommercialdevelopmentshouldbeconcentrated;

Retain the eclecticmix of uses and protect the vitality of small, independent businesses. UpholdColoradoBoulevardasalocationforspecialtyandnicheretailbusinesses;

Beautify the streetscape though installation ofstreettrees,streetandmedianlandscapingto softentheurbanedge,andaconsistentselectionofurbanfurnishings;

Create a pedestrian‐friendly environment that balances the needs of pedestrians and vehiculartraffic,recognizingtheheavylocalandregionaluseofColoradoBoulevard;

Protecthistoric resourcesand honor the past of Colorado Boulevard and its surroundingcommunities throughsubarea identificationandremembranceofColoradoBoulevardasRoute66;and

EffectivelyplanfortheutilizationofthelightrailstationsatAllenAvenueandSierraMadreVillaatthe 210 Freeway through the establishment of special development standards in these light rail‘nodes’.”

Area1 is zonedCG‐1 (Commercial,General,hereafter “CGDistrict”) in theZoningCode. PerZoningCodeSection17.24.020,thepurposeoftheCGDistrictis“toprovideopportunitiesforthefullrangeofretailandservicebusinessesdeemedsuitableforlocationinPasadena.”BecauseArea1islocatedwithinone‐quarter



mileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStation,itissubjecttothedevelopmentstandardsestablishedintheTODsection of the Zoning Code. Per Zoning Code Section 17.50.340, Transit‐Oriented Development, TODstandardsareintendedto“provideforamixtureofcommercial,high‐densityresidential,mixed‐use,public,andsemi‐publicusesincloseproximitytolightrailstations,encouragingtransitusageinconjunctionwithasafe and pleasant pedestrian‐oriented environment.” These standards emphasize intensification ofdevelopmentandreducedrelianceonmotorvehiclesandapplytonewdevelopmentwithin1,320feet(one‐quartermile)ofa lightrailstationplatform. Section17.50.34alsostatesthatproposednewdevelopmentwithintheCGDistrictthatislocatedwithinone‐quarter‐mileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationshallbeconditionallypermittedandmustcontainaminimumof50dwellingunitsandamaximumallowabledensityof48unitsperacre. Withanareaof0.44acres,themaximumallowedresidentialdensityonArea1is21units.

The fourparcels comprising theProject’sArea2 are zonedECSP‐CG‐3 (“EastColoradoSpecificPlan,GoldLine‐Commercial,General”)intheZoningCode. Themaximumallowableresidentialdensityformixed‐useprojectswithintheEastColoradoSpecificPlanAreawithinone‐quartermileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationis60unitsperacre.Withanareaof1.48acres,themaximumpermittedresidentialdensityonArea2is89units.SimilartoArea1,Area2islocatedwithinone‐quartermileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationandissubjecttothedevelopmentstandardsintheTODsectionoftheZoningCode.

Atotalof110unitsarethereforepermittedunderexistingzoning.However,theProjectApplicantintendstoinvoke the Density Bonus provisions of the Zoning Code for affordable housing projects (Chapter 17.43,DensityBonus,Waivers,andIncentives),whichwouldpermituptoa33percentincreaseinthenumberofallowableresidentialunits.PleaserefertotheDevelopmentProgramsubsectionbelowforadescriptionoftheProject’sproposedresidentialunits.

E. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Development Program

The Project includes the removal of four existing on‐site buildings and related surface parking and theconstruction of 128 multi‐family residential units (rental) and 5,000 square feet of ground floorcommercial/restaurant uses to be housed in two buildings, including one three‐level building (“westernbuilding”)onArea1andonefour‐levelbuilding(“easternbuilding”)onArea2.Asdiscussedabove,atotalof110unitsarepermittedunderexistingzoning.However,theProjectApplicantintendstoinvoketheDensityBonusprovisionsoftheZoningCodeforaffordablehousingprojects(Chapter17.43,DensityBonus,Waivers,and Incentives), whichwould permit up to a 33 percent increase in the number of allowable residentialunits.TheProjectApplicantproposestoincreasetheoverallunitcountby21percentto128.Thewesternbuilding on Area 1 would include 15 units, the leasing office, and community room, while the easternbuildingonArea2wouldinclude113rentalunitsandground‐floorcommercial/restaurantspace.

Residential amenities would include a pool and spa, community room/fitness facility, tot lot, barbecuefacilities,andaself‐servepetspa.Communityopenspaceamenitieswouldincludeat‐gradelandscapedandhardscapeopenspace,courtyardsandgardens,thecommunityroom,rooftopviewdecks,andbalconiesonsome units. Table A‐1, Project Development Summary, summarizes the Project’s total proposed squarefootage. Total Project development would have a maximum floor‐area ratio (FAR) of 1.89. The EastColoradoSpecificPlanandCGDistrictallowamaximumFARof2.25and0.80,respectively.



Theresidentialunitmixwouldinclude21studios,64one‐bedroomunits,and43two‐bedroomunitsrangingin size from 565 square feet (studios) to 1,065 square feet (two‐bedroom units); refer to Table A‐2,ProposedResidentialUnitSummary. TheProjectwould includetenaffordableunits(twostudios, fiveone‐bedroom units, and three two‐bedroom units) to comply with the City’s inclusionary affordable unitrequirements.

All Project parking, including 203 parking stalls to serve Project residents, guests, andcommercial/restaurantemployeesandpatrons,wouldbelocatedon‐sitewithinasinglesubterraneanlevelandanat‐gradepodium level. The subterraneanparking levelwouldaccommodate134 residentparking

Table A‐1

Project Development Summary

Western Building (Area 1)

Multi‐FamilyResidential(Rental) 8,475squarefeet(15units)Commercial 0squarefeetRestaurant 0squarefeetCommunityRoom/FitnessFacility 4,000squarefeetCommunityOpenSpace(OutdoorSpace/ViewDecks/Pool/Spa/Self‐ServePetSpa)

10,300squarefeet

PrivateOpenSpace 900squarefeeta

Mechanical/ElectricalStorage 2,625squarefeetParking 0stalls

Eastern Building (Area 2)

Multi‐FamilyResidential(Rental) 87,875squarefeet(113units)Commercial 2,500squarefeetRestaurant 2,500squarefeetCommunityOpenSpace(OutdoorSpace/Courtyards/Gardens/ViewDecks)

16,200squarefeet

PrivateOpenSpace 6,780squarefeetaMechanical/ElectricalStorage 7,065squarefeetParking 203stalls

TOTAL PROJECT

Multi‐FamilyResidential(Rental) 96,350squarefeet(128units)Commercial 2,500squarefeetRestaurant 2,500squarefeetCommunityRoom/FitnessFacility 4,000squarefeetCommunityOpenSpace 26,500squarefeetPrivateOpenSpace 7,680squarefeetMechanical/ElectricalStorage 9,690squarefeetParking 203stalls

a 60 square feet of private open space (balcony) to be provided per residential unit. Source: Allen and Watson T.O.D. Conceptual Design Review, prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, August 8, 2013.



stalls. Theat‐gradepodiumlevelwouldaccommodate26residentandguestparkingstalls,43commercialandrestaurantparkingstalls,and27bicycleracksandstorage,aswellasamechanical/electricalroomandtrash collection facilities. The parkingmixwould include 153 standard stalls, 41 tandem stalls, and ninehandicap stalls. Project parking code requirements are summarized below inTableA‐3,ProjectParkingSummary. PerSection17.50.340oftheCityofPasadenaMunicipalCode(“MunicipalCode”), theProject issubject tomandatoryparkingreductions forTODprojects. Asshowntherein, theProjectwouldmeet theCity’sMunicipalCodeparkingrequirements.

Figure A‐4, Subterranean Parking Level, illustrates the subterranean parking level beneath the easternbuilding.FigureA‐5,GradeLevelSitePlan,illustratesthefirst(“at‐grade”)levelsfortheeasternandwesternbuildings.TheeasternbuildingwouldincludeeightresidentialunitsfacingEastWalnutStreet,ground‐floorcommercial and restaurant uses facing North Allen Avenue, and garden/courtyard open space includingfountainfeaturesandseating.Thefirstlevelwithinthewesternbuildingwouldincludetworesidentialunitsfacing East Walnut Street, the leasing office, the community room/fitness facility (approximately 4,000square feet), a pool and spa, self‐service pet spa, and community open space. The second levels wouldinclude 37 residential units and two courtyards within the eastern building and seven residential unitswithinthewesternbuilding;refertoFigureA‐6,TypicalLevelFloorPlan.Thethirdlevelwouldinclude34residentialunitsandaviewdeckwithintheeasternbuildingandsixresidentialunitsandaviewdeckwithin

Table A‐2

Proposed Residential Unit Summary

Floor Plan Description Quantity Area

(Square Feet) Total Area

(Square Feet)

WesternBuilding(Area1):1‐A Studio,1BA 15 565 8,475

Total: ‐ 15 ‐ 8,475EasternBuilding(Area2):

1‐B Studio,1BA 6 565 3,3902‐A 1BR,1BA 40 630 25,2002‐B 1BR,1BA 3 650 1,9502‐C 1BR,1BA 3 600 1,8003‐A 1BR,1BA 6 730 4,3803‐B 1BR,1BA 12 715 8,5804‐A 2BR,2BA 12 930 11,1604‐B 2BR,2BA 3 925 2.7755‐A 2BR,2BA 22 1,025 22,5505‐B 2BR,2BA 3 965 2,8955‐C 2BR,2BA 3 1,065 3,195

Total: ‐ 113 ‐ 87,875

ProjectTotal ‐ 128 ‐ 96,350 BR = bedroom; BA = bath. Source: Allen and Watson T.O.D. Conceptual Design Review, prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, August 8, 2013.



thewesternbuilding. The fourth levelwould include34residentialunitswithin theeasternbuilding. Alllevelswouldhavestairwayandelevatoraccess.

Operational Characteristics

Twocommercial/restaurantspacesof2,500squarefeeteach,totaling5,000squarefeetareproposedinthesoutheastcorneroftheProjectsitewithintheeasternbuilding,inArea2.OnespaceintendstohouseProjectandneighborhoodservingusessuchasprofessional,andbusinesssupport(i.e.,banksandfinancialservices,research and development) or retails uses. The remaining space is intended for restaurant use. Theplacement of commercial and restaurant uses at the intersection of East Walnut Street and North AllenAvenueismeanttoenliventhisintersectionandaccommodatepedestrianspassingtheProjectsiteonNorthAllenAvenueontheirwaytoandfromtheGoldLineStation,aswellaspedestriansonEastWalnutStreet.Thehoursofoperationforthecommercialandrestaurantuseswouldbebetween7:00AMand10:00PM.

Parking and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

Aspreviouslydiscussed,MeridithAvenuenorthofEastWalnutStreetwouldbevacatedand incorporatedinto the Project site. With the street vacation, access to the Project site would be provided via a singledrivewayfollowingthecurrentalignmentofMeridithAvenue.TheProjectdrivewaywouldprovideaccesstoboththesubterraneanandtheat‐gradeparkingstallsandaccommodatesfullaccesstoandfromEastWalnut

Table A‐3

Project Parking Summary

Parking Use Code Requirement Parking Spaces

Required Parking Spaces Provided

ResidentialPerPMU17.50.340.D.3.a:1.0spaceperunitunder650sq.ft.and1.5spaceperunitover650sq.ft.

160a 160

CommercialPerPMU17.46.040Table4‐6:3.0spacesper1,000sq.ft.ofoffice

8b

43Restaurant

PerPMU17.46.040Table4‐6:10spacesper1,000sq.ft.ofrestaurant

25c

TODPerPMU17.50.340.D.1.b:TODtenpercentreduction

‐3d

GuestPerPMU17.46.040Table4‐6:1spaceperevery10units

13e

TotalCommunityParking 203 203

a 64 residential units X 1.0 parking spaces = 64 parking spaces; 64 residential units X 1.5 parking spaces = 96 parking spaces. 64 parking spaces + 96 parking spaces = 160 parking spaces.

b 2,500 sq.ft. of commercial space/1,000 sq.ft. = 2.5 X 3 parking spaces = 7.5 parking spaces (rounded up to 8). c 2,500 sq.ft. of restaurant space/1,000 sq.ft. = 2.5 X 10 parking spaces = 25 parking spaces. d 8 commercial parking spaces + 25 restaurant spaces = 33 spaces X 10 percent = 3.3 parking spaces (rounded down to 3). e 128 residential units/10 parking spaces = 12.8 parking spaces (rounded up to 13). Source: Allen and Watson T.O.D. Conceptual Design Review, prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, dated August 8, 2013.



Street(i.e.,leftandrightturningmovementsforProjectsiteingressandegress);refertoFiguresA‐4andA‐5,previouslyreferenced.

Trashpick‐up truckswouldenterat theEastWalnutStreet (MeridithAvenue)drivewayentranceand thebinswouldbepulledtothetrashtruckswithasmallervehicleorbyhand.Withintheat‐gradelevelparkingstructure, adjacent to the commercial/restaurant space, a designated commercial/restaurant loading andunloadingdeliveryareawouldbeprovided.Similartotrashpick‐uptrucks,deliverytruckswouldenteratthe East Walnut Street (Meridith Avenue) entrance and proceed through the parking structure to thedesignatedloading/unloadingarea.Theloading/unloadingareaistenfeetby20feet,witha12‐footverticalclearance.Theparkingstructurewouldprovidea25‐footturningradiusallowingtrashpick‐uptrucksanddeliverytruckstoreversesafelyintothedesignatedarea.

Pedestrianaccesswouldbeprovided fromvariousat‐gradesidewalksalongEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue.Residentialaccesstoparkingwouldbeprovidedviastairsandelevator.Pedestrianaccesstoresidentialunitswouldberestrictedthroughtheuseofelectronicaccesscards.

Building Height and Design

Thewesternbuildingwouldbethreestoriesandamaximumof45feetinheightaboveadjacentgradeandtheeasternbuildingwouldbefourstoriesandamaximumheightof60feetaboveadjacentgrade(throughthe City’s Design Review process, these heightsmay bemodified butwould be limited to 45 feet for thewesternbuildingand60feetfortheeasternbuilding);refertoFigureA‐7a,BuildingElevationsandFigureA‐7b,BuildingElevations.ThebuildingswouldhavearticulatedfacadesfacingEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllen Avenue, including courtyards and other open space visible from East Walnut Street, and wouldincorporatevaryingrooflines,recessedbays,arches,colonnades,andvaryingverticalelements thatwouldbreakup the exterior façade and reduce visualmassing. Conceptual buildingdesignplans propose light‐colored stucco cladding, tile roofs, anda rangeof earth‐tonebuildingmaterials andpaint colors. Accentssuch as recessed tile elements, heavy timber trellises, profiled stucco‐encasedwindowsills, precast stonetrimandsurrounds,wroughtironorothermetalrailings,andenhancedvinylcasementwindowtrimwouldalso be incorporated throughout the exterior; refer to FigureA‐7c, Building Elevations and Figure A‐8,BuildingSections.

TheProjectissitedatthesoutheastcorneroftheProjectsitewithanemphasisgiventothecornerbuildingdesignwiththeincorporationoftheheavilyglazedground‐floorcommercialandrestaurantcomponent.Thearchitectural details/elements, articulated building base, stoop entry, canopy at the residential entry,courtyard/building breaks, and commercial and restaurant storefront reflect the scale of the street. TheProjectwouldbeconstructedwithinsulatedwallswithrecesseddual‐glazedwindows,canopies,andlargeoverhangsinthesouthernexposureofthebuildings.Duetothelackofexistingstylisticarchitecturaltrendswith adjacent uses (auto repair, collision, lubrication, muffler, parts/service/suppliers, and vacant retailspaces),theProjectproposesamoderninterpretationofMediterranean‐inspireddesign.TheProjectwouldcomplywiththeapplicabledesignguidelinesoftheCitywideDesignPrinciples&CriteriaintheGeneralPlan,theDesignGuidelines forNeighborhoodCommercial&Multi‐FamilyDistricts, and theEastColoradoSpecificPlanGuidelines.

P C R

FIGURESubterranean Parking LevelAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-4

Source: Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, 2013.

N

0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGUREGrade Level Site PlanAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-5


N

0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGURETypical Floor PlanAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-6


N

0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGUREBuilding Eleva onsAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-7a


0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGUREBuilding Eleva onsAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-7b


0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGUREBuilding Eleva onsAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-7c


0 80 Feet

P C R

FIGUREBuilding Sec onsAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan A-8


0 80 Feet



Thispageisintentionallyblank.



Open Space and Landscaping

TheProjectwouldincludeoutdooropenspaceareastoenhancetheresidentialandcommercial/restaurantenvironmentsandwouldmaintaintheexistingtreesonNorthAllenAvenueandwouldprovidenewstreettreesonEastWalnutStreet,toenhancethepedestrianexperienceonthoseroadways.Asmentionedabove,theProjectwouldincludeoutdoorlandscapedareas,courtyardsandgardens,fountainfeatureswithseating,outdoor furniture, view decks, a barbecue area, and a pool and spa, as well as private open space forresidentsintheformofbalconiesandcommunityrooms.Thepublicopenspaceareaslocatedbetweenthecommercial/restaurant and residential edges are intended to be used as pedestrian linkages to thecommunity. Identifiablemarkersthroughportalsorarcadeswouldbeprovidedtoserveas invitationsforpublicuse. LandscapingfortheProjectwouldbeprovidedinaccordancewithstandardCityrequirementsperChapter17.44,Landscaping,intheZoningCode.

TheProjectproposescomprehensivenewlandscapingthroughouttheinteriorareasoftheProjectsite(e.g.,plantersalongbuildingexteriorsandwithintheoutdoorcourtyardandgardenareas)andalongtheProjectsite’s EastWalnut Street andNorth Allen Avenue frontages. Decorative pavingwould be used on‐site toenhancethepedestrianenvironment. Projectlandscapingwouldadheretoadrought‐tolerantpalettewithvariousspeciesoftreesandanarrayofornamentalshrubs,vines,andgroundcovers.

TheProject site includes13 trees, eightwithin theProject site and five located in thepublic right‐of‐wayadjacent to thesite. Alleight treeson‐siteareproposedtoberemovedandthe fivestreet treesare toberetained.Oftheeighttreesproposedforremoval,onlyone,aSawleafZelkova,withatrunkdiameterofeightinches,isontheCity’slistofprotectedspecies.However,theminimumtrunksizeforprotectionis15inches;itthereforedoesnotqualityforprotectionunderChapter8.52,CityTreesandTreeProtectionOrdinance,ofthe Municipal Code. The remaining seven trees do not qualify for protection under the “mature tree”definitionastheyfallbelowthe19‐inchtrunkdiameterrequiredforpreservation.AspartoftheProject,theProjectApplicantwouldberequiredtoplantandmaintainontheEastWalnutStreetfrontage,foraperiodofthree years, amaximumofnine (9) officiallydesignated street trees in accordancewith theCity’smasterstreettreeplan(Chinesepistache,Pistaciachinensis).Anyothertreesgreaterthan8inchesindiametertoberemovedwouldrequirereplacementinkind.

Lighting and Signage

Proposed outdoor lighting on the Project site would consist of wall‐mounted building security lighting;lightingatbuildingentrances;lightingofthecourtyard,gardenandeasternbuildinglobbyentranceonEastWalnut Street; illuminated bollards along pedestrian walkways; lighting of the pool, spa, tot lot, andbarbecueareainthenorthwestcorneroftheProjectsitetotherearofthewesternbuilding;anddecorativeuplightinginlandscapedareas.Pedestrianareaswouldbewell‐litforsecurity.Somenighttimeilluminationoflightedresidentialunitswouldalsobevisiblefromoff‐site.

The Project would also include illuminated signage used for building identification andcommercial/restaurant tenant advertising/branding. Signage would be designed and located to becompatible with the architecture and landscaping of the Project. The proposed light sources would beshieldedanddirectedon‐site toprecludethenighttime illumination fromspillingoverontoadjacentuses.AlllightingandsignagewouldconformtoapplicableCitystandardscontainedinChapter13.08,EnergyUseConservationandChapter17.48,Signs,oftheMunicipalCode.Furthermore,compliancewithCityandState



energy conservation measures currently in place would limit the amount of unnecessary interiorilluminationduringeveningandnighttimehours.

Withrespecttoglare,theProjectisnotexpectedtocreateunusualorisolatedglareimpacts.Theproposedbuildingswould primarily consist of light sand stucco cladding, flat cement tile roofs, low‐reflective glassvinyl casedwindows, earth‐tone buildingmaterials and paint colorswith other low reflectivity buildingmaterials.Theuseofneonorglare‐generatingmaterialsarenotproposed.

Security

TheProjectwouldincludethepresenceofafull‐timeon‐sitemanagerduringProjectoperationtoensurethesafetyofitsresidentsandsitevisitors.Theon‐sitemanagerwouldmonitorentrancesandexitsofbuildings;manage and monitor fire/life/safety systems; and patrol the property. The buildings would includecontrolledaccesstotheparkinggarageandthecommunityroom/fitnessfacilitybytheissuanceofelectronicaccesscards.Accesstocommercialandrestaurantuseswouldbeunrestrictedduringbusinesshours,withpublicaccessdiscontinuedafterbusinesseshaveclosed.Projectdesignalsoincludesfeaturestoenhancesitesecurity includingsuch itemsas lightingofentry‐waysandpublicareas,nighttimesecurity lighting,videosurveillance,andlocksandalarmsonthecommercialandrestaurantuses.

F. CONSTRUCTION

Construction Activities and Staging

Projectimplementationwouldinvolvethedemolitionofthefourexistingon‐sitebuildingsandpavedareasandremovalofexistingvegetationincludingon‐sitetreesandexistinginfrastructureincludingthreeexistingon‐site power poles. Project construction would include shoring and excavation for the subterraneanparking structure and site grading for building erection. Permanent dewatering systems would not beanticipatedduringProjectconstructionashistoricalgroundwaterlevelsexceed100feet.Ifgroundwaterisencountered, the Project Applicant would obtain the necessary permits from the City. Temporarydewatering may be needed during Project construction prior to installation and testing of a permanentstormwatersystem.

Heavy equipment (i.e. excavators, trucks, drilling rigs, cement trucks, backhoes, and front‐end loaders) isanticipated to be used during initial Project construction. Beyond initial construction, anticipatedstandardizedequipmenttobeusedincludesforklifts,hammers,andtrucksdelivering lumberandbuildingmaterials. The anticipated primary truck haul route would be along North Allen Street to the FoothillFreewayviatheLakeAvenueorSierraMadreBoulevardramps.

Construction ingress/egress for theProjectsitewouldbeonEastWalnutStreet. While it is intendedthatconstructionparkingwouldbeon‐siteduringthemajorityofconstructionactivities, itwouldbenecessaryduringsomephasesofProjectconstructionforworkerstoparkoff‐siteatnearbyparkingfacilities.Insuchcases,itisanticipatedthattheProjectApplicantwouldrentspacesforconstructionworkerswithinavailablenearbyparkinglots,atalocationtobedetermined. TheProjectApplicantanticipatesintermittentparkingand/ortrafficlaneclosuresprimarilyalongEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenStreetduringCity‐approvedconstruction hours. The Project Contractor would be required to obtain permission for limited streetparkingadjacenttothesiteduringconstructionworkhoursonly,ifnecessary.PertheCity’sMunicipalCode



Section 9.36.070, Construction Projects, Project construction work and the operation of constructionequipmentareonlypermittedtotakeplaceonlyMondaythroughFriday,7:00AMto7:00PM,andSaturday,8:00AMto5:00PM.ConstructionisprohibitedonSundaysandfederalholidays.

Construction Schedule

SubjecttoProjectapprovalandissuanceofgrading,construction,andotherpermits,Projectconstructionisanticipatedtocommencein2014andtakeapproximately18months.Excavationandshoringareexpectedto occur over an approximately four‐month period beginning in May 2014 and ending in August 2014.Building erection is expected to occurover aperiodof 14monthsbetweenSeptember2014andOctober2015.Basedontheanticipatedconstructionschedule,occupancyisanticipatedinOctober2015.

G. NECESSARY APPROVALS

It is anticipated that approvals required for the Project would include, but may not be limited to, thefollowing:

StreetVacationofMeridithAvenue:ToallowvacationofthenorthernterminusofMeridithAvenue,betweenEastWalnut Street and thenorthernboundaryof theProject site, to serveas theProjectingress/egressdriveway;

ConditionalUsePermit:Requiredtodevelophousingaspartofamixed‐useprojectontheCG‐zonedArea1portionoftheProjectsite(westofMeridithAvenue)perSection17.50.340,Transit‐OrientedDevelopment.oftheZoningCode,sincethisportionoftheProjectsiteislocatedwithinone‐quartermileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStation;and

DesignReview: RequiredastheProjectexceeds5,000squarefeetinsizeandis locatedalongEastWalnutStreet,aCity‐designatedMajorCorridor.

attachMent B: exPlanatIon of checklISt deterMInatIonS

CityofPasadena AllenandWalnutTODProjectPCRServicesCorporation B‐1

ATTACHMENT B: EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS

1. AESTHETICS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

PotentiallySignificantImpact

SignificantUnless

MitigationisIncorporated

LessThanSignificantImpact

NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.Ascenicvistagenerallyprovidesfocalviewsofobjects,settings,orfeaturesofvisualinterest,orpanoramicviewsoflargegeographicareasofscenicquality,fromafixedvantagepointor linear corridor such as a roadway or trail. Scenic vistas are generally associatedwith public vantagepoints.AsignificantimpactmayoccurifaProjectintroducesincompatiblevisualelementswithinafieldofviewcontainingascenicvista,orsubstantiallyaltersaviewofascenicvistathroughremovalofimportantvisualelements.

TheCityofPasadena(“City”)islocatedonabroad,slopingalluvialplainabuttingtheSanGabrielMountainstothenorth.TheSanRafaelHillsborderthenorthernpartoftheCitytothewest.TheArroyoSecocrossesfromnorthtosouththroughthewesternportionoftheCity,eastoftheSanRafaelHills.TheProjectsiteislocated on the northwest corner of the intersection of North Allen Avenue and East Walnut Street,approximately0.15miles southof theFoothill Freeway (“I‐210”) andone‐quartermile southof theAllenAvenueGoldLinelightrailstation(“AllenAvenueGoldLineStation”).FigureA‐1depictstheProjectsiteinitsregionalandlocalcontexts.

TheProject site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City and is generally surroundedby amix ofretail, commercial, and residential uses with minimal landscaping and generally lacking in architecturaldistinction.Adjacentusesincludeautomotiverepairandmulti‐familyresidentialusestothenorth;acoffeeshop,self‐storage,andautomotiverepairtotheeast;fastfood,aglassshop,dentaloffice,antiqueshop,realestateoffice,andmulti‐familyresidentialusestothesouth;andastereoshopandautomotiverepairtothewest. The buildings housing these uses are characterized by an eclectic variety of architectural styles,materials, and/or color, but generally do not display a coherent architectural theme or aesthetic orconstitutevaluedvisual resources. Thereare,however, limitedviewsof theSanGabrielMountains to thenorth,partiallyobstructedbyinterveningdevelopment,trees,andtheelevatedI‐210Freeway. FigureA‐2providesanaerialviewoftheProjectsiteandsurroundingarea.

The Project site is relatively flat and slopes gently to the south. There are no hills, waterways, or othernatural features on‐site. Vegetation on‐site is largely confined to on‐site planter strips along parcelperimetersandoff‐siteCityparkwaysliningMeridithAvenue,whichbisectstheProjectsite,andNorthAllenAvenue. On‐sitevegetationconsistsofamixofmaturetreesofvaryingheightsandtrunkdiameters. TheportionoftheProjectsiteonthewestsideofMeridithAvenue(“Area1”, labeledasLot1inFigureA‐5)is

Attachment B: Explanation Of Checklist Determinations October 2013


developed with facilities associated with the former Scientific Automotive Repair Garage (“formerautomotive repair garage”), including a single‐story 2,735 square‐foot automotive repair garage and 20surfaceparkingstalls.TheportionoftheProjectsiteontheeastsideofMeridithAvenue,whichcomprisesfourseparateassessedparcels(collectively,“Area2”,labeledasLot2inFigureA‐5),isdevelopedwiththeformerDavisLumberCompanylumberyard(“formerlumberyard”)whichincludesthreevacantbuildingstotaling12,013squarefeetand20surfaceparkingstalls.Theapproximately125‐footsegmentofMeridithAvenue between Area 1 and Area 2 is paved and linedwith sidewalks on both sides and a planter stripborderingArea2.FiguresA‐3aandA‐3b,ExistingSitePhotographs,provideviewsofexistingconditionsontheProjectsite(FigureA‐2illustratesthelocationanddirectionofthephotoscontainedinFiguresA‐3aandA‐3b). Photograph 1 provides a north‐facing view of the terminus of Meridith Avenue with the formerlumberyardtotheeastandtheformerautomotiverepairgaragetothewest.Photographs2and3provideviews to the northeast and northwest, respectively, from East Walnut Street of the former lumberyard.Photograph 4 provides a viewwest fromNorth Allen Avenue of the former lumber yard. Photograph 5providesaviewtothenorthwestlookingtowardsthenorthernterminusofMeridithAvenueandtheformerautomotive repair garage and paved surface parking. Photograph 6 provides a view south of MeridithAvenuefromitsterminusatthenorthernProjectsiteboundary.Photographs7and8provideviewstotheeast and north, respectively, of the former lumber yard and associated paved areas and surface parking.Thus, views of the site from off‐site vantage points in the Project vicinity are not considered valuedresources.

TheProjectproposestheremovalofthefourexistingon‐sitebuildingsandrelatedsurfaceparkingonAreas1and2andtheconstructionof128multi‐familyresidentialunits(rental)and5,000squarefeetofgroundfloorcommercial/restaurantusestobehousedintwobuildings,includingonethree‐levelbuilding(“westernbuilding”)onArea1andonefour‐levelbuilding(“easternbuilding”)onArea2;refertoFiguresA‐5andA‐6.PhotosoftheexistingProjectsiteandvisualsimulationsofproposeddevelopmentfromtwooff‐sitevantagepointsareprovidedinFigureB‐1andFigureB‐2andarediscussedbelow.

Short‐termaestheticimpactsassociatedwithconstructionactivities,suchasthestorageofequipment(e.g.,smallcranes,pickuptrucks)andstockpiledmaterials,andthepresenceofconstructionfencingsurroundingactiveconstructionsites,wouldbevisibleoff‐site.Constructionactivitieswouldnotconstituteasignificantaestheticimpact,sincetheywouldbeshort‐term(approximately18monthsinduration)andlimitedtotheProjectsite,andwouldnotobstructanyscenicviews.

FigureB‐1, View1:ExistingConditionsandVisual Simulation of theProject Site fromNorthAllenAvenue,depictsmotorists’futureviewoftheProjectsite’sArea2fromavantagepointjustsouthoftheintersectionofNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreet(seeView1vantagepointlocationinFigureA‐2).Asshowntherein, the San GabrielMountains in the distance aremost clearly visible along the North Allen Avenueroadway alignment, which continues north of Walnut Street toward the mountain front, largelyuninterruptedexceptfortheI‐210overpass. WhileaglimpseoftheuppertheSanGabrielMountainsandskylineisvisiblebeyondtheProjectsite,thisviewislargelyobstructedbyon‐sitebuildings,above‐groundutilities (i.e., electrical power poles and electrical lines), streetlights, and off‐site trees. In general, long‐range, panoramic views that could be characterized as scenic vistas are generally not available from thisvantage,andbyextension,theimmediateProjectvicinity.

FIGUREExis ng Condi ons and Visual Simula on of the Project Site from North Allen Avenue

B-1Source: Vision Scape Imagery, 2013.

P C R

Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan

Existing View

Proposed View

October 2013 Attachment B: Explanation Of Checklist Determinations


As shown in the Proposed View, this vantage would offer short‐range views of the ground‐floorcommercial/restaurantcomponentandupperlevelsoftheresidentialuseswithintheeasternbuilding.Theproposedeasternbuildingwouldbefourstorieswithamaximumheightof60feetpertheheightrestrictionsof the ECSP‐CG‐3 zoning designation (East Colorado Specific Plan, Gold Line‐Commercial, General) of theZoning Code. Through the City’s Design Review process, these heights may be modified, but would belimitedto60feet.Theproposedeasternbuildingwouldthereforebetallerthantheexisting12‐and30‐footbuildings on‐site within Area 2 and would therefore obstruct views of the mountains in the distance.However, distant mountain views beyond the Project site are already largely obstructed under existingconditionsandwouldneverthelessremainvisibletomotoristandpedestrianslookingnorthonNorthAllenAvenue. Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact north‐facing views of the San GabrielMountainsfromAllenAvenue.

FigureB‐2,View2: ExistingConditionsandVisual Simulationof theProject Site fromEastWalnut Street,depicts eastbound motorists’ future views of the Project site’s Area 2 from a vantage point near theintersectionofEastWalnutStreetandMeridithAvenue(seeView2vantagepoint location inFigureA‐2).Existingon‐sitebuildings, infrastructure, andoff‐site treesalmost entirelyblock long‐rangeviewsbeyondtheProjectsiteoftheSanGabrielMountains.

As shown in the Proposed View, this vantage would provide short‐range views of the eastern building‘sfrontageonEastWalnutStreet.Althoughnotshowninthisview,theproposedwesternbuildingonArea2oftheProjectsitewouldbethreestorieswithamaximumheightof45feetpertheheightrestrictionsoftheCG(Commercial, General, hereafter “CGDistrict”) zoningdesignation of the ZoningCode. Through theCity’sDesignReviewprocess,theseheightsmaybemodified,butwouldbelimitedto45feet.Whilethewesternbuilding would therefore be taller than the existing 20‐foot former automotive repair garage on Area 1,viewsofSanGabrielMountains ridgelines,whicharealready limited,wouldnotbe substantiallydifferentcomparedtoexistingconditions.

As discussed above, the proposed new buildingswould be taller than the existing buildings on‐site. TheproposedbuildingswouldhavearticulatedfacadesfacingEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue,withcourtyards/gardens,fountainfeatureswithseating,barbequeareasandotheropenspacevisiblefromEastWalnutStreet,andwouldincorporatesuchfeaturesasvaryingrooflines,recessedbays,arches,colonnades,andvaryingverticalelementsthatwouldservetobreakuptheexteriorfaçadeandreducevisualmassing.Conceptualbuildingdesignplanspropose light, sand‐colored stucco cladding, flat cement tile roofs, andarangeofearth‐tonebuildingmaterialsandpaintcolors.Accentssuchasrecessedtileelements,heavytimbertrellises, profiled stucco‐encased window sills, precast stone trim and surrounds, wrought iron or othermetal railings, and enhanced vinyl casement window trim would also be incorporated throughout theexterior; refer to Figures A‐7a, A‐7b, A‐7c, and A‐8. Furthermore, the driveway access proposed at thelocationoftheMeridithAvenuealignmentontheProjectsitewouldcreateabreakinthebuildingmass.

TheProjectissitedatthesoutheastcorneroftheProjectsitewithemphasisgiventothebuilding’scornertreatmentthroughtheincorporationofheavilyglazedground‐floorcommercialandrestaurantspaces.Thearchitecturaldetails/elements,articulatedbuildingbase,stoopentry,canopyoverthebuilding’sresidentialentry, courtyard/building breaks, and commercial and restaurant storefront are intended to respect thescale of the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. The Project would be constructed withinsulated walls with recessed dual‐glazed windows, canopies, and large overhangs along the building’ssouthernexposure. TheProjectproposesamoderninterpretationofMediterranean‐inspiredarchitectural



design;aspreviouslynoted,thereisnoparticularprominentorcoherentarchitecturalthemeembodiedintheotherbuildingsintheProjectvicinity,whicharestylisticallyeclectic.

TheProjectwouldincludeoutdooropenspaceareastoenhancetheresidentialandcommercial/restaurantenvironments andwouldmaintain the existing trees on North Allen Avenue andwould plant new streettrees on EastWalnut Street to enhance the pedestrian experience on those roadways. The public openspaces between the commercial/restaurant and residential edges are intended to be accessible to retailpatrons and pedestrians. Identifiablemarkers through portals or arcadeswould be provided to indicatepublicuse. LandscapingfortheProjectwouldbeprovidedinaccordancewithstandardCityrequirementsperChapter17.44,Landscaping,intheZoningCode.

As discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with the GeneralCommercial and East Colorado Specific Plan land use designations for the Project site. In addition, theProjectuseispermittedundertheexistingzoningdesignationofECSP‐CG‐3andconditionallypermittedinthe CG, andwould complywith the development standards established in Chapter 17.50.160, Mixed‐UseProjects, and Chapter 17.50.340, TOD, of the Zoning Code. The Project’s design constitutes amixed‐use,transient‐orienteddevelopment that is compatiblewith theexistingdiverseuses in theProjectarea. TheProject’sdesignwouldenhancethepedestrianenvironmentthroughitscornertreatment,whichunifiestheProjectsite’sfrontagesonEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue.

Asdescribedabove,theavailableviewsofandacrosstheProjectsitearenotconsidereduniquescenicvistasanddonotcontainvaluedvisualresources. WhiletheviewsoftheProjectsitefromtheabove‐mentionedvantage points would be altered, scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains would not be substantiallydiminished compared to existing conditions. The Project’s use of varying footprints, vertical elements,accent features and varying roof lines would serve to break up the scale and massing of the proposedbuildingsandwouldcreatetheappearanceofacollectionofseparatebuildings,ratherthanasinglemassivedevelopment. The Project would comply with the applicable design guidelines of the Citywide DesignPrinciples&Criteria intheGeneralPlan,theDesignGuidelinesforNeighborhoodCommercial&Multi‐FamilyDistricts, and the East Colorado Specific Plan Guidelines. Further, in accordance with Chapter 17.61.030,DesignReview,oftheZoningCode,theProject’sdesign,includingitsobstructionofanyscenicvistaorview,would be reviewed by the Design Commission. Therefore, impacts to views from the above‐mentionedvantagepointsandothersimilarvantagepointsintheProjectvicinitywouldbelessthansignificant.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,

and historic buildings within a city‐designated scenic highway?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThan Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 0.15 miles south of the I‐210corridor,whichwasidentifiedinthe1987EnvironmentalQualityElementoftheCity’sGeneralPlanasaLosAngelesCountyRecommendedScenicHighway.TheProjectislocatedapproximately6.25milessoutheastof

FIGUREExis ng Condi ons and Visual Simula on of the Project Site from East Walnut Street

B-2Source: Vision Scape Imagery, 2013.

P C R

Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan

Existing View

Proposed View



theAngelesCrestHighway(StateHighway2),which isadesignatedStatescenichighwayintheCity. TheProject site isnotwithin theviewshedof the I‐210or StateHighway2and isnot located along a scenicroadwaycorridorasidentifiedintheGeneralPlan.Therefore,theProjectwouldhavenoimpactstoStateorCity‐designatedscenichighways.

Project implementation would include the removal of four existing on‐site buildings and related surfaceparking.Theon‐sitebuildingsandstructuresweredeterminedbytheCitynottobeindividuallyeligibleforhistoric designation, nor are they contributors to a historic district.1 Further, these buildings are notconsidered historic resources per Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which defines historicresourcesasthoselistedoreligiblefor listingontheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources, listedinalocal register, or otherwise deemed historically significant to the architectural or other cultural annals ofCalifornia, based on the lead agency’s determination and supported by substantial evidence. Thus, theProjectwouldhavenoimpactonhistoricresources.

No scenic rock outcroppings are present on the Project site or in the surrounding area. Arbor EssenceconductedaTreeReport(“TreeReport”),providedinAppendixC,whichincludedtheresultsofatreesurveyconductedon theProject site in January2013 (refer to Section4,BiologicalResources). According to theTree Report, there are 13 trees on and adjacent to the Project site. Eight trees on the Project site areproposedforremoval,andfivetreeslocatedinthepublicright‐of‐wayadjacenttotheProjectsitearetoberetained.Oftheeighttreesproposedforremoval,onlyone,asawleafzelkova,withatrunkdiameterofeightinches,isontheCity’slistofprotectedtreespecies,asstatedinChapter8.52,CityTreesandTreeProtectionOrdinance,oftheMunicipalCode.However,tobeaffordedprotection,specimensofprotectedtreespeciesmustbedefinedasaminimumof15inchesindiameteratbreastheight(“dbh”),andthereforethezelkovaspecimen treedoesnotqualify. Theremainingsevenon‐site treesdonotqualifyasprotected treesorasmaturetrees,aCitydesignationintendedtoprotecttreesgreaterthan19inchesdbh.AspartoftheProject,the Project Applicantwould be required to plant andmaintain on the EastWalnut Street frontage, for aperiodofthreeyears,amaximumofnine(9)officiallydesignatedstreettreesinaccordancewiththeCity’smaster street tree plan (Chinese pistache, Pistacia chinensis). Newmature trees and landscaping on theperimeter of the Project site would be planted to enhance the aesthetic quality of the site and wouldcomplementtheexistinglandscapingwithintheProjectvicinity.

Based on the above, Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources or otherlocallyrecognizeddesirableaestheticnaturalfeatureswithinaCity‐designatedscenichighwayandlessthansignificantimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

1 CityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PredevelopmentPlanReviewComments,DesignandHistoric

PreservationComments,datedFebruary14,2013.



LessThanSignificantImpact. TheProjectisintendedtobeamixed‐use,transient‐orienteddevelopmentthatiscompatiblewithexistinglandusesintheProjectarea.TheProjectsiteislocatedinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityandisgenerallysurroundedbyamixofretail,commercial,andresidentialuses.LandusesfrontingonEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenuegenerally lackdistinctivearchitecturalelementsorsubstantial landscaping. The Project design concept is intended to unify the development’s North AllenAvenue frontage,which faces the pedestrian corridor between the Allen Avenue Gold Line Station to thenorth and Pasadena City College to the south, and East Walnut Street through the placement ofcommercial/restaurant uses that would serve as anchors, while providing pedestrian‐scaled arcades andpatios andglazing to allowviews into interior spaces. Thedesign includesground floor retail uses alongNorthAllenAvenue,includingcourtyardsfrontingAllenthatwouldserveasactivespacesaswellasinvitingpassages.

Asdiscussed inResponse1.a, thebuildingswould incorporatesuchfeaturesasvaryingrooflines,recessedbays,arches,colonnades,andvaryingverticalelementsthatwouldbreakuptheexteriorfaçadeandreducevisualmassing. Conceptual building design plans propose light‐colored stucco cladding, tile roofs, and arange of earth‐tone building materials and paint colors. The architectural details/elements, articulatedbuildingbase,stoopentry,canopyattheresidentialentry,courtyard/buildingbreaks,andcommercialandrestaurantstorefrontareintendedtoreflectthelow‐risescaleofexistingdevelopmentonWalnutandAllenintheProjectarea. TheProjectissubjecttothePasadenaPublicArtProgram,whichrequiresat leastonepercent of the building valuation costs be allocated by the Project Applicant to incorporate a public artcomponent into Project design. Signage would be integrated into the architecture of the buildings andoutdoorlightingwouldbelimitedpertheCity’sstandards.AllProjectparking,including203parkingstallstoserveProjectresidents,guests,andcommercial/restaurantemployeesandpatrons,wouldbelocatedon‐sitewithina single subterranean level andanat‐gradepodium level. Parking in the subterraneangaragewouldnotbevisibleandparkingat‐gradewouldbeentirelyshieldedbythebuilding’sexteriorwalls.

Shadingofsensitiveuses,suchasroutinelyusableoutdoorspacesassociatedwithresidential,recreational,orinstitutional(e.g.,schools,convalescenthomes)landuses,canbeconsideredasignificantimpactbecausesunlight is important to function and physical comfort. Shade‐sensitive uses in the Project vicinity arelimited to the existing single‐ andmulti‐family residential uses along Locust Street, north of thewesternportion(Area1)oftheProjectsite.TheeasternportionoftheProjectsite(Area2)abutscommercialusesalongmostofthenorthernpropertyline,eastofMeridithAvenue.TheProject’swesternbuilding,closesttoresidentialusestothenorth,wouldbeamaximumofthreestoriesand45feetabovegrade,andthebuildingsetbackfromthenorthernpropertylinewouldbemaximized(i.e.,40feetcomparedtotherequiredfive‐footminimum)bysitingon‐sitecommunalopenspaceincludingapoolandspainthenorthwesternportionoftheProjectsite.ThetallestProjectbuildingcomponents,uptofourstoriesand60feetaboveadjacentgrade,would be sited in the eastern, less sensitive portion of the Project site (Area 2) with respect to off‐siteshading,witha15’3”setbackfromthenorthernpropertyline(i.e.,10feetmorethantherequiredfive‐footminimumsetback). The direction,orbearings,ofbuildingshadowsinLosAngeles(i.e.,approximately34degreeslatitude)variesseasonally,rangingfrom85degreestotheeastandwestduringasummersolstice,whenshadowsareshortest,to45degreeseastandwestatthewintersolstice,whenshadowsarelongest.ThemaximumbuildingshadowlengthduringtheyearinLosAngelesis3.3timestheheightofthebuilding.Hence,a45‐footbuildingwillcastamaximumshadowofapproximately148.5 feetanda60‐footbuildingwillcastamaximumshadowof198feet.



Because of incorporation of building setbacks from the northern property line that exceed theminimumrequirement,andthepresenceofcommercialusesnorthofArea2,Projectbuildingswouldnotcastshadowsonoff‐siteshade‐sensitivelandusesforlengthyperiodsoftime(i.e.,3hoursormore).

TheProjectwouldcomplywiththeapplicabledesignguidelinesoftheCitywideDesignPrinciples&CriteriaintheGeneralPlan, theDesignGuidelines forNeighborhoodCommercial&Multi‐FamilyDistricts,andtheEastColoradoSpecificPlanGuidelines.Further,asrequiredSection17.61.030,DesignReview,oftheZoningCode,thedesignoftheProjectwouldbereviewedandapprovedbytheDesignCommission.Basedontheabove,the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and itssurroundings,andrelatedimpactsonaestheticswouldthereforebelessthansignificant.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.Althoughpresumablylightedduringatleastsomeeveninghoursinthepast,the Project site is presently vacant and therefore not lighted at night, except for a minimal amount ofbuildingandsecurity lighting,andexistingstreet lightsalongEastWalnutStreet,NorthAllenAvenue,andMeridith Avenue. The Project vicinity is characterized by relatively high ambient nighttime illuminationlevelsas theresultof thedenselydeveloped,predominantlycommercialnatureofEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue,especiallyattheintersectionofthetworoadways.ArtificiallightsourcesintheProjectvicinityincludeinteriorandexteriorbuildinglighting,surfaceparkinglotlightstandards,somearchitecturalhighlighting,incidentallandscapelighting,andilluminatedsignage.Automobileheadlights,streetlights,andtrafficsignalscontributetooverallambientlightinglevelsaswell.

The Project would introduce new low to moderate levels of interior and exterior lighting for security,wayfinding, and architectural and landscape highlighting. Proposed outdoor lighting on the Project sitewould consist of wall‐mounted building security lighting; lighting at building entrances; lighting of thecourtyard, garden, and eastern building lobby entrance on EastWalnut Street; illuminated bollards alongpedestrianwalkways; lighting of the pool, spa, tot lot, and barbecue area in the northwest corner of theProjectsitetotherearof thewesternbuilding;anddecorativeuplighting in landscapedareas. Pedestrianareaswouldbewell‐lit for security. TheProjectwouldalso include illuminatedsignageused forbuildingidentificationandcommercial/restauranttenantadvertising/branding.

Newlightsourceswouldbeshieldedanddirectedon‐sitetopreventlightspilloverontoadjacentuses.Whileilluminatedresidentialunitinteriorswouldbeatleastpartiallyvisiblefromoff‐site,suchlightingwouldnotbebrightenoughtocastilluminationontolight‐sensitivepropertiessuchastheresidentialusestothenorth.Additionally, it is reasonably expected that window treatments employed for privacywould reduce lightemanatingfromthebuildings.GiventhedegreeofambientlightingthatcurrentlyexistsintheProjectarea,theproposedlightingwouldnotsubstantiallyalterambientnightlightlevels.Alllightingandsignagewouldconform to applicable City standards contained in Chapter 13.08, Energy Use Conservation and Chapter



17.48,Signs,oftheMunicipalCode.CompliancewithCityandStateenergyconservationmeasurescurrentlyinplacewould limit theamountofunnecessary interior illuminationduringeveningandnighttimehours.Further, in accordance with Chapter 17.61.030, Design Review, of the Zoning Code, the Project’s design,includingitslightpotential,wouldbereviewedbytheDesignCommission.DaytimeandnighttimeimpactsrelatedtoProjectlightingwouldbelessthansignificant.

TheProjectisnotexpectedtointroducesubstantialsourcesofglare.Sinceglareisatemporaryphenomenonthat changeswith themovementof thesun, receptorsother thanmotoristsaregenerally less sensitive toglare impacts than to light impacts. Glare‐sensitive receptors are therefore limited tomotorists on EastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue,adjacenttotheProjectsite.Theproposedbuildingswouldprimarilyconsistoflightsandstuccocladding,flatcementtileroofs,low‐reflectiveglassvinylcasedwindows,earth‐tonebuildingmaterialsandpaintcolorswithother lowreflectivitybuildingmaterials. Theuseofneonorglare‐generatingmaterialsisnotproposed.Further,inaccordancewithChapter17.61.030,DesignReview,of the Zoning Code, the Project’s design, including its glare potential, would be reviewed by the DesignCommission. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to create a substantial new source of glare whichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodeltouseinassessingimpactsonagricultureandfarmland.

Wouldtheproject:

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact. TheProjectsiteislocatedinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityandissurroundedbyamixofretail, commercial, and residential uses. The Project site is currently developedwith facilities associatedwith the formerautomotiverepairgarage, former lumberyard,andsurfaceparking,anddoesnotcontainagriculturalusesorrelatedoperations.TheProjectsiteisnotlocatedondesignatedPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportanceasshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non‐agricultural uses. Project implementationwouldhavenoimpactonfarmland.



b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. TheProject is zonedCG (Area1) andECSP‐CG‐3 (Area2). Noportion of theProject site orsurroundinglandusesarezonedforagricultureandnonearbylandsareenrolledundertheWilliamsonAct.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluseoraWilliamsonActcontractandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources

Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or

timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. TheProject site is zonedCG (Area1)andECSP‐CG‐3 (Area2). No forest landor timberlandzoningispresentontheProjectsiteorinthesurroundingarea.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningforforestlandortimberlandandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.NoforestlandexistsontheProjectsiteorinthesurroundingarea.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotresultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuseandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



NoImpact.SincetherearenoagriculturalusesorrelatedoperationsonorneartheProjectsite,theProjectwould not involve the conversion of farmland to other uses, either directly or indirectly. No impacts toagriculturallandoruseswouldoccur.

3. AIR QUALITY

ThesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(“SCAQMD”)maybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.

Wouldtheproject:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP or Congestion Management Plan?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThan Significant Impact. The Project site is locatedwithin the 6,745‐square‐mile South Coast AirBasin (“SoCAB”). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to theCleanAirAct, to reduce emissions of criteriapollutants for which the Basin is in non‐attainment, specifically ozone and particulate matter (“P.M.”),including PM10, and PM2.5. The Project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s Air QualityManagement Plan(“AQMP”). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducingemissions andachievingambient airquality standards. These strategies aredeveloped, inpart, basedonregionalpopulation,housing,andemploymentprojectionspreparedbytheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(“SCAG”).

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino andImperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, communitydevelopmentand theenvironment.2 Withregard toairqualityplanning, SCAGhasprepared theRegionalComprehensive Plan and Guide (“RCPG”), which includes Growth Management and Regional MobilitychaptersthatformthebasisforthelanduseandtransportationcontrolchaptersoftheAQMPandareusedinthepreparationoftheairqualityforecastsandconsistencyanalysisincludedintheAQMP.BoththeRCPGandAQMParebasedonprojectionsderivedfromcountyandcityGeneralPlans.

A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employmentassumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The approximate 1.92‐acre Project sitecurrentlycarriestwozoningdesignations:CG(Commercial,General)andECSP‐CG‐3(EastColoradoSpecificPlan,GoldLine‐Commercial,General). AlthoughtheCGdesignationdoesnotpermitmixed‐useresidentialbuildings, the Project site’s proximity to light rail stations allows it to qualify for Transit‐OrientedDevelopment(“TOD”)standards,whichgiveconditionalpermittingtobuildingsthatpromotetransitusagethrough the introduction of high‐density residential and pedestrian‐oriented commercial development.Therefore,theProjectwouldbeconsistentwithlocalzoningordinances.TheSCAQMDhasincorporatedtheprojectionsdescribedaboveintotheAQMP;thus, it isconcludedthattheProjectwouldbeconsistentwith

2 SCAGservesasthefederallydesignatedmetropolitanplanningorganization(MPO)forthesouthernCaliforniaregion.



the projections in the AQMP. In addition, as further discussed below, Project implementationwould notexceedanyambientairqualitystandardsorthresholds.Therefore,theProjectisnotanticipatedtoconflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheSCAQMD’sAQMP.

TheCongestionManagementProgram(“CMP”)wasenactedby theMetropolitanTransportationAuthority(“Metro”) to address traffic congestion issues that could impact quality of life and economic vitality. TheintentoftheprogramistoprovideananalyticalbasisfortransportationdecisionsthroughouttheState.AnanalysisisrequiredatallCMPmonitoringintersectionsforwhichaprojectisprojectedtoadd50ormoretripsduringanypeakhour.Inaddition,analysisisrequiredforallfreewaysegmentsforwhichaprojectisprojectedtoadd150ormorehourlytrips,ineachdirection,duringthepeakhoursanalyzed.

TheProjectisexpectedtogeneratefewerthan50tripsduringanypeakhour.3Asaresult,theProjectwouldnotexceedanyCMPthresholds,andnoimpacttotheCMPnetworkwouldoccur.Thus,theProjectwouldnotconflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheCMP.

Basedontheabovediscussionofapplicableairqualityplans,implementationoftheProjectwouldresultinlessthansignificantimpacts.

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThan Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the SoCAB, which is characterized byrelativelypoorairquality.StateandfederalairqualitystandardsaresometimesexceededinmanypartsoftheSoCAB,includingthosemonitoringstationsnearesttotheProjectlocation.TheProjectwouldcontributeto local and regional air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD regional and local significance thresholds forconstructionandoperationwereused.Basedonthefollowinganalysis,implementationoftheProjectwouldresult in less thansignificant impacts relative to thedaily significance thresholds for criteria airpollutantemissionsestablishedbytheSCAQMD.

Construction

Construction has the potential to create regional air quality impacts through the use of heavy dutyconstruction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by construction workers and haul tripstravelingtoandfromtheProjectsite.Inaddition,fugitivedustemissionswouldresultfromsitepreparationand construction activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen oxides (“NOX”),wouldbegeneratedbytheuseofconstructionequipmentsuchasbulldozers,backhoesandloaders.Duringthe finishing phase of construction, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings (i.e.,paints) and other building materials would release volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”). Construction

3 EastWalnutStreetMixed‐UseProjectTrafficImpactStudy,preparedbyLinscott,Law&Greenspan,Engineers,datedMarch19,2013



emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type ofoperationand,fordust,theprevailingweatherconditions.

Asmentionedabove,theProjectproposestheconstructionofupto128residentialunits,5,000squarefeetofcommercial/restaurantspace,and203subterraneanparkingspaces.Constructionactivitieswouldentaildemolitionofexistingbuildings,gradingandexcavation,paving,and interior finishing. Regionalemissionestimatesalsoincludemobilesourcessuchasworkercommutetripssoilhaulanddeliverytrucks. DetailsareprovidedintheAirQualityandGreenhouseGasAssessmentAppendixB).Projectimplementationwouldinvolvedemolitionandremovalofthefourexistingon‐sitebuildings(totalingapproximately11,750squarefeetcombined).

Proposed grading consists of the trenching and excavation necessary for utilities and construction of thesubterranean parking structure, which would be approximately 12 feet lower than the pad elevation(approximately24,600cubicyardsofsoilexport).Relativelyminorgradingofthebuildingpadisproposedinordertocreatealevelfinishedgradeforon‐sitedevelopment.Inaddition,minorconstructionactivitiestoinstalldrainageimprovementswouldtakealsoplacewithintheopenspaceareaon‐site.

During construction, a variety of heavy‐duty diesel powered equipment would be operated on‐site.Equipmentusedduringdemolitionandexcavationactivitiesincludesgraders,loaders,backhoes,dozers,andindustrial saws. Building construction and finishing activitieswould require equipment such as forklifts,concrete trucks and pumps, cranes, air compressors, and paving equipment. In addition to on‐siteequipment, trucks exporting soil and importing concrete would also be required. A detailed listing ofequipmentandtruckstobeusedduringProjectconstructionisprovidedinAppendixB.

RegionalImpacts

Regionalconstruction‐relatedemissionsassociatedwithconstructionequipmentwerecalculatedusingtheSCAQMD‐recommendedCaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel (CalEEMod). Model resultsareprovided inAppendix B. The analysis assumed that all construction activitieswould complywith SCAQMDRule 403regarding the control of fugitive dust. A summary of maximum daily regional emissions resulting fromconstructionoftheProjectispresentedinTableB‐1,Project‐EstimateofConstructionEmissions,alongwiththe regional significance thresholds for each air pollutant. Maximum daily NOx and CO emissions areattributedtoconstructionequipmentexhaustandvehicletrips.MaximumdailyregionalVOCemissionsareduetoarchitecturalcoatings.ThemajorityofregionalPM10andPM2.5emissionsareduetoroaddustfromoff‐site soil haul truck travel. As shown therein, maximum regional emissions would not exceed thethresholds forVOCs, carbonmonoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOX), PM10, PM2.5 orNOx. Therefore, regionalconstructionimpactsarelessthansignificant.

LocalizedImpacts

TheSCAQMD’sLocalizedSignificanceThreshold(LST)Methodologyprovidesscreening‐levelthresholds(intheformofalook‐uptable)forconstructionandoperationalemissionsbasedontheemissionrate,locationwithintheSouthCoastAirBasin,anddistancefromthenearestsensitivereceptors.Additionally,itprovidesa methodology for air dispersionmodeling to evaluate whether construction or operation could cause aviolationofanambientairqualitystandard.TheLSTlookuptablesareapplicabletositesthatarefiveacres



orlessinsize.SincetheProjectsiteisapproximately1.92acres,SCAQMD’sLSTlookuptableswereusedtodetermine the significanceof localized construction impacts on receptors in theProject vicinity. TheLSTMethodologyonlyappliestoimpactsonNO2,CO,andPM10concentrations.TheSCAQMDhasalsoadoptedLSTsforPM2.5(SCAQMD2006).

According to theLSTMethodology, theProject is located inSourceReceptorArea8, theWestSanGabrielValley. Basedon a reviewof the site location and aerialmapsof the vicinity, thedistance to thenearestreceptor isestimatedtobe25 feet. Forconservativepurposes, theLSTs fora two‐acresiteand25‐meter

Table B‐1

Project ‐ Estimate of Construction Emissions (pounds per day)a

Regional Emissions

Individual Phases VOC NOx CO SOx PM10b PM2.5

b

Demolition 4 32 24 <1 3 2

Grading 6 42 28 <1 45 13

BuildingConstruction 6 25 25 <1 3 12

Paving 2 15 10 <1 1 <1

ArchitecturalCoatings 28 3 3 <1 <1 <1MaximumOverlappingRegionalEmissions 36 43 38 <1 45 13SCAQMDDailySignificanceThresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55

Over/(Under) (39) (57) (512) (150) (105) (42)

ExceedThreshold? No No No No No No

Localized Emissions

Individual Phases VOC NOx CO SOx PM10b PM2.5

b

Demolition 3 32 23 <1 2 2

Grading 2 23 15 <1 3 2

BuildingConstruction 4 23 15 <1 2 2

Paving 1 15 9 <1 <1 <1

ArchitecturalCoatings 28 3 2 <1 <1 <1MaximumOverlappingLocalizedEmissions 33 40 26 <1 3 3LocalizedSignificanceThresholdsc ‐ 98 812 ‐ 6 4

Over/(Under) ‐ (58) (786) ‐ (3) (1)

ExceedThreshold? ‐ No No ‐ No No

a Numbers may not add up exactly, due to rounding. Worksheets and modeling output files are provided in Appendix B. b PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. c The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 8 (West San Gabriel Valley) for a 2‐acre site within a 25‐meter receptor

distance.

Source: AMCAL Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Eilar Associates, Inc., 2013.



distance in SRA No. 8 were used to evaluate the potential significance of impacts. Although the closestresidentialusesarewithin25feetofthesite,a25‐meterreceptordistanceistheclosestthresholdavailableunderSCAQMDLSTlookuptables.

TheresultsoftheLSTanalysisarepresentedinTableB‐1. Asmentionedpreviously, themajorityofPM10andPM2.5emissions fromconstructionactivitiesaredue toroaddust fromoff‐site truck travel. Localizedemissions from on‐site excavation activities represent a smaller percentage of total PM10 emissions.CalEEMod output files which provide further details on source contribution (excavation, road dust,equipment exhaust) are provided in Appendix B. It should be noted that the results listed below aremaximum values and do not represent relative average pollutant concentrations. As shown therein, theProject’s incremental contribution to the background concentration for all pollutants modeled would bebelow ambient standards. Therefore, the Project’s localized construction impacts would be less thansignificant.

Emissions from theProject’s constructionactivitieswould fallbelowboth localizedand regionalSCAQMDsignificance thresholdswithoutmitigation. Asmentioned previously, Project constructionwould complywith SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust control during construction. Therefore, Project constructionwould notviolateanyairquality standardorcontributesignificantly toanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

OperationalImpacts

The SCAQMD has separate significance thresholds to evaluate potential impacts associated with theincremental increase in criteria air pollutants associatedwith long‐term Project operations. Operationalemissions related to baseline and Project conditions were computed using the CalEEMod emissionsinventorymodel.

As mentioned above, the Project involves the construction and operation of a mixed use developmentconsistingofresidentialandretailuses.LongtermoperationalemissionsresultingfromtheProjectwouldconsistofvehicletripstoandfromresidentialusesandretailuses,energyusage(electricityandnaturalgas),waterusage,andwastegeneration.

RegionalImpacts

PollutantemissionsresultingfromProjectoperationalactivitieswerecalculatedusingtheCalEEModmodel.Mobilesourceemissioncalculationsutilizethevehiclemilestraveled,orVMT,ratecalculatedbyCalEEModbasedontheproposedlanduseandintensity.Thedailyrateisbasedonthenumberofdailytripsforeachlanduseandappliedtoacommutepercentageandanaveragetriplength,bothofwhicharelandusespecificvaluesderivedfromtheCalEEModmodel.ThesevaluesaccountforvariationsintripfrequencyandlengthassociatedwithcommutingtotheProject.Emissionfactorsspecifictothebuildoutyearareprojectedbasedon Basin‐specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiencystandards.

Theconsumptionoffossilfuelstoprovidepower,heat,andventilationwasconsideredinthecalculationsasstationarypointsourceemissions. Futurefuelconsumptionratesareestimatedbasedonlandusespecific



energyconsumptionrates.NaturalgasandelectricityusagefactorsderivedfromtheCaliforniaCommercialEnd Use Survey database and the Residential Appliance Saturday Survey were used to project fuelconsumption rates.4 The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State‐wide average of knownpowerproducing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, anddonot takeintoaccountanyuniqueemissionsprofile.Atthistime,theseemissionfactorsareconsideredconservativeandrepresentative. AreasourceemissionswerecalculatedusingCalEEMod.2013.2,andincludeemissionsfromnaturalgasandlandscapefuelcombustion,consumerproducts,andarchitecturalcoatings(e.g.,futuremaintenance). Conservatively,existingemissionswerenotsubtractedfromproject‐relatedemissions,andthe entirety of the project‐related emissions was considered “net new” for this analysis. As shown inTableB‐2,Project‐RelatedOperationalEmissions,pollutantconcentrationsresultingfromProjectoperationwouldnotexceedSCAQMDregionalthresholds.Asmentionedpreviously,sincetheProjectsiteiscurrentlyunoccupied, it was conservatively assumed that Project operational emissions are considered net new.Therefore,regionalairqualityimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

Table B‐2

Project‐Related Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day)a

Regional Project Emissions VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Mobile 13 13 53 <1 7 2Areab 4 <1 11 <1 <1 <1Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

TotalProject 17 13 64 <1 7 2SCAQMDSignificanceThreshold 55 55 550 150 150 55Over/(Under) (38) (42) (486) (150) (143) (53)Significant? No No No No No NoLocalized Project Emissions VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Areab 4 <1 11 <1 <1 <1Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total 4 <1 11 <1 <1 <1LocalizedSignificanceThresholdc ‐ 98 812 ‐ 2 1Over/(Under) ‐ (98) (801) ‐ (2) (1)Significant? No No No No No No

a Numbers may not add up exactly, due to rounding. Worksheets and modeling output files are provided in Appendix B. All Project operational emissions are considered net new.

b Area source emissions are calculated using the CalEEMod emissions model. Area sources include natural gas consumption, landscape fuel consumption, consumer products and miscellaneous sources (e.g., commercial solvent usage, architectural coatings).

c The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 8 (West San Gabriel Valley) for a 2‐acre site within a 25‐meter receptor distance. Source: AMCAL Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Eilar Associates, Inc., 2013.

4 http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/andhttp://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/



Localized Impacts from On‐site Emissions

The localized effects of daily operational emissions were evaluated for sensitive receptor locationspotentiallyimpactedbytheProjectaccordingtotheSCAQMD’sLSTmethodology.Asmentionedpreviously,LSTscanbeappliedtoprojectsitesthatarefiveacresorsmaller.SincetheProjectfallswithinthiscriterion,theuseofLSTsforoperation‐relatedimpactsisappropriate. TheclosestsensitivereceptorstotheProjectaresingle‐andmulti‐familyresidentialuses,approximately25feetnorthoftheProjectsite.

Table B‐2 shows that the emissions associated with the operational activities of the Project would beminimal and would not exceed the daily significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore,localizedairqualityimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. TheSoCABiscurrently innonattainment forozone,PM10,andPM2.5. TheSCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts related to operations is based on attainment ofambientairqualitystandardsinaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheFederalandStateCleanAirActs.Asdiscussedearlier,theSCAQMDhasadoptedacomprehensiveplan,the2012AQMP,whichaddressestheregion’scumulativeairqualitycondition.

Asignificantimpactmayoccurifaprojectweretoaddacumulativelyconsiderablecontributionofafederalor State non‐attainment pollutant. Cumulative impacts to air quality are evaluated under two sets ofthresholds for CEQA and the SCAQMD. In particular, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) providesguidanceindeterminingthesignificanceofcumulativeimpacts.Section15064(h)(3)statesinpartthat:

“Aleadagencymaydeterminethataproject’sincrementalcontributiontoacumulativeeffectisnotcumulativelyconsiderableiftheprojectwillcomplywiththerequirementsinapreviouslyapprovedplanormitigationprogramwhichprovidesspecificrequirements thatwillavoidorsubstantially lessen thecumulativeproblem (e.g.,waterqualitycontrolplan,airqualityplan,integratedwastemanagementplan)withinthegeographicareainwhichtheprojectislocated.Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency withjurisdictionovertheaffectedresourcesthroughapublicreviewprocesstoimplement,interpret,ormakespecificthelawenforcedoradministeredbythepublicagency…”

ForpurposesofthecumulativeairqualityanalysiswithrespecttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15064(h)(3),theProject’sincrementalcontributiontocumulativeairqualityimpactsisdeterminedbasedoncompliancewiththe SCAQMD adopted 2012 AQMP. The 2012 AQMP includes demographic growth forecasts for various



socioeconomic categories (e.g. population, housing, employment), developed by SCAG for their 2012RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP).

AProjectisdeemedinconsistentwithairqualityplansifitresultsinpopulationand/oremploymentgrowththat exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. In turn, the AQMP relies upon growthprojections adopted by the SCAG, which in turn relies upon adopted General Plan growth projections.Consequently,compliancewiththeCity’sGeneralPlantypicallyresultsincompliancewiththeAQMP.

As stated above, the Project would result in growth that is anticipated and permitted under the currentzoningdesignation. TheProjectwould introduce128multi‐familyresidentialunits thatwouldgenerateanew residential population of approximately 310 persons. These residents represent an inconsequential0.23percentincreaseintheexistingpopulation(137,122persons)intheCity.5Therefore,ProjectresidentswouldnotexceedemploymentgrowthassumptionsintheAQMP.

The SCAQMD recommends that Project‐specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potentialcumulative impacts to regional air quality. Asdiscussedabove,peakdaily emissionsof operation‐relatedpollutantswouldnotexceedSCAQMDregionalsignificancethresholds. ApplyingSCAQMD’scumulativeairquality impact methodology, implementation of the Project would not result in an addition of criteriapollutants such that cumulative impacts would occur, in conjunction with related projects in the region.Therefore, the emissions of non‐attainment pollutants and precursors generated by Project operation inexcessoftheSCAQMDProject‐levelthresholdswouldbelessthansignificant.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. Certainpopulationgroupsareespeciallysensitivetoairpollutionandareafforded special consideration when evaluating potential air quality impacts. These population groupsincludechildren,theelderly,personswithpre‐existingrespiratoryorcardiovascularillness,andathletesandotherswhoengageinfrequentexercise.AsdefinedintheSCAQMDCEQAAirQualityHandbook,asensitivereceptor to air quality is defined as any of the following land use categories: (1) long‐term health carefacilities; (2)rehabilitation centers; (3) convalescent centers; (4) retirement homes; (5) residences;(6)schools;(7)parksandplaygrounds;(8)childcarecenters;and(9)athleticfields.Thenearestsensitivereceptors to the Project site aremulti‐family residential uses, locatedwithin 25 feet north of the Projectboundary.

AsdescribedinResponseNo.4.3.b,above,constructionandoperationoftheProjectwouldnotresultinanysubstantial localized air pollution impacts, and thereforewould not expose nearby sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, construction activities would comply with SCAQMD5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=

DEC_10_DP_DPDP1.



Rule403regardingthecontroloffugitivedustandotherspecifieddustcontrolmeasures.Assuch,impactsto off‐site sensitive receptors from criteria pollutants would be less than significant and no mitigationmeasureswouldbenecessary.Duetotherelativelyshortconstructiondurationandlowdemandforheavyduty diesel construction equipment (e.g., limited earthmoving activities) needed to complete the Project,toxic air contaminates (TAC) emissions from construction activitieswould not result in long‐term healthriskstoexistingoff‐sitesensitivepopulations.

Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous toxic air contaminants include industrialmanufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The Project would notinclude any of these potential sources, althoughminimal emissionsmay result from the use of consumerproducts.

With regard to on‐site residential receptors, the Projectwould not place residential uses near sources ofTACs. TheProjectsiteislocatedover700feetsouthoftheI‐210freeway. Sincefreewaysandhigh‐trafficroads are considered sources of TAC emissions, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommendssitingresidentialusesatleast500feetfromsuchsources.6AstheProjectislocatedmorethan500feetfromthe I‐210 freeway, on‐site sensitive receptorswould be exposed to less than significant concentrations ofTACs.

Assuch,theProjectwouldnotreleasesubstantialamountsoftoxiccontaminants,andnosignificantimpactsonhumanhealthwouldoccur toon‐siteoroff‐sitereceptors. As theProjectwouldresult inminimalTACemissions,theProjectdoesnotwarranttheneedforadetailedhealthriskassessment,andpotentialairtoxicimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources of odors during construction activities includearchitectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD CEQA AirQualityHandbook, constructionequipment is not a typical source of odors. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organiccompoundsfromarchitecturalcoatingsandsolvents.ThroughmandatorycompliancewithSCAQMDRules,noconstructionactivitiesormaterialsareproposedwhichwouldcreateobjectionableodors. Thenearestsensitive receptors to construction activities are located within 25 feet north of the Project. Given theproximity of the site from thenearest sensitive receptors and the required compliancewith SCQMDRule1113,constructionactivitieswouldnotcreateobjectionableodors.

AccordingtotheSCAQMDCEQAAirQualityHandbook, landusesassociatedwithodorcomplaintstypicallyincludeagriculturaluses,wastewatertreatmentplants,foodprocessingplants,chemicalplants,composting,

6 AirQualityandLandUseHandbook:ACommunityHealthPerspective.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.April2005.



refineries, landfills,dairies,and fiberglassmolding. TheProject includes residential andretailuseswhichmayincludearestaurant.TheProjectwouldbeexpectedtoimplementproperhousekeepingproceduresfortrashcollectionareas.Ifrestaurantusesareconstructedintheretailspace,itisexpectedthatexhausthoodswouldbedesignedtoreleasecookingemissionsawayfromon‐siteresidentialuses.Asaresult,nopotentialodorsareassociatedwithtypicaloperationoftheProject. Therefore,potentialobjectionableodorimpactsareatalessthansignificantlevelandnomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TheProjectsiteislocatedinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityandisdevelopedwithfacilitiesassociatedwiththeformerautomotiverepairgarage,formerlumberyard,andsurfaceparking.TheProjectsitedoesnotincludesuitablehabitatforcandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspecies.DuetothehighlevelsofhumanactivityanddensityofdevelopmentintheProjectarea,thereisnopotentialforsufficientnaturalhabitat to support candidate, sensitive, or special status species on the Project site. As such, the Projectwouldnothaveasubstantialadverseeffectoncandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations by the California Department of Fish

and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. AsdiscussedunderResponse4.a, theProject site is alreadydevelopedwithurbanuses. Nodesignated riparian habitat or natural communities exist on the Project site or in the surrounding area.VegetationonandadjacenttotheProjectsiteisconfinedtoon‐siteplanterstripswithinparcelperimetersand off‐site City‐owned parkways liningMeridith Avenue andNorth Allen Avenue, and includes amix ofnativeandornamentaltreesandornamentalshrubs.TheProjectsiteandsurroundingareadoesnotincludeanyvegetationthatconstitutesaplantcommunity.Assuch,theProjectwouldnothaveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.



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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.AsdiscussedunderResponse4.a,theProjectsiteisalreadydeveloped.ItdoesnotcontainanyfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct. Assuch,theProjectwouldnot have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands and no impactwould occur in thisregard.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TheProjectsiteisalreadydevelopedandlocatedinanurbanizedareaoftheCity,surroundedbycommercialandresidentiallanduses,andcontainsonlylimitedlandscaping.Nowildlifecorridorsornativewildlife nursery sites are present on the Project site or in the surrounding area. Further, due to theurbanized nature of the Project area, the potential for native resident or migratory wildlife speciesmovementthroughthesiteisnegligible.

Assuch,theProjectwouldnotinterferewiththemovementofnativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesoruseofwildlifenurserysite.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

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

preservation policy or ordinance?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.VegetationontheProjectsiteislargelyconfinedtotreesandshrubson‐siteplanterstripsalongparcelperimetersandoff‐siteCity‐ownedparkwaysliningMeridithAvenueandNorthAllenAvenue.ATreeReportpreparedfortheProject(providedinAppendixC)includedatreesurveyoftheProjectsiteonJanuary9,2013.AccordingtotheTreeReport,thereare13treesonoradjacenttotheProject



site,includingeightwithintheProjectsiteandfiveinthepublicrights‐of‐wayadjacenttothesite;refertoTableB‐3,ExistingProjectSiteTreeInventory,andtheTreeMapwithintheTreeReport.

Table B‐3

Existing Project Site Tree Inventory

Tree # Scientific Name

Common Name

Diameter(inches)

Height(feet)

Spread(feet)

Proposed Status:

X = Remove R = Remain

Tree Location:Y = Project Site

Z = Public right‐of‐way

88 Ailanthusaltissima TreeofHeaven

12 15 10 X Y

89 Zelkovaserrata Zelkova 8 15 10 X Y

90 Fraxinusuhdei EvergreenAsh

11 20 12 X Y


10 20 12 X Y


11 22 12 X Y


3‐6 25 20 X Y


3‐12 35 20 X Y


1‐2.5 12 8 X Y

96 Quercusagrifolia CoastLiveOak

11 25 20 R Z

97 Quercusagrifolia CoastLiveOak

10 20 20 R Z

98 Cinnamomumcamphora

Camphor 19 35 40 R Z





Source:KerryNorman,ArborEssence,January16,2013.

Alleighton‐sitetreesareproposedforremoval; thefivestreettreesaretoberetained. Oftheeighttreesproposedforremoval,onlyone,aSawleafZelkova,withatrunkdiameterofeightinches,isontheCity’slistof protected species. However, theminimum trunk size for protection is 15 inches; it thereforedoesnotqualityforprotectionunderChapter8.52,CityTreesandTreeProtectionOrdinance,oftheMunicipalCode.Theremainingseventreesdonotqualifyforprotectionunderthe“maturetree”definitionastheyarebelowthe19‐inchtrunkdiameterrequiredforpreservation.AspartoftheProject,theProjectApplicantwillplantandmaintainontheEastWalnutStreetfrontage,foraperiodofthreeyears,amaximumofnine(9)officiallydesignated street trees in accordance with the City’s master street tree plan (Chinese pistache, Pistacia



chinensis). Any other trees greater than 8 inches in diameter to be removed would likewise requirereplacementwithCity‐designatedstreettrees.Withimplementationofthiscompliancemeasure,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community

Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.Asdiscussedabove,nodesignatedriparianhabitatornaturalcommunitiesexistontheProjectsiteorinthesurroundingarea.Additionally,thereisnoadoptedHabitatConservationPlan(HCP),NaturalCommunityConservationPlan(NCCP),orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orStatehabitatconservationplaninplacefortheProjectsiteortheCity.Thus,noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA

Section 15064.5?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. The portion of the Project site comprising Area 1, located at 1727 EastWalnut Street, wasdevelopedsometimepriorto1921withasingle‐familyresidentialdwelling. Sometimebetween1947and1949,theresidencewasdemolishedandanewcommercialbuildingwasconstructedonthecentralportionof the site. This appears to be the same building that is presently located on‐site. The structure wasoccupiedbyReliableSheetMetalWorksfromapproximately1949until1960.From1960tothepresentday,thesitehasbeenusedforautomobilerepairpurposesandoccupiedbyScientificAutomotiveRepairService.Additionally, from sometime prior to 1928 until the late 1980s, the northern portion of the site wasdeveloped with railroad tracks owned and operated by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe RailwayCompany.7

TheProjectsite’sArea2,locatedat1757and1787EastWalnutStreet,wasdevelopedin1927withthesamethree commercial/lumber storage structures that are still presenton‐site, in addition to a smaller lumberstorageshedandacementstoragestructurewhichwerelocatedonthewestsideofthesiteanddemolished

7 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report performed at 1727, 1757, and 1787 EastWalnut Street, prepared by Anderson

Environmental,datedJuly16,2012(providedinAppendixDofthisDraftEIR).



onanunknowndate.ThefirstknownoccupantofthesitewasSierraLumberCompanyatleastasearlyas1927.From1929until1943thesitewasoccupiedbytheFoxWoodsumLumberCompany,andfrom1943topresentday,thesitehasbeenoccupiedbytheDavisLumberCompany.Noon‐siteoperationsotherthanthe storage and sales of lumber and lumber supplies were identified during the Phase I investigation.8Additionally, aswith Area 1, the northern portion of the Project sitewas developedwith railroad trackssometimepriorto1928untilthelate1980s.

Demolition of a designated or eligible historic structures must be reviewed by the City as part of anenvironmentalstudyorasanapplicationforaCertificateofAppropriateness(permit)fordemolition. Theon‐site buildings and structures were determined by the City not to be individually eligible for historicdesignation, nor are they contributors to a historic district.9 Further, these buildings are not consideredhistoric resources per Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which defines historic resources asthoselistedoreligibleforlistingontheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources,listedinalocalregister,orotherwisedeemedhistoricallysignificanttothearchitecturalorotherculturalannalsofCalifornia,basedontheleadagency’sdeterminationandsupportedbysubstantialevidence.Thus,theProjectwouldhavenoimpact on historic resources and a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for demolition of theexisting on‐site buildings.10 As a result, the Projectwould not cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificanceofaknownhistoricalresourceasdefinedinSection15064.5oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.AsdiscussedunderResponse1.c.,theProjectissubjecttothePasadenaPublicArtProgram,whichrequiresatleastonepercentofthebuildingvaluationcoststobeallocatedbytheProjectApplicanttoincorporateapublicartcomponentintoProjectdesign.Twentypercentofthetotalonepercent obligationmust be deposited into the Downtown Cultural Trust Fund to be used for the generalenhancementoftheCity’sculturalresources.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State

CEQA Section 15064.5?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

SignificantUnlessMitigation isIncorporated. TherearenoknownprehistoricorhistoricarcheologicalsitesontheProjectsite.Inaddition,theProjectsitedoesnotcontainundisturbedsurficialsoils.TheProjectsiteisdevelopedwithfacilitiesassociatedwiththeformerautomotiverepairgarageandtheformerlumberyard. If archaeological resourcesonce existed on‐site, it is likely thatprevious grading, construction, andmodern uses of the site have either removed or destroyed them. Moreover, the City’s General Plan EIRdetermined that infill development in already developed areas of the City is generally not anticipated to

8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report performed at 1727, 1757, and 1787 EastWalnut Street, prepared by Anderson

Environmental,datedJuly16,2012(providedinAppendixD).9 CityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PredevelopmentPlanReviewComments,DesignandHistoric

PreservationComments,datedFebruary14,2013.10 Ibid.



result in the uncovering of additional resources.11 Although the potential to encounter archaeological orNativeAmerican resources is considered remote, themitigationmeasurebelowwouldbe required in theeventresourcesareencounteredduringProjectconstruction:

Mitigation Measure

CULT‐1: If archaeological resources are encountered during Project implementation, anarchaeologistmeetingtheSecretaryoftheInterior’sProfessionalQualificationStandards(the“archaeologist”)shallbeimmediatelynotifiedandretainedbytheProjectApplicantandapprovedbytheCitytooverseeandcarryoutthesemitigationmeasures.

The archaeologist shall coordinate with the Project Applicant as to the immediatetreatmentofthefinduntilapropersitevisitandevaluationismadebythearchaeologist.Thearchaeologistshallbeallowedtotemporarilydivertorredirectgradingorexcavationactivities in the vicinity in order to make an evaluation of the find and determineappropriate treatment. Treatment will include the goals of preservation wherepracticableandpublicinterpretationofhistoricandarchaeologicalresources.Allculturalresources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks andRecreationSiteFormstobefiledwiththeCHRIS‐SCCIC.Thearchaeologistshallprepareafinal report about the find to be filedwith Project Applicant, the City, and the CHRIS‐SCCIC, as required by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The report shallinclude documentation and interpretation of resources recovered. Interpretation willinclude full evaluation of the eligibility with respect to the National and CaliforniaRegister andCEQA. The report shall also includeall specialists’ reports as appendices.TheLeadAgencyshalldesignaterepositories in theevent thatsignificantresourcesarerecovered.ThearchaeologistshallalsodeterminetheneedforarchaeologicalandNativeAmericanmonitoringforanyground‐disturbingactivitiesthereafter.

Ifwarranted,thearchaeologistwilldevelopamonitoringprogramincoordinationwithaNativeAmericanrepresentative (if there ispotential toencounterprehistoricorNativeAmericanresources), theProjectApplicant, and theCity. Themonitoringprogramwillalsoincludeatreatmentplanforanyadditionalresourcesencounteredandafinalreportonfindings.

With implementation of thismitigationmeasure, the Projectwould have less than significant impacts onarchaeologicalorNativeAmericanresources.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

11 City ofPasadenaPlanning andDevelopmentDepartment, FinalEnvironmental ImpactReport,The 2004 LandUse andMobility

Elements,ZoningCodeRevisions,andCentralDistrictSpecificPlan,September2004,page147.



SignificantUnlessMitigationisIncorporated. TheProjectsite is locatedonanalluvialplaininahighlyurbanizedportionoftheCity.ThisportionoftheCitydoesnotcontainanyuniquegeologicalfeaturesandisnot known or expected to contain paleontological resources. Although the potential to encounterpaleontological resources is considered remote, the mitigation measure below would be required in theeventresourcesareencounteredduringProjectconstruction:

Mitigation Measure:

CULT‐2: If a fossil is found, a qualified paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert orredirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitateevaluationand,ifnecessary,salvage.Atthepaleontologist’sdiscretionandtoreduceanyconstructiondelay, thegradingandexcavation contractor shall assist in removing rocksamplesforinitialprocessing.Anyfossilsencounteredandrecoveredshallbepreparedto the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their finalrepository.Anyfossilscollectedshallbedonatedtoapublic,non‐profitinstitutionwitharesearch interest in thematerials, such as theNaturalHistoryMuseum of Los AngelesCounty.Accompanyingnotes,maps,andphotographsshallalsobefiledattherepository.

If fossils are found following completion of the above tasks, the paleontologist shallprepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, themethodology used in these efforts, aswell as a description of the fossils collected andtheirsignificance.ThereportshallbesubmittedbytheProjectApplicanttotheCity,theNaturalHistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCounty,andrepresentativesofotherappropriateorconcernedagenciestosignifythesatisfactorycompletionoftheProjectandrequiredmitigationmeasures.

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


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. There arenoknownhuman remainson theProject site. TheProject is notpart of a formalcemeteryandisnotknowntohavebeenusedfordisposalofhistoricorprehistorichumanremains.Thus,humanremainsarenotexpectedtobeencounteredduringProjectconstruction.IntheunlikelyeventthathumanremainsareencounteredduringProjectconstruction,StateHealthandSafetyCodeSection7050.5requires the Project construction to stop immediately until the County Coroner has made the necessaryfindingsastotheoriginanddispositionoftheremainspursuanttoPublicResourcesCodeSection5097.98.CompliancewiththeseregulationswouldensuretheProjectwouldnotresult insignificant impactsduetodisturbinghumanremains.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.



6. ENERGY

Wouldtheproposal:

a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. InNovember2008, theCaliforniaBuilding StandardsCommission establishedCALGreen, theState Building Code that sets performance standards for residential and nonresidential development toreduceenvironmentalimpactsandencouragesustainableconstructionpractices.WhenCALGreenwentintoeffectin2009,compliancethrough2010wasvoluntary. AsofJanuary1,2011,compliancewithCALGreenwasmandatoryforallnewbuildingsconstructedintheState.Inordertopromoteenergyconservation,theCity adopted an amended version of the California Green Building Standard Code (“CALGreen”) (Chapter14.04.500oftheMunicipalCode,CaliforniaGreenBuildingStandardsCode),addingrequirementsforlargerbuildings,includingmultifamilyresidentialbuildingsoffourstoriesormore.TheGreenBuildingOrdinanceaddresses energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overallenvironmentalquality.12

TheProjectwouldbedesignedtocomplywiththeperformancelevelsrequiredbytheCity’sGreenBuildingOrdinance,whichwouldreduceenergyconsumptioncomparedtostandardbuildingpractices.TheProjectwould meet the California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Requirements, as set forth in Chapter14.04.504, Section 307.1, of the Municipal Code. In addition, the Project would comply with specificprerequisitesincludingasmanyadditionalelectivemeasuresasneededtoachieveanequivalent40LEED®points to achieve Tier 1 status (Chapter 14.04.556 of the Municipal Code). Compliance with theserequirementswouldensuretheProjectwouldnotconflictwithadoptedenergyconservationplans.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

b. Use non‐renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessthanSignificantImpact. TheProjectwouldconsistofupto128multi‐familyresidentialunits,5,000square feet of commercial/restaurant space, and 203 parking spaces. The Project would not consumeenough energy to require the development of new energy sources. Project constructionwould result inshort‐term,insignificantconsumptionofoil‐basedenergyproducts.However,theamountofresourcesused

12 California2013GreenBuildingStandardsCode,CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle24,Part11.



would not cause a significant reduction in available supplies. Thus, a less than significant impactwouldoccurinthisregard.

TheProjectissubjecttotherequirementsoftheCity’sTransportationDemandManagement(“TDM”)/TripReductionOrdinance(“TRO”)(Chapter10.64,TransportationManagementProgram,oftheMunicipalCode).PertheTransportationManagementProgram,theProjectApplicantisrequiredsubmitaTDMProgramPlan(separatefromtheTrafficStudy).TheTDMProgramPlanwouldbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofTransportationpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit,andthereafter,reviewedandapprovedannually.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

The long‐term impact from increased energy use by the Project is not expected to be significant inrelationship to the number of customers currently served by the electrical and gas utility companies.Supplies are available from existingmains, lines, and substationswithin the Project area. Three existingpowerpoleswithintheProjectsitemayneedremoval,withexistingelectricalservicestobererouted.TheremovalandreroutingofelectricalservicesissubjecttotherequirementsofChapter13.18,PolesandWires,oftheMunicipalCole,andwouldbereviewedandapprovedbytheCityofPasadenaDepartmentofWaterand Power (PWP). The Project Applicantwould be responsible for the cost of removal and rerouting ofelectrical utilities. The Project is likely to include high‐efficiency heating ventilation and air conditioning(“HVAC”)andhotwaterstoragetankequipment, lightingconservationfeatures,andinsulatedanddouble‐glazedwindows.AlllightingandsignagewouldconformtoapplicableCitystandardscontainedinChapter13.08,EnergyUseConservationandChapter17.48,Signs,oftheMunicipalCode.Furthermore,compliancewithCityandStateenergyconservationmeasurescurrentlyinplacewouldlimittheamountofunnecessaryinterior illumination during evening and nighttime hours. The energy conservation measures would beprepared by the Project Applicant and shown on the building plans. The energy conservationmeasureswouldbereviewedandapprovedbythePWPandBuildingOfficialpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit.Installation of energy‐saving features would be inspected by a Building Inspector prior to issuance of acertificateofoccupancy.Finally,asdiscussedinResponseNo.6.a,theProjectwouldbedesignedtomeettherequirements of the California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2 requirements which would furtherreduceenergydemand.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

Asdiscussed indetail inSection18,UtilitiesandServiceSystems, theProjectwould result inanestimatedwaterconsumptionofapproximately21,488gallonsperday(“gpd”)whenfullyoccupied,orapproximately1,201 gpd more than the previous site uses. However, the Project would comply with the WaterConservationPlanandWaterShortageProcedureOrdinance(Chapter13.10,WaterWasteProhibitionsandWater Supply Shortage Plans, of the Municipal Code) and the City’s CWCP, which targets a 20 percentreductioninper‐capitawaterconsumptionbytheyear2020,inaccordancewithCalifornia’s20x2020plan.Compliancewith thewater conservationplanwouldbe reviewedandapprovedby thePWPandBuildingDivisionpriortoissuanceofabuildingpermit.TheProjectirrigationandplumbingplanswouldcomplywiththeapprovedwater‐conservationplanandtheCity’srequirementsforlandscapeirrigation.Landscapingforthe Project would be provided in accordance with standard City requirements per Chapter 17.44,Landscaping,oftheZoningCode.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.



7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The following analysis of geology and soils impacts is based on the Geotechnical Investigation, ProposedMulti‐Family Residential Development 1727‐1787 EastWalnut Street, Pasadena, California (“GeotechnicalInvestigation”),preparedbyGeoconWest,Inc.,July26,2013(providedinAppendixD).

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,

injury or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42.


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the seismically active Southern CaliforniaregionandcouldbesubjecttomoderatetostronggroundshakingintheeventofanearthquakeononeofthemanyactiveSouthernCaliforniafaults.ThenearestsurfacetraceofanactivefaulttotheProjectsiteistheRaymondFault,locatedapproximately1.7milesouthofthesite.Othernearbyactivefaultsinclude:theSierraMadreFault(2.5milestothenortheast);theVerdugoFault(3.0mileswest);theSawpitFaultZone(6mileseast);theDuarteFault(6.5mileseast);theSanGabrielFault(7.8milesnortheast);CoyotePassFault(7.8milessouthwest);andtheMacArthurParkFault(10.5milessoutheast). TheactiveSanAndreasFaultZoneislocatedapproximately24milesnortheastoftheProjectsite.13ThefaultsinthevicinityoftheProjectsiteareshowninFigure4,RegionalFaultMap,intheGeotechnicalInvestigation.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not locatedwithin an established Alquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFault zone for surface fault rupturehazards. In addition, as shownonPlate 1‐2, FaultMap,oftheGeneralPlanSafetyElementTechnicalBackgroundReport(2002),theProjectsiteisnotlocatedinafaulthazardmanagementzone.Noactiveorpotentiallyactivefaultswiththepotentialforsurfacefaultrupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due tofaultingoccurringontheProjectsiteduringthedesign lifeof theProject isconsidered low. Furthermore,Project buildings would be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions asprovidedintheCity’sBuildingCodeand2010CaliforniaBuildingCode(CBC). Thus,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

13 Geotechnical Investigation,ProposedMulti‐FamilyResidentialDevelopment1727‐1787EastWalnut Street,Pasadena,California,

preparedbyGeoconWest,Inc.,July26,2013(providedinAppendixC).



ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. As with all of Southern California, the Project site has been subject tohistoricearthquakesfromvariousregionalfaults.TheseismicityoftheregionsurroundingtheProjectsitewasformulatedbasedonresearchofanelectronicdatabaseofearthquakedata.Theepicentersofrecordedearthquakeswithmagnitudesequaltoorgreaterthan4.0withinaradiusof60milesoftheProjectsiteareshownon Figure 5, Regional SeismicityMap, of theGeotechnical Investigation. The Project site could besubjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common inSouthernCaliforniaandtheeffectsofgroundshakingwouldbereducedsincetheproposedstructuresmustbedesignedandconstructedinconformancewithcurrentbuildingcodesandengineeringpractices.Thus,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction as delineated on the most recent Seismic

Hazards Zones Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial

evidence of known areas of liquefaction?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThan Significant Impact. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard ZoneMountWilsonQuadrangle Map, the Project site is not situated within an area designated as liquefiable. In addition,accordingtotheCountyofLosAngelesSeismicSafetyElementandasshownonPlate1‐3,SeismicHazardsMap,oftheCity’sGeneralPlanSafetyElementTechnicalBackgroundReport(2002),theProjectsite isnotlocated within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction. According to the GeotechnicalInvestigation, thehistorichighgroundwater level is reported tobemore than100 feetbelow theexistinggroundsurface.Therefore,thepotentialforliquefactionofthesoilsunderlyingtheProjectsiteisverylow,and no surface manifestations of liquefaction are expected. Impacts related to ground failure, includingliquefaction,wouldbelessthansignificant.

iv. Landslides as delineated on the most recent Seismic Hazards Zones Map issued by the State

Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known areas of landslides?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact. AccordingtotheCaliforniaDivisionofMinesandGeologyandtheLosAngelesCountySeismicSafety Element, the Project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for slope



instability. Further,asshownonPlate1‐3,SeismicHazardsMap,oftheCity’sGeneralPlanSafetyElementTechnicalBackgroundReport(2002),theProjectsiteisnotlocatedinanareawithpreviousoccurrencesoflandslidemovement.TherearenoknownlandslidesneartheProjectsite,noristhesiteinthepathofanyknownorpotential landslides. Thus,theProjectwouldnotbesubjectto,orresult in, landslidesandtherewouldbenoimpactinthisregard.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. TheerosionpotentialforsoilsintheCityislow,unlesssoilsaredisturbedduring thewet season. TheRamonaandHanford soils associations,whichunderliemuchof theCity, arecharacterizedbyhighpermeability, lowsurfacerunoff,andlowerosionsusceptibility,primarilyduetothegravellysurfacelayerandlowtopographicrelieffromthesteepfoothillsareasoftheSanGabrielMountains.

Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, and soilstockpiling, and conveyance of other pollutants intomunicipal storm drains. During construction, watererosionwouldbeminimizedbylimitingconstructiontodryweather,coveringexposedexcavateddirtduringperiods of rain and protecting excavated areas from flooding with temporary berms as required byapplicable NPDES requirements and Chapter 8.70, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, andChapter 12.24, Excavations, of the City’s Municipal Code. The Project Applicant is required submit anerosion and sediment transport control plan for review and approval by the Building Office and PublicWorksDepartmentpriortotheissuanceofanybuildingpermits.AsdiscussedinmoredetailunderSection10,HydrologyandWaterQuality, the Project is subject to the requirements of the City’s Stormwater andUrban Runoff Control Regulation Ordinance which implements the requirements of the Regional WaterQuality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The ProjectApplicant is required to submit a detailed plan indicating themethod of SUSMP compliance prior to theissuance of any demolition, grading, or construction permits for the Project. Further, existing buildingregulationsandproperty site inspectionswouldensure that constructionactivitiesdonot createunstableearth conditions. The displacement of soil through cut and fillwould be controlled by the City’s gradingordinance and the Chapter 33 of the 2001 CBS. With implementation of the recommendations in theGeotechnicalInvestigationincompliancewiththeCity'sGradingCode,theProjectwouldresultinlessthansignificantimpactsrelatedtosoilerosionandlossoftopsoil.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of

the project, and potential result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction, or collapse?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



LessThanSignificantImpact. AccordingtotheGeotechnicalInvestigation,minoramountsofartificialfillwereencounteredthroughouttheProjectsite.Theartificialfillwasobservedtoamaximumdepthof2.5feetbelowexistinggroundsurface.Theartificialfillgenerallyconsistsofdarkyellowishbrowntodarkreddishbrownsiltysand,sandysilt,andsiltwithvariedamountsofgravelandconstructiondebris.Theartificialfillischaracterizedasslightlymoisttomoist,andloosetomediumdenseorsofttofirm.Thefillistheresultofpastgradingandconstructionactivitiesat theProject site. Deeper fillmayoccurbetweenboringsand inotherpartsoftheProjectsitethatwerenotdirectlyexplored.ThefillisunderlainbyPleistoceneAgealluvialfandeposits.Theolderalluvialfandepositprimarilyconsistsofreddishbrowntopalebrowntoyellowishbrownpoorlygradedsand,siltysand,andsandysiltwithvariedamountsofgravel.Thealluvialfandepositsarecharacterizedasdrytomoistandmediumdensetoverydenseorfirmtostiffandbecomesdenserwithincreaseddepth.ThesoilsconsistofdetritalsedimentsderivedfromthenearbySanGabrielMountains.

AsmentionedinResponse7.a.iv.,theProjectsiteisnotinanareaidentifiedashavingapotentialforseismicslopeinstability.TherearenoknownlandslidesneartheProjectsite,noristhesiteinthepathofanyknownorpotentiallandslides.AsstatedinResponse7.a.iii.,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanareaidentifiedas having a potential for liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the historic highgroundwater level isreportedtobemorethan100 feetbelowtheexistinggroundsurface. No large‐scaleextractionofgroundwater,gas,oil,orgeothermalenergyisoccurringorplannedattheProjectsite. ThereappearstobelittleornopotentialforgroundsubsidenceduetowithdrawaloffluidsorgasesattheProjectsite.Thus,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. Expansivesoilsaretypicallyassociatedwithfine‐grainedclayeysoils thathave the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. According to theGeotechnical Investigation, soilsunderlying theProject sitearepredominatelygranularandconsidered tohavea“verylow”expansivepotential,andareclassifiedas“non‐expansive”basedonthe2010CBCSection1802.35.3. It is assumed the foundations and slabs would derive support in these materials. Withincorporation of the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations and in compliance with the City’sMunicipal Code requirements pertaining to excavation and grading, potential impacts associated withexpansivesoilswouldbelesssignificant.14

14 CityofPasadenaMunicipalCode,Chapter12.24,Excavations,Section14.05.08,Engineeringgeologyreport.



e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TheProjectwouldberequiredtoconnecttotheexistingmunicipalsewersystem.TheProjectwouldnot involve theuseof septic tanksor alternativewastewaterdisposal systems, andwouldhavenoimpactsrelatedtotheiruse.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, thatmay have a significantimpactontheenvironment?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. Globalclimatechangerefers tochanges inaverageclimaticconditionsonEarth as a whole, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Historicalrecordsindicatethatglobalclimatechangeshaveoccurredinthepastduetonaturalphenomena;howeversomedataindicatethatthecurrentglobalconditionsdifferfrompastclimatechangesinrateandmagnitude.Global climate change attributable to anthropogenic (human) emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) iscurrently one of the most important and widely debated scientific, economic and political issues in theUnitedStatesandtheworld.TherecontinuestobesignificantscientificuncertaintyconcerningtheextenttowhichincreasedconcentrationsofGHGshavecausedorwillcauseclimatechange,andovertheappropriateactionstolimitand/orrespondtoclimatechange.

GHGsare thosecompounds in theEarth’satmosphere thatplayacritical role indetermining temperaturenear theEarth’s surface. Morespecifically, thesegasesallowhigh‐frequencyshortwavesolar radiation toentertheEarth’satmosphere,butretainsomeofthelowfrequencyinfraredenergy,whichisradiatedbackfrom the Earth towards space, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide(“CO2”), methane (“CH4”), ozone (“O3”), water vapor, nitrous oxide (“N2O”), hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”),perfluorocarbons (“PFCs”), and sulfur hexafluoride (“SF6”). CO2 is the most abundant GHG in theatmosphere.GHGsaretheresultofbothnaturalandanthropogenicactivities.Forestfires,decomposition,industrialprocesses,landfills,andconsumptionoffossilfuelsforpowergeneration,transportation,heating,andcookingaretheprimarysourcesofGHGemissions.



NotallGHGsexhibitthesameabilitytoinduceclimatechange;asaresult,GHGcontributionsarecommonlyquantified in the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. Mass emissions are calculated by convertingpollutant specific emissions to CO2e emissions by applying the proper global warming potential (“GWP”)value. TheseGWPratiosareavailable fromtheUSEPAandarepublished in theCaliforniaClimateActionRegistry,orCCAR,GeneralReportingProtocol. ByapplyingtheGWPratios,Project‐relatedCO2eemissionscanbe tabulated inmetric tonsperyear. TheCO2evaluesarecalculated forconstructionyearsaswellasexistingandProjectbuild‐outconditionsinordertogenerateanetchangeinGHGemissionsforconstructionandoperation.

Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHG were approximately 40,000 million metric tons of CO2e,includingongoingemissionsfromindustrialandagriculturalsources,butexcludingemissionsfromlandusechanges (i.e., deforestation, biomassdecay) (IPCC, 2007). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use accounts for56.6percentof the totalemissionsof49,000millionmetric tonsCO2e(includes landusechanges)andallCO2emissionsare76.7percentofthetotal.Methaneemissionsaccountfor14.3percentandN2Oemissionsfor7.9percent(IPCC,2007).15

TotalU.S.greenhousegasemissionsin2008(thelatestyearforwhichdataareavailable)were6,958millionmetrictonsCO2e(USEPA,April2010),orabout14percentofworld‐wideGHGemissions.Overall,totalU.S.emissionshaverisenby14percentfrom1990to2008. However,U.S.emissionsdecreasedby2.9percent(211.3MMTCO2e)from2007to2008,dueinlargeparttotherecordhighcostsofthesefuelsthatoccurredin2008.Additionally,electricitydemanddeclinedin2008inpartduetoasignificantincreaseinthecostoffuelsused togenerateelectricity. TheprimaryGHGemittedbyhumanactivities in theUnitedStateswasCO2, representing approximately 85.1 percent of total GHG emissions (USEPA, April 2010). The largestsourceofCO2,andofoverallGHGemissions,wasfossilfuelcombustion.CH4emissions,whichhavedeclinedfrom 1990 levels, resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock,decomposition of wastes in landfills, and natural gas systems. Agricultural soilmanagement andmobilesource fossil fuel combustionwere themajor sources ofN2O emissions. The emissions of substitutes forozonedepletingsubstancesandemissionsofHFC‐23(trifluoromethaneorCHF3)during theproductionofHFC‐22 (chlorodifluoromethane or CHClF2) were the primary contributors to aggregate HFC emissions.Electrical transmissionanddistributionsystemsaccounted formostSF6(sodiumhexafluoride)emissions,whilePFCemissionsresultedfromsemiconductormanufacturingandasaby‐productofprimaryaluminumproduction.16

The residential andcommercial end‐use sectorsaccounted for21percentand19percent, respectively,ofCO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2008 (USEPA, April 2010). Both sectors relied heavily onelectricity formeeting energy demands, with 71 percent and 79 percent, respectively, of their emissionsattributable to electricity consumption for lighting, heating, cooling, and operating appliances. Theremainingemissionsweredue to the consumptionof natural gas andpetroleum forheating and cooking.California is a substantial contributor of global GFGs as it is the second largest contributor in theUnitedStatesand the sixteenth largest in theworld (AEP,2007). Basedupon the2008GHG inventorydata (thelatestyearavailable)compiledbytheCARB(CARB,2008),Californiaproduced474MMTCO2e. Themajor15 Carbondioxideequivalent(CO2e)isaquantitythatdescribes,foragivenmixtureandamountofGHGs,theamountofCO2(usuallyin

metrictons;millionmetrictons[megatonne]=MMTCO2E=terragram[Tg]CO2Eq;1,000MMT=gigatonne)thatwouldhavethesameglobalwarmingpotential(GWP)whenmeasuredoveraspecifiedtimescale(generally,100years).

16 USEPA2010U.S.GreenhouseGasInventoryReport(April2010).



source of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 37 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions.Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 25 percent of the State’s GHG emissions(CARB, 2008). Most – 85 percent – of California’s 2008 GHG emissions (in terms of CO2e) were carbondioxideproducedfromfossilfuelcombustion,with2.5percentfromothersourcesofCO2,6.0percentfrommethane,and2.8percentfromnitrousoxide(CARB,2008).Californiaemissionsaredueinparttoitslargesizeand largepopulation. By contrast,California in2001had the fourth lowestCO2emissionsper capitafromfossilfuelcombustioninthecountry,duetothesuccessofitsenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergyprogramsandcommitmentsthathaveloweredtheState’sGHGemissionsrateofgrowthbymorethanhalfofwhatitwouldhavebeenotherwise(CEC,December2006).

InSeptember2006,GovernorArnoldSchwarzeneggersignedtheCaliforniaGlobalWarmingSolutionsActof2006,alsoknownasAB32,intolaw.AB32commitstheStatetoachievingthefollowing:

2000GHGemission levelsby2010,whichrepresentsanapproximately11percentreduction fromemissionsastheresultofbusinessasusual(BAU).

1990levelsby2020,approximately28.5percentbelowBAU.

80percentbelow1990levelsby2050.

Toachievethesegoals,AB32mandatesthatCARBestablishaquantifiedemissionscap,instituteascheduletoachievethecap,implementregulationstoreduceStatewideGHGemissionsfromstationarysources,anddeveloptracking,reporting,andenforcementmechanismstoensurethatreductionsareachieved.

In August 2010, CARB released the draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document, which proposes GHGemission reduction targets specific to each metropolitan planning organization (“MPO”). The CARBrecognizesthatGHGreductionmeasuresmaybeuniquetocertainareasofCaliforniawhereGHGreductionmeasures inoneareamaynotbe feasible inanother. TheProject is located in theSCAGMPO,whichhasproposed regional GHG reduction targets as required under SB375. Recently, SCAG proposed a goal ofreducingpercapitaGHGsemissionsby8percentforYear2020and13percentforYear2035comparedtoYear2005. Thesereductiongoalsare incorporated in the latestversionof theRTPwhichwasadopted inApril2012. ProjectsgoingthroughtheCEQAprocesswouldberequiredtodemonstrateconsistencywithSCAGRTP policies including specified GHG reduction targets. As part of the RTP, SCAG has developed aSustainableCommunitiesStrategy(“SCS”)plantomeetemissionreductiontargets.OnegoaloftheSCSplanistocomplywiththeprovisionsofSB375throughtheestablishmentofareductiontargetforcarsandlighttrucks.

As discussed in the Response to No. 6.a, the Projectwould be designed to complywith the performancelevelsrequiredbytheCity’sGreenBuildingOrdinance,whichwouldreduceenergyconsumptioncomparedtostandardbuildingpractices.

Although CARB and SCAG are tasked with setting GHG reduction targets, there is no regional agencyresponsiblefortheregulationofGHGemissionsrelatedtoglobalclimatechange.TheSCAQMDistheagencyprincipally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin, but lacks the authority todirectlyregulatefactorsleadingtoglobalclimatechangeorGHGemissionissuesassociatedwithplansandnewdevelopmentprojectsthroughouttheSoCAB.InordertoprovideGHGemissionanalysisguidancetothe



localjurisdictionswithintheSoCAB,theSCAQMDhasorganizedaWorkingGrouptodevelopGHGemissionanalysisguidanceandthresholds,discussedindetailbelow.

Section15064.4oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesstates“…[a]leadagencyshallhavediscretiontodetermine,inthecontextofaparticularproject,whetherto:(1)[u]seamodelormethodologytoquantifygreenhousegasemissionsresultingfromaproject….;or(2)[r]elyonaqualitativeanalysisorperformancebasedstandards.”ItwasdeterminedthatfortheProject,aquantitativeanalysiswasmostappropriate.

Significance Thresholds

Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a threshold of significance as an identifiablequantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non‐compliance withwhichmeans the effectwill normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliancewithwhichmeanstheeffectnormallywillbedeterminedtobelessthansignificant.CEQAgiveswidelatitudetoleadagenciesindeterminingwhatimpactsaresignificantanddoesnotprescribethresholdsofsignificance,analyticalmethodologies,orspecificmitigationmeasures.CEQAleavesthedeterminationofsignificancetothereasonablediscretionoftheleadagencyandencouragesleadagenciestodevelopandpublishthresholdsofsignificancetouse indeterminingthesignificanceofenvironmentaleffects. However, theSCAQMDhasnot yet established specific quantitative significance thresholds for GHG emissions for residential,commercial,ormixed‐useprojects.InthelatestCEQAGuidelines,effectiveMarch18,2010,OPRencourageslead agencies tomakeuseof programmaticmitigationplans andprograms fromwhich to tierwhen theyperformindividualprojectanalyses. However,theCityhasnotyetdevelopedaGreenhouseGasReductionPlanmeetingtherequirementssetforthinthelatestStateCEQAGuidelines.

Section 15064.7(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states “when adopting thresholds of significance, a leadagency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other publicagencies…”. SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significancethresholds in October 2008. SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail andrefinementneededtodeterminesignificanceincreaseswithaproject’stotalGHGemissions. SCAQMDalsoproposedascreeninglevelof3,000metrictonsperyearforcommercialorresidentialprojects,underwhichprojectimpactsareconsidered“lessthansignificant.”The3,000metrictonscreeninglevelwasintended“toachieve the same policy objective of capturing 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new developmentprojects in theresidential/commercial sectors.”17 ForprojectswithGHGemissions increasesgreater than3,000metrictonsperyear,theuseofapercentemissionreductiontarget(e.g.,30percent)wasproposedtodeterminesignificance.Thisemissionreductiontargetisareductionbelowwhatisconsidered“businessasusual.” Thethresholdof3,000annualmetrictonsproposedbytheSCAQMDwillbeutilizedasascreeninglevelfordeterminingsignificanceonaprojectlevel,inaccordancewithAppendixG.

17 SCAQMD,BoardMeeting,December5,2008,AgendaNo.31,InterimGHGSignificanceThresholdProposal–KeyIssues/Comments

AttachmentD.



GHG Emission Impact Analysis

Construction

Constructionof theProjectwould lastup to approximately18monthsand is anticipated to commence in2014. Emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod for operation of fossil fuel powered on‐siteconstructionequipmentandoff‐sitevehiclesusedtotransportconstructionworkersandsupplies.

Constructionof theProject is estimated to emit a total of 593metric tonsof CO2eover the18monthsofconstruction. Results of this analysis are presented inTableB‐4,ConstructionGreenhouseGasEmissions.ConstructionoutputvaluesusedinthisanalysisareadjustedtorepresentaCO2evaluerepresentativeofCO2,CH4,andN2OemissionsfromProjectconstructionactivities. ConstructionCH4andN2Ovaluesarederivedfromfactorspublishedinthe2006IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories.Thesevaluesare thenconverted tometric tonsofCO2e for consistency. Constructionemissionsareamortizedover30yearstorepresenttheProjectlifespan,consistentwithSCAQMDmethodology.

Table B‐4

Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons)

Construction(TotalforYears2014and2015) 593Construction(Amortizedover30years) 20

Source: AMCAL Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Eilar Associates, Inc., 2013

DetailedCO2econversionfactorsandcalculationsareprovidedinAppendixB.InaccordancewithSCAQMDproposedmethodology, constructionemissionswerecombinedwithoperationemissions toassessannualimpactsbelow.

Operation

Energy consumption (i.e., electricity and natural gas) and user (i.e., resident, employee, and patron) tripswithimplementationoftheProjecthasthepotentialtoresultinanincreaseinGHGemissionsascomparedtoexistingconditions.BasedondefaulttripgenerationratescontainedinCalEEMod,theProjectisexpectedtogenerate1,127dailytripsuponProjectbuildout.WaterusageandwastegenerationarealsoexpectedtoincreaseresultingfromProjectoperations. Conservatively,existingemissions(vehicletrips,energyusage)werenot subtracted fromproject‐relatedemissions, and theentiretyof theproject‐relatedemissionswasconsidered“netnew”forthisanalysis.

As shown in Table B‐5, Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, annual GHG emissionsresultingfromvehicles,electricityusage,waterconveyance,wastedisposal,andnaturalgasusageassociatedwithoperationoftheProjectwasestimatedtobeamaximumof1,641metrictonsCO2eperyear.Includingamortized construction emissions (in accordance with SCAQMD draft methodology), total annual Projectemissions would be approximately 1,661metric tons, lower than the 3,000 annual metric ton threshold



proposedbySCAQMDandselected for theProject. Therefore,constructionandoperationalemissionsarenotexpectedtoresultinasignificantimpactattheProjectlevel.

Duetothecomplexphysical,chemicalandatmosphericmechanismsinvolvedinglobalclimatechange,thereisnobasisforconcludingthattheProject'sverysmalltheoreticalemissionsincreasecouldactuallycauseameasurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to influence global climate change. The GHGemissionsoftheProjectalonewouldnotlikelycauseadirectphysicalchangeintheenvironment.Itisglobalemissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any one source of emissions alone.Therefore, due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for this Project, the lack of anyevidenceforconcludingthattheProject'sGHGemissionscouldcauseanymeasurableincreaseinglobalGHGemissionsnecessarytoforceglobalclimatechange,andthefactthattheProjectincorporatesdesignfeaturestoreducepotentialGHGemissionstheProjectisconsiderednottohinderthegoalsofAB32.Conventionalcumulativeairqualityanalysesconsiderrelatedprojects;thisapproachisnotappropriatebecauseproximityisirrelevanttothetransportandaccumulationofGHGintheEarth’satmosphere.Thus,becausetheProjectwouldresultintotalGHGemissionslessthanthe3,000annualmetrictonthresholdproposedbySCAQMD,itwouldhavealessthancumulativelyconsiderablecontributiontocumulativelysignificantimpacts.

Table B‐5

Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons) a

Construction(Amortized) 20 AnnualOperationsb

Area 33Energy 51Mobile 1,515Waste 30Water 11TotalAnnualOperations 1,641

Total(AmortizedConstruction+TotalAnnualOperations) 1,661Greaterthan3,000tonsCO2eannually? No

a Numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding. b The Project site is currently unoccupied and all Project operational emissions are considered net new.

Source:AMCALAirQualityandGreenhouseGasAssessment,EilarAssociates,Inc.,2013



b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.Asmentionedpreviously,theGlobalWarmingSolutionsActof2006(AB32)istheoverarchinglawwhichrequires theState tosetStatewideGHGreductiontargets. Toachievethesegoals, theARBhasestablished an emissions cap anddeveloped a ScopingPlan to identifymandatory strategies for reducingStatewide GHG emissions.18 In addition, the California Climate Action Team (CAT) was formed whichconsistsofmembersofvariousStateagencies taskedwith identifyingstrategies toreduceGHGemissions.SeveralotherbillshavebeenpassedasacompaniontoAB32whichincludeSB1368(electricitygenerationstandards),SB97(CEQAanalysisforGHGs),LowCarbonFuelStandards,SB375(RegionalTransportationPlanningandGHGemissions),CALGreenbuildingstandardsandothersplanstoachievethegoalsofAB32.

UnderSB375,SCAGdevelopedtheSCSwhichcontainstransportationandlanduseprojectionsfortheregion.Ageneral goalof theSCS is toattainGHGreduction targets through transportationnetworkand landuseplanning.Asaresult,theSCSencouragesTransitOrientedDevelopment(TOD)whichplacesresidentialusesnear mass transit stations which will increase use of mass‐transit and a reduction of vehicle trips. TheprojectisclassifiedasaTODasitislocatedlessthanhalfamilefromtheMetroGoldLineAllenStation.TheSCSalsopromotesmixed‐useddevelopmenttoencouragewalkingorbikingfordailyneeds.Theprojectisconsideredmixed‐useasitwillincluderetailuseswhichwillallowon‐siteandnear‐byresidentstowalkorbike for shopping purposes. As the project will be a TOD and mixed‐use development, the project isconsideredconsistentwithSB375andSCSgoals.

Asdiscussed inResponseNo.6.a, theCity’sGreenBuildingOrdinance incorporates theCALGreenbuildingcode but also applies additional requirements for multifamily buildings of four stories or more. TheserequirementsincludemeasuresthatarevoluntaryunderCALGreenbutmandatoryundertheCity’sexistingGreenBuildingOrdinance.SincetheProjectwouldincludeafour‐storyresidentialbuilding,theseadditionalrequirementsapply. SuchmeasuresincludeenergyefficiencybeyondTitle24standardsby15percent,20percent cement reduction, 65 percent reduction in construction waste and enhanced thermal insulationrequirements. The Project is not of the size or nature to be subject to mandatory GHG reportingrequirementsortargetedGHGreductionlaws,suchascap‐and‐tradeorsectorspecificlimits(i.e.SB1368).

Therefore, the Projectwould be supportive of the regulations (CALGreen) enacted tomeetAB32 and notconflictwithanyapplicableplan,policy,orregulationtoreduceGHGemissions.

18 ClimateChangeProposedScopingPlan:aFrameworkforChange.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2006



9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Theanalysisofhazardsandhazardousmaterialsisbasedonthefollowingreports:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report performed at 1727, 1757, and 1787 East WalnutStreet (“Phase I ESA”), prepared by Anderson Environmental, dated July 16, 2012 (provided inAppendixE);

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report performed at 1727 EastWalnut Street (“Phase IIESA”), prepared by Anderson Environmental, dated August 24, 2012, revised August 6, 2013(providedinAppendixF);and

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed at 1787 EastWalnut Street (“Phase II ESA”),preparedbyAndersonEnvironmental,datedAugust23,2012(providedinAppendixG).

Wouldtheproject:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

SignificantUnlessMitigationisIncorporated.InJuly2012,aPhaseIESAwaspreparedforthepropertieslocatedat1727,1757,and1787EastWalnutStreet. ThemainobjectiveofthePhaseIESAwastoidentifythe presence or likely presence, use, or release on the properties of hazardous substances or petroleumproducts as defined in American Testing and Materials Practice E 1527 as a “recognized environmentalcondition”(“REC”). Inorderto identifyenvironmentalconditionsattheproperties, thePhaseI includedasiteinspection,interviewswithpartiesfamiliarwiththeproperties,historicalresearchintothepastuseofthe properties, and hazardousmaterials researchwith regard to the properties, adjacent properties, andsurroundingarea.Inaddition,thePhaseIESAprovidedgeneralinformationregardingasbestoscontainingmaterials,lead‐basedpaints,radon,andoilandgasexploration.

Historical Land Uses

1727 East Walnut Street (Area 1)

AccordingtothePhaseIESA,the1727EastWalnutStreetpropertywasdevelopedsometimepriorto1921with a single‐family residential dwelling on the south portion of the property. The earliest historicalresourceobtainedduringtheinvestigationforthisportionoftheProjectsitewasacitydirectorylistingfrom1921whichindicateddevelopmentofthepropertyforresidentialuse.Sometimebetween1947and1949,the residential dwelling was demolished and a new commercial buildingwas constructed on the centralportionof theproperty. Thisappears tobe thesamebuildingthatexistson‐site today. ThebuildingwasoccupiedbyReliableSheetMetalWorksfromapproximately1949until1960.Assheetmetalfabricatingcaninvolvetheuseofsolventsanddegreasers,thisisconsideredevidenceofalikelyREContheproperty.From1960 to present day, the property has been utilized for automobile repair purposes and occupied by



Scientific Automotive Repair Service. No evidence of the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs),floor drains, or oil/water separators was observed during the site inspection or during historical andregulatoryagency research. However, thePhase IESAconcluded that theuseofpetroleumproductsandsolventsforcleaningtheautorepairequipmentforover50yearsrepresentsanenvironmentalconcernfortheproperty. ThePhaseIESAfurtherconcludedthat,asthepropertyisproposedforredevelopmentwithresidentialuses,thepastautomotiverepairoperationsatthesiteareconsideredaRECfortheproperty.

Additionally, fromsometimeprior to1928until the late1980s, thenorthernportionof thepropertywasdeveloped with railroad tracks owned and operated by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe RailwayCompany.ThePhaseIESAnotedthatrailroadtracksrepresentenvironmentalconcernsduetothehistoricalapplicationofpolycyclicaromatichydrocarbons(PAHs)usedtotreatrailroadties,herbicidesandarsenicforpestandweedcontrol,andleadfrombrakesystems.Whilethisportionofthepropertyiscurrentlypavedwith asphalt and no evidence of the former railroad tracks are visible, the property is proposed forredevelopmentwith residential uses, and therefore thePhase I ESA concluded that the formeruse of thenorthernportionofthepropertyforrailroadtransitrepresentsaRECfortheproperty.

1757 and 1787 East Walnut Street (Area 2)

AccordingtothePhaseI,the1757and1787EastWalnutStreetpropertiesweredevelopedin1927withthesamethreecommercial/lumberstoragestructuresthatarecurrentlylocatedon‐siteinadditiontoasmallerlumberstorageshedstructureandacementstoragestructurewhichwere locatedonthewestsideof theproperty and demolished at an unknown time. The earliest historical resource obtained during theinvestigation for this portion of the property was a building permit record from 1927 which indicateddevelopment of the property for lumber storage. The first known occupant of the property was SierraLumberCompanyasearlyas1927.From1929until1943thepropertywasoccupiedbytheFoxWoodsumLumberCompanyFrom1943topresentday,thepropertyhasbeenoccupiedbytheDavisLumberCompany.Operations conducted on‐site other than the storage and sales of lumber and lumber supplies were notidentifiedduringthePhaseIinvestigation.Additionally,fromsometimepriorto1928untilthelate1980’s,thenorthportionofthepropertywasdevelopedwithrailroadtracksownedandoperatedbytheAtchison,Topeka,andSantaFeRailwayCompany.Asdiscussedabove,railroadtrackscanrepresentanenvironmentalconcern. Whilethisportionof theproperty iscurrentlyasphalt‐paved, thereareareaswheretherailroadspurs remain exposed at the surface. Since the property is proposed for redevelopmentwith residentialpurposes,thePhaseIESAconcludedthattheformeruseofthenorthernportionofthepropertyforrailroadtransitrepresentsaRECfortheproperty.

Hazardous Materials

Hazardousmaterials locatedon‐sitewereonlyobservedat theScientificAutomotiveRepair facility (1727EastWalnutStreet). According to thePhase I,hazardousmaterialsobserved includedone30‐gallonsteeldrumcontainingSafetyKleen,two30‐gallonsteeldrumsofgearoil,one55‐gallonplasticdrumcontainingwastecoolant,andone55‐gallonplasticdrumandone30‐gallonsteeldrumcontainingwasteoil filters. Ametal storage container located in the north exterior portion of the property contained a cabinet of nogreaterthan1‐quartcontainersofnewoil,brakecleaner,WD‐40,andspraypaintcans.Onthesouthsideofthebuilding,oneapproximately300‐gallonASTcontainingwasteoilwasobserved.TheASTwasnotedbythe owner to be double‐walled. Two other containers of new oil, dolly‐mounted and approximately 55‐gallonsinsize,wereobservedadjacenttotheAST.Additionally,fourhydraulichoistsarelocatedinsidetheautorepairbays.ThePhaseIESAnotedthatthepotentialexistsforthepastreleaseofhydraulicfluidfrom



thehoistson‐site.Therefore,thePhaseIESAconcludedthatthepresenceofthehydraulichoistsrepresentsaREC.

InAugust2012andAugust2013,twoPhaseIIESAswerepreparedforthepropertieslocatedat1727and1787EastWalnutStreet.ThePhaseIIESAsincludedsoilsampling(forArea2,1757and1787EastWalnutStreet) and soil/soil vapor sampling (for Area 1, 1727 East Walnut Street) to determine whether thesubsurface of the sites have been negatively impacted by the historic and current operations. The ESAsdetailthespecificfieldactivitiesandmethods,presentstheanalyticalresultsobtainedfromthesoilandsoilvaporsampling,andprovidesconclusionsandrecommendationsforbothproperties.

Soil Sampling/Soil Vapor Sampling 1727 East Walnut Street (Area 1)

OnJuly17,2012,eightsoilborings/samplings(B15‐B22)wereconductedonthe1727EastWalnutStreetproperty at the location of the former railroad right ofway in and around the existing automobile repairfacility. The sampleswere collected to evaluate subsurface soils for the presence of lead, arsenic, PAHs,pesticides,and/orherbicidesattheformerrailroadrightofway,extractablerangepetroleumhydrocarbons(ERPH) and VOCs to assess the former sheet metal shop operations and the current automobile repairoperations,andERPHattheexistinghydraulichoists.SoilvaporsampleswerecollectedduringthisJuly17,2012subsurfacesamplingeventfromtemporarysoilvaporprobestofurtherevaluatewhetherasignificantreleaseofVOCsassociatedwiththeformersheetmetalshopandcurrentautomobilerepairoperationshavenegatively impacted the subsurfaceof theproperty. The soil boringandvapor locationsare indicatedonFigure2,SitePlanShowingSoilBoringandSoilVaporSamplingLocations,of thePhaseIIESA(1727EastWalnutStreet).

According to the Phase II ESA for Area 1, elevated arsenic concentrations are present in the northwestportionofthepropertyinthelocationoftheformerrailroadright‐of‐way,primarilyaroundsoilboringB16,andB17tosomeextent.ElevatedarseniclevelsweredelineatedonthesitetotheeastinboringB15,andtothenorthandwestduetothesite’sproximitytotheadjacentproperties,butremainsessentiallyundefinedto the south. Prior to redevelopment of this portion of the site, excavation and proper disposal of anestimatedvolumeofapproximately415cubicyardsofarsenic‐contaminatedsoilisrequiredtoeliminatethepotentialforexcessivearsenicexposure,inaccordancewithMitigationMeasureHAZ‐1,below.Asstatedinthismitigationmeasure,additionalborings to thesouthofboringsB16andB17 forshallowsoil samplingandanalysiswouldbeconductedtoconfirmtheamountofsoilrequiringdisposal,sincethelimitsofarsenicimpactremainsundefinedtothewestoftheseborings.

TheresultsoftheshallowsoilandsoilvaporsamplingconductedforArea1donotindicatethatasignificantdiesel/oil petroleum hydrocarbon or solvent release has occurred in and around the existing automobilerepair building as a result of the former sheet metal shop operations and automobile repair operations.However,PCEandethylbenzeneinsoilvaporsamplesfromthepropertyweredetectedaboveCHHSLsforaresidentialproperty. A Johnson‐Ettingermodelexercisewasthereforeconductedtodeterminetherisktoresidentialoccupantsofindoorvaporintrusion(i.e.,toindoorairwithinanenclosedstructure);themodelused, SG‐ADV, allows input of parameters for the soil vapor concentration, soil permeability, andspecifications fortheplannedresidentialstructure inquestion. A Johnson‐Ettingermodelingexercisewasconducted for PCE and ethylbenzene concentrations in soil vapor at five feet bgs, and the vapor‐phase



concentrationsdetectedwereconcludednottorepresentanunacceptablevaporintrusionorhealthriskforoccupantsoftheProject,forthecontaminantsofconcern(asmeasuredinμg/L,ormicrogramsperliter).19

Thehydraulichoistsatthepropertyarenotimpactinghumanhealthortheenvironmentatthistimebasedon the low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) and total petroleumhydrocarbonsasoil(TPHo)detectedduringtheinvestigationbelowregulatoryscreeninglevels.Accordingtoa1995exemptionletterissuedbytheCaliforniaStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB),hydraulictanksassociatedwithexistinghydraulichoistsarenotconsideredanenvironmentalconcernbasedonthelowtoxicityandmobilityofhydraulicoils. However,priortoredevelopmentof theProjectsite, thehoistswould be removed, in accordance with Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2, below. As stated in this mitigationmeasure,if impactedsoilisencounteredaboveregulatoryscreeninglevelsatthattime,itisrequiredtoberemediatedandproperlydisposedof.

Soil Sampling 1787 East Walnut Street (Area 2)

On April, 2012, seven soil borings/samplings (B1‐B15) were conducted on the 1787 EastWalnut Streetpropertyatthelocationoftheformerrailroadrightofway. Thesampleswerecollectedtoinvestigatethepotentialof a significant releaseofpesticides,herbicides,PAHs, lead, andarsenic (potential for aerial anddirect deposition). The soil boring locations are indicated on Figure 2, Site Plan Showing Soil BoringLocations,ofthePhaseII(1787EastWalnutStreet).

AccordingtothePhaseII,elevatedarsenicconcentrationsarepresentinthecentralportionoftherailroadright‐of‐wayconcentratedaroundsoilboringsB4,B8,B9,B13,andB15.Elevatedarsenicisdelineatedtothenorth, east, and south, but remains undefined to thewest of borings B9 andB15. The identified arseniccontamination is concentrated in shallow soils (i.e. less than 5 feet below ground surface) and does notappeartobeimpactinggroundwaterwhichisinexcessof100feetbelowgroundsurfaceatthesite.Priortoredevelopment of this portion of the site, excavation and proper handling and disposal of an estimatedvolumeofapproximately670cubicyards(100’x45’x4’)ofarsenic‐contaminatedsoilisrequiredtoeliminatethepotentialforexcessivearsenicexposureatthesite,inaccordancewithMitigationMeasureHAZ‐3,below.Asstated in thismitigationmeasure,prior toexcavationandremovalofarsenic‐impactedsoils,advancingseveral shallow hand‐auger borings to the west of borings B9 and B15 to accommodate shallow soilsamplingandanalysiswouldbeconductedtoconfirmtheamountofsoilrequiringdisposal,sincethelimitsofarsenicimpactremainsundefinedtothewestoftheseborings.

Demolition of the existing on‐site facilities including surface parking areas, excavation of soils, andconstruction of the Projectwould also involve the use of potentially hazardousmaterials such as vehiclefuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Such hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used inaccordance with manufacturer’s instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards andregulations.

The Project would ultimately result in the construction of 128 residential units, 5,000 square feet ofcommercial/restaurantspace,and203parkingspaces,whichdonotrepresentlandusesassociatedwiththe

19 PhaseIIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment1727EastWalnutStreet,preparedbyAndersonEnvironmental,datedAugust24,2012,p.8

(providedasAppendixFofthisDraftEIR).



use of transport of large quantities of hazardousmaterials. Types of hazardousmaterials to be used inassociationwiththeProjectwouldinvolvetheuseandstorageofsmallquantitiesofhazardousmaterialsinthe form of cleaning solvents, painting supplies, pesticides for landscaping, and pool maintenance.Potentially hazardousmaterialswould be contained, stored, and used in accordancewithmanufacturers’instructionsandhandledincompliancewithapplicablestandardsandregulations.Assuch,operationoftheProjectwould result in a less than significant impactwith regard to routine transport, use, ordisposal ofhazardousmaterialsrelativetothesafetyofthepublicortheenvironment.

With implementationof theconstructionrecommendations in thePhase IIESA investigations, set forth inMitigation Measures HAZ‐1 through HAZ‐3, below, and compliance with applicable standards andregulations,impactsrelatedtohazardstothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterialswouldbelessthansignificant.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ‐1: TothesatisfactionoftheCity,priortoredevelopmentoftheportionofArea1delineatedby soil borings B16 and B17, in the location of the former railroad right‐of‐way,remediation and proper disposal of an estimated 415 cubic yards (an areameasuringapproximately 70 feet by 40 feet by 4 feet) of arsenic‐contaminated soil shall beperformedtoeliminatethepotentialforexcessivearsenicexposure.Priortoremediationandremovalofarsenic‐impactedsoils,advancingseveralshallowhand‐augerboringstothe south of borings B16 andB17 to accommodate shallow soil sampling and analysisshallbeconductedtoconfirmtheamountofsoilrequiringdisposal,asthelimitofarsenicimpactremainsundefinedtothewestoftheseboring.

HAZ‐2: PriortoredevelopmentofArea1andtothesatisfactionoftheCity,theexistinghydraulichoistsonthepropertyshallberemoved.Ifimpactedsoilisencounteredaboveregulatoryscreeninglevelsatthattime,itshallberemediatedandproperlydisposedof.

HAZ‐3: TothesatisfactionoftheCity,priortoredevelopmentoftheportionofArea2delineatedby soil borings B4, B8, B9, B13, and B15, in the location of the railroad right‐of‐way,remediationandproperhandlinganddisposalofanestimatedvolumeofapproximately670 cubic yards (an area measuring approximately 100 feet by 45 feet by 4 feet) ofarsenic‐contaminated soil shall be performed to eliminate the potential for excessivearsenicexposureatthesite.Priortoremediationandremovalofarsenic‐impactedsoils,advancing several shallow hand‐auger borings to the west of borings B9 and B15 toaccommodate shallow soil sampling and analysis shall be conducted to confirm theamountofsoilrequiringdisposal,sincethelimitsofarsenicimpactremainsundefinedtothewestoftheseborings.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



SignificantUnlessMitigationisIncorporated.ConstructionoftheProjectwouldincludethelimiteduseofpotentiallyhazardousmaterialssuchasvehiclefuels,oils,andtransmissionfluids. Theuseandstorageofsuchmaterialswouldbeshortterminnatureandwouldcomplywithapplicablestandardsandregulations,andwouldnotposesignificanthazardstothepublicorenvironment.

Construction of the Projectwould involve the demolition of all the existing buildings on the Project site.Given the age of the existing buildings (1945 to 1960), these on‐site structures may contain asbestos‐containingmaterials(ACMs)andlead‐basedpaint(LBP).ThereleaseofACMsandLBPintotheenvironmentcould pose a potential health risk to constructionworkers and nearby residential and commercial/retailareas. According to the Phase I, radon potential at the property is considered low. During the siteinspection, thepresenceofmoldorsignificantwaterdamagewasnotobserved. However,no testingwascompleted as part of the Phase I and Phase II. Thus, Mitigation Measures HAZ‐4 and HAZ‐5 have beenprescribed for the Project. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐4 and HAZ‐5 require that, prior to any demolitionactivities,theProjectApplicantshallconductsurveysofallbuildingstoverifythepresenceorabsenceofanyofthesematerials,andconductremediationorabatementinaccordancewithallapplicableregulationsandstandards. Mandatory compliance with applicable Federal and State standards and procedures wouldensurerisksassociatedwithLBPandACMsremainatacceptablelevels.

AccordingtothePhaseI,thepropertyisnotknowntobelocatedinproximity(1,000feet)toanyactiveorabandonedoilwellsorlandfills.Therefore,thepotentialformethaneriskatthepropertyisconsideredlow.

AsdiscussedinResponseNo.9.a.,operationoftheProjectwouldnotcreateasignificantriskofexposuretohazardousmaterials towards thepublic or the environment. Types of hazardousmaterials to be used inassociation with the Project such as small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form ofcleaningsolvents,paintingsupplies,pesticides for landscaping,andpoolmaintenancewouldbecontained,stored,andusedinaccordancewithmanufacturers’instructionsandhandledincompliancewithapplicablestandardsand regulations. Thepotential for creationof a significanthazard through routine transportofhazardous materials or the release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered less thansignificant.Further,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5(seeResponseNo.9.d,below).

Basedontheabove,withimplementationofMitigationMeasuresHAZ‐4andHAZ‐5,below,andcompliancewith theapplicableregulatoryrequirements,constructionandoperationof theProjectwouldnotcreateasignificant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment.Assuch,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ‐4: Prior to issuanceofdemolitionpermits, theProjectApplicantshallconductanasbestossurveyoftheon‐sitebuildingsandsubmitverificationtotheCityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentthatacertifiedasbestosabatementcontractorhasproperlyremovedasbestosinaccordancewithproceduralrequirementsandregulationsofSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictRule1403.

HAZ‐5: Priortoissuanceofdemolitionpermits,theProjectApplicantshallsubmitverificationtotheCityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentthatalead‐based



paint surveyhasbeenconductedat all existingbuildings locatedon theProject site. Iflead‐basedpaintisfound,theProjectApplicantshallfollowallproceduralrequirementsandregulationsforproperremovalanddisposalofthelead‐basedpaint.

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

waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.Theclosestschool,JeffersonElementary,islocatednorthoftheI‐210at1500EastVillaStreet,approximatelyone‐quartermilenorthwestof theProjectsite. However,asdiscussed inResponseNo.9.a,operationoftheProjectwouldnotcreateasignificantriskofexposuretohazardousmaterialsforthepublicortheenvironment, includingtheschool. TypesofhazardousmaterialstobeusedinassociationwiththeProjectsuchassmallquantitiesofpotentiallyhazardousmaterialsintheformofcleaningsolvents,paintingsupplies, pesticides for landscaping, and pool maintenance would be contained, stored, and used inaccordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards andregulations. The potential for creation of a significant hazard through handling or routine transport ofhazardousmaterialsorthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironmentwithinaquarter‐mileofanexistingschoolisconsideredlessthansignificant.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Significant UnlessMitigation is Incorporated. Government Code Section 65962.5, amended in 1992,requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) to develop and update annually theCorteseList,whichisalistofhazardouswastesitesandothercontaminatedsites.WhileGovernmentCodeSection65962.5makesreferencetothepreparationofa list,manychangeshaveoccurredrelatedtoweb‐based information access since 1992 and information regarding the Cortese List is now compiled on thewebsitesoftheDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl(“DTSC”),theStateWaterBoard,andCalEPA.TheDTSC maintains the EnviroStor database, which includes sites on the Cortese List and also identifiespotentiallyhazardoussiteswherecleanupactions(suchasaremovalaction)orextensiveinvestigationsareplannedorhaveoccurred.ThedatabaseprovidesalistingofFederalSuperfundsites[NationalPrioritiesList(NPL)];StateResponsesites;VoluntaryCleanupsites;andSchoolCleanupsites.

AspartofthePhaseI,asearchforavailableFederal,State,andlocalenvironmentaldatabaserecordsforthepropertieswasconducted.TheresultsofthePhaseIenvironmentaldatasearchareasfollows:



The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“LARWQCB”), DTSC, SQACMD, and LosAngelesCountySanitationDistrict(“LACSD”)werecontactedregardingcontaminatedgroundwaterfiles, industrialwastewater, and air emissions equipment files for the property. According to theresponses,therearenofilesforthepropertyfromtheseagencies.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Public Health Investigationswas contactedregardinghazardousmaterialsfilesfortheproperty.Accordingtoaresponse,onefileexistsfortheproperty. The file is for the Scientific Automotive Service operating at 1727 EastWalnut Street.Accordingtothefile, foursite inspectionswereconductedbyLosAngelesCountyFireDepartment(“LACFD”) personnel between 1997 and 2008. During the inspections, the facility was noted toconductoilchanges,tuneups,brakerepairs,andengineworkandgeneratehazardouswasteintheformofwasteoil,wastefilters,andwastepartscleaner.Wasteoilwasnotedtobestoredina300‐gallon ASTwith used oil filtered and spent antifreeze stored in 55‐gallon drums. Spent batterieswerereportedlyexchangedwhennewbatteriesaredelivered.Noviolationswereidentifiedduringtheinspectionswiththeexceptionoffailuretoprovidehazardouswastemanifestsforpartswasher,used oil, used coolant, used oil filters, rags, and uniforms services during the 2008 inspection.Subsequenttothisnoticeofviolation,afaxfromtheownerofScientificAutomotiveService,Mr.JackDiramarian, dated November 26, 2008, contained attachments of receipts and hazardous wastemanifestsfortheviolationitems.Nootherinspectionreportswereprovidedinthefile.

ThePasadenaFireDepartment(“PFD”)wascontactedregardingundergroundstoragetankand/orhazardousmaterialsfilesfortheproperty.Accordingtofaxedresponses,filesexistforthe1727EastWalnutStreetand1787EastWalnutStreetaddresses. Accordingtodocumentsreviewedfor1727East Walnut Street, a PFD hazardous material permit was issued to Scientific Automotive forhandlinghazardousmaterials. Thespecifichazardousmaterialthefacilitywaspermittedtohandlewasnot identifiedinthepermit. PFDinspectionformsfrom1990to1993indicatedthatScientificAutomotive was generally in compliance with respect to housekeeping and hazardous materialshandling. Some minor notices to comply were issued to the facility during these inspectionsincluding a request to discontinue illegal dumping of floor soap, a request to provide hazardousmaterials placards on the front of the building, provide secondary containment for all oil storage,maintainaflammableliquidscabinet,andplacealloilyragsinaclosedcontainer.Additionally,theinspectionreports indicatedthatnoUSTsorASTsaremaintainedon‐site. Accordingtohazardousmaterials inventory forms from 1994 through 1996, the facility was permitted to maintain 105solvent(SafetyKleen),motoroil,andtransmissionfluid.Accordingtohazardousmaterialsinventoryforms from 2009, the facility was permitted to maintain waste coolant, waste antifreeze, QSOLcleaning solvent, waste motor oil, new motor oil, new coolant, brake and transmission fluid,acetylene,andoxygen.

Accordingtothefilereviewedforthe1787EastWalnutStreetaddress,theonlydocumentsavailablewerefourindexcardswithatypeddescriptionofinspectionnotesandthedateoftheinspection.Amajority of the inspection descriptions alluded to repairing a leaking fire hose valve or a generalinspection which received an “OK” determination. No significant environmental concerns wereidentifiedinthePFDfileforthe1787EastWalnutStreetaddress

TheScientificAutomotiveService,1727EastWalnutStreet, is listedontheEDRtheEDRHistoricalAuto Stations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generators (RCRA‐SQG),Facility Index System/Facility Registry System (FINDS), and Facility andManifest Data (HAZNET)databases. According to theHistoricalAutoStations listing, theproperty at this addresshasbeenutilizedbyScientificAutomotiveServiceforautomobilerepairfromatleast1961to1976.According



to the RCRA‐SQG and FINDS listings, the property is classified as a small quantity generator ofhazardouswasteasofMarch1,2000.Thetypeofbusinessoperatedbythisfacilityislistedas“otherautomotive,mechanical, andelectrical repairandmaintenance.” According to theHAZNET listing,thefacilityhasmaintainedhazardouswastemanifestsfrom1993until2011forthedisposalofthefollowing hazardous wastes: unspecified aqueous solution, aqueous solution with total organicresidueslessthantenpercent,liquidswithhalogenatedorganiccompoundsgreaterthanorequalto1,000milligramsperliter,andunspecifiedsolventmixture.Thewastesarelistedasbeingdisposedthroughrecyclingmethods,atatransferstation,andthroughfuelblendingpriortoenergyrecoveryatanothersite.

The Environmental Lien Search, performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. dated June 27,2012,performedonthepropertyfoundnoEnvironmentalLiensrelatedtotheproperty.

According to the Phase I, none of the other sites listed on the regulatory database report pose asignificantthreattothepropertyasthereisnoindicationofareleaseattherespectivesites,areleasehasoccurredbutthecaseisclosed,orthesitesarelocatedcross‐ordowngradientoftheproperty.

Asdiscussed inResponse9.a, theProject sitehas thepotential to containhazards related toprioron‐siteuses that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during construction andoperationoftheProject.However,withimplementationofMitigationMeasuresHAZ‐4andHAZ‐5providedunder Responses 9.b, significant impacts regarding hazardous materials with the existing site would bereducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.

Basedon theabove,a less thansignificant impactwithregard to listingof theProject siteasahazardousmaterialssitewouldoccurwithProjectimplementation.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TheProjectsiteisnotwithinanairportlanduseplananditisnotwithintwomilesofapublicuseairport. Thenearestpublicuseairport is theBurbank‐Glendale‐PasadenaAirport (BobHopeAirport)locatedintheCityofBurbank,approximately14milestothenorthwest. Therefore,theProjectwouldnotresultinanairport‐relatedsafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheProjectarea,andnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.



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

the people residing or working in the area?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TherearenoprivateairstripsinthevicinityoftheProjectsiteandthesiteisnotlocatedwithinadesignatedairporthazardarea.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotresultinairport‐relatedsafetyhazardsforthepeopleresidingorworkinginthearea.Noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. NoemergencyresponseorevacuationplanswouldbeaffectedbyProjectimplementation.Withthestreetvacation,accesstotheProjectsitewouldbeprovidedviaasingledrivewayfollowingthecurrentalignmentofMeridithAvenue.TheProjectdrivewaywouldprovideaccesstoboththesubterraneanandtheat‐gradeparkingstallsandaccommodatesfullaccesstoandfromEastWalnutStreet(i.e., leftandrightturningmovementsforProjectsiteingressandegress). TheProjectdrivewaywouldbeused for fire and emergency vehicles and service anddelivery vehicles. During construction, partial laneclosures may be necessary on East Walnut Street and North Allen Avenue for right‐of‐way frontageimprovements,butthrough‐accessfordrivers,includingemergencypersonnel,alongbothroadswouldstillbeprovided. Aspartof thebuildingpermitplancheckreviewfortheProject, the finalsiteplanwouldbereviewedbythePFDforapprovalofemergencyaccess.Assuch,impactswouldbelessthansignificant.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.AsshownonPlateP‐2,SummaryofHazardsMap(II),oftheGeneralPlanSafetyElement(2002),theProjectsiteisnotlocatedinanareaofmoderateorveryhighfirehazard.Further,accordingtotheCity’s“FireHazardSeverityZone”map20, theProject site isdesignated “urbanunzoned”which isnot anareaof20 FireHazardSeverityZone,PasadenaFireDepartment,createdbyInformationTechnologyServicesDivision,datedJuly1,2008.



moderateorveryhighfirehazard.ThenearestfirehazardseverityzonetotheProjectsitemappedbytheCity isa“moderate” firehazardzone located justwestof the I‐210andSR‐134merger,approximately2.5milestothewest.Inaddition,theProjectsiteissurroundedbyurbandevelopmentandnotadjacenttoanywildlands.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires.Thus,noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Wouldtheproject:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.TheCityisunderthejurisdictionoftheLARWQCB.TheLARWQCBadoptedwater quality objectives in its StormwaterQualityManagementPlan (“SQMP”). The SQMP is designed toensure stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water limitations. Compliance with the SQMP isensuredbytheNationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystems(“NPDES”).UnderSection402oftheCleanWaterAct,municipalitiesarerequiredtohaveMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystems(“MS4”)permitsforthewaterpollutiongeneratedbystormwaterintheirjurisdiction.InaccordancewiththeCounty‐wideMS4permit,allnewdevelopmentsmustcomplywiththeSQMP.Inaddition,asrequiredbytheCity’sMS4permit,the City has adopted a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (“SUSMP”) ordinance to ensure newdevelopmentscomplywithSQMP. TheordinancerequiresnewdevelopmentstosubmitaplantotheCitythatdemonstrateshowtheprojectwouldcomplywiththeCity’sSUSMP.

ConstructionoftheProjectwouldrequireearthworkactivities,includingdemolition,excavationandgradingof the Project site. During precipitation events in particular, construction activities associated with theProjecthavethepotentialtoresultinsoilerosionduringgradingandsoilstockpiling,subsequentsiltation,andconveyanceofotherpollutantsintomunicipalstormdrains.Asmentionedabove,theProjectissubjectto the requirements of the City’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Control Regulation Ordinance whichimplements therequirementsof theRWQCB’sSUSMP. TheProjectApplicantwouldberequired submitadetailederosionandsedimenttransportcontrolplan indicatingthemethodofSUSMPcompliancepriortotheissuanceofanydemolition,grading,orconstructionpermitsfortheProject.Asanurbandevelopment,the Project would add typical, urban, nonpoint‐source pollutants to stormwater runoff. Project relatedpollutants are permitted by the County‐wide MS4 permit and would not exceed any receiving waterlimitations. CompliancewithCity’sSUSMPordinancewouldensurethat theProjectwouldnotviolateanywater quality standards orwaste discharge requirements (“WDRs”). Thus, a less than significant impactwouldoccurinthisregard.



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 land uses for which permits have been granted)?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.AccordingtotheSeismicHazardEvaluationoftheMountWilson7.5MinuteQuadrangle,LosAngelesCounty,California, thehistorichighgroundwater levelbeneath theProjectsite isgreater than 100 feet. Based on current groundwater basin management practices, it is unlikely thatgroundwaterlevelswouldexceedthehistorichighlevels.Further,groundwaterwasnotencounteredduringsiteexplorations,excavatedtoamaximumdepthof30½feetbeneaththegroundsurface. Basedontheseconsiderations, groundwater is neither expected to be encountered during construction, nor have adetrimental effect on the Project. Therefore, construction activities would not substantially depletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferewithgroundwaterrecharge.

NoknownaquiferconditionsexistontheProjectsiteorinthesurroundingareawhichcouldbeinterceptedby excavation or development of the Project. The Project would not install any groundwater wells orotherwise directly withdraw groundwater. As described in Section 18,Utilities and Service Systems, theProjectwould use the existingwater supply systemprovided by PWP. While the PWP receives some itssupplyfromgroundwaterstoredintheRaymondBasin,themajorityofthewatersupplyisimportedwaterfrom the Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”). Under normal operation, the Project would useapproximately 21,488 gpd when fully occupied. The proposed water usage would be negligible incomparison to theoverallwater serviceprovidedby thePWPandwouldnot result in significant impactsfrom depletion of groundwater supplies. Compliance with water conservation measures such as thoserequiredbyTitles20and24oftheCaliforniaAdministrativeCodeandtheCity’sWaterEfficientLandscapingRegulationsOrdinance(Chapter13.22,WaterEfficientLandscape,ofMunicipalCode)wouldhelptoreducethisprojectedwaterdemand.Inaddition,theProjectsiteisalmostcompletelyimprovedwithimpermeablesurfaces.TheProjectwouldreplaceexistingimperviousareaswithnewimperviousareas.Thus,theamountofimpervioussurfaceareaontheProjectsitewouldincrementallychange,andgroundwaterrechargeintheareawouldnotbesubstantiallyaffected.

In any case, the Project does not proposed to extract groundwater and therefore would not depletegroundwatersupplies. Assuch, constructionandoperationof theProjectwouldnotsubstantiallydepletegroundwater supplies or result in a substantial net deficit in the aquifer volume or lowering of the localgroundwatertable.Thus,lessthansignificantimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.



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

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion

or siltation on‐ or off‐site?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. Nostreamsorriversarepresenton‐site. TheProjectsitegentlyslopestothe south with three to four feet of vertical relief across the property, and is approximately 98 percentimpervious,withnarrowplanterstripsliningEastWalnutStreetandMeridithAvenue.21TheProjectwouldreplaceexistingimpervioussurfaceswithnewimpervioussurfaces. Stormwaterrunoff isdischargedfromthe Project site via overland sheet flow into the gutters liningMeridith Avenue, EastWalnut Street, andNorthAllenAvenue. Flows enter stormdrain inlets to a catch basin near the intersection ofNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetandareconveyedtoa60‐inchstormdrainbeneathNorthAllenAvenue.TheProjectwould include appropriatedrainage improvements on‐site todirect stormwater flows to the localdrainagesystems,similartoexistingconditions.Thus,existingdrainagepatterswouldbemaintained.Withthe site entirelydeveloped,paved, or landscaped, thepotential for erosionor siltationwouldbeminimal.Additionally, Project construction would comply with applicable NPDES and City requirements includingthoseregardingpreparationofaSUSMP.Assuch,lessthansignificantassociatedwithalterationstoexistingdrainagepatternswouldoccur.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. AsdiscussedinResponse10.c, theProjectwouldnotsubstantiallychangetheamountofimpervioussurfaceareaon‐site,andthus,wouldnotresultinsubstantialincreasesinsurfacewaterrunoffquantities. Additionally,withimplementationoftheProject,overallexistingdrainagepatterswouldbemaintained,andtheProjectwouldincludeappropriateon‐sitedrainageimprovementstoconveyanticipatedstormwaterflows. Further,theProjectwouldnotalterthecourseoftheArroyoSecoorEatonCreek. Thus, Project implementationwould not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount ofsurface water runoff that would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site. Thus, less than significant impactsassociatedwithalterationstoexistingdrainagepatternswouldoccur.

21 PacificCoastCivil,Inc.,Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandum,July31,2013(AppendixA).



e. 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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.Asdiscussedabove,post‐developmentrunoffquantitieswouldnotincreaseoverthoseofexistingconditionsandtheProjectwouldincludeappropriateon‐sitedrainageimprovementsto accommodate anticipated stormwater flows. Similar to existing conditions, operation of the proposeduses would generate only typical, non‐point source, urban stormwater pollutants. Compliance with theCity’sSUSMPordinancewouldensure thatpost‐developmentpeakstormwater runoff ratesdonotexceedpre‐developmentpeakstormwaterrunoffrates.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotcreateorcontributerunoffwater that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or providesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff.Assuch,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.AsdiscussedinResponse10.a.and10.b.,theproposeddevelopmentwouldnot be a point‐source generator ofwater pollutants. The only long‐termwater pollutants expected to begenerated on‐site are typical urban stormwater pollutants. Compliancewith the City’s SUSMP ordinancewouldensurethatconstructionandoperationoftheProjectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradewaterquality.Thus,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary

or Flood Insurance Rate Map or dam inundation areas as shown in the City of Pasadena adopted

Safety Element of the General Plan or other flood hazard delineation map?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. Noportions of theCity are locatedwithin a 100‐year floodplain as identified by the FederalEmergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). As shown on FEMA Map Community Number 065050, theProject site is located in Zone X, which is located outside of the “Special Flood Hazard Areas Subject toInundation by 1 percentAnnual Chance of Flood” (100‐year floodplain). Further, as shownonPlate P‐2,SummaryofHazardsMap(II),oftheGeneralPlanSafetyElementTechnicalBackgroundReport(2002),the



Project site is not located a dam inundation zone. As the Project site is not located within a 100‐yearfloodplainordaminundationarea,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

h. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.AsdiscussedinResponseNo.10.g,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedwithinaFEMAdesignated100‐yearfloodplain.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotplacestructureswithina100‐yearfloodplain,whichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows.Thus,noimpactwouldoccurwithregardtofloodflows.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact. AsdiscussedinResponseNo.10.g,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedwithina100‐yearfloodplain.Further,accordingtotheCity’sDamFailureInundationMapoftheSafetyElementoftheCity’sGeneralPlan(2002), theProject site isnot located inadam inundationarea. Thus,no impactswouldoccur regardingexposureofpeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingflooding.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. Aseiche isanoscillationofabodyofwater inanenclosedorsemi‐enclosedbasin, suchasareservoir,harbor,lake,orstoragetank.Atsunamiisagreatseawave,commonlyreferredtoasatidalwave,produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of the sea floor associatedwithlarge,shallowearthquakes.Mudflowsresultfromthedownslopemovementofsoiland/orrockundertheinfluenceofgravity.TheProjectsiteisnotlocatedinacoastalareaornearanyinlandbodiesofwater.

AsmentionedinSection7,GeologyandSoils,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanareaidentifiedashavingapotential forslope instability. TherearenoknownlandslidesneartheProjectsite,nor is thesite inthepathofanyknownorpotentiallandslides.Inaddition,theProjectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanareaidentifiedas having a potential for liquefaction. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Thus, no impactassociatedwithinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflowswouldoccur.



11. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Wouldtheproject:

a. Physically divide an established community?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. TheProject is intendedtobeamixed‐use, transient‐orienteddevelopment that iscompatiblewithexistinglandusesintheProjectarea.TheProjectsiteislocatedinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityandisgenerallysurroundedbyamixofretail,commercial,andresidentialuses.LandusesfrontingonEastWalnut Street and North Allen Avenue generally lack distinctive architectural elements or substantiallandscaping.TheProjectdesignconceptisintendedtounifythedevelopment’sNorthAllenAvenuefrontage,whichfacesthepedestriancorridorbetweentheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationtothenorthandPasadenaCityCollegetothesouth,andEastWalnutStreetthroughtheplacementofcommercial/restaurantusesthatwould serve as anchors,while providingpedestrian‐scaled arcades andpatios and glazing to allowviewsinto interior spaces. The design includes ground floor retail uses along North Allen Avenue, includingcourtyardsfrontingAllenthatwouldserveasactivespacesaswellasinvitingpassages.TheProjectwouldbe fully served by existing roadways and infrastructure and would be compatible with the surroundingneighborhood.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotphysicallydivideanestablishedcommunityandnoimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

b. Conflict with 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted

for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.

City of Pasadena General Plan (General Plan)

TheGeneralPlanprovideslong‐termguidanceandpoliciesformaintainingandimprovingthequalityoflifein,andtheresourcesof,thecommunity,bothman‐madeandnatural. TheGeneralPlanprovidesdirectionfor theCity’sgrowthanddevelopment. TheGeneralPlancontains the followingchapters:LandUse,LandUse, Mobility, Housing, Green Space, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Safety, Public Facilities,Historical/Cultural, Cultural/Recreational, Social Development, Scenic Highways, Energy, and EconomicDevelopmentandEmployment.ThesechaptersincludethesevenelementsrequiredbyStatelawandotheroptionalelementsthataddresslocalconcernsandregionalrequirements.



TheProjectsitecomprisestwoareas:Area1,thewesternarea,whichis0.44acres,andArea2,theeasternarea,whichis1.48acres.Area1iscurrentlydesignatedGeneralCommercialintheGeneralPlan.AccordingtotheGeneralPlan,theGeneralCommerciallandusedesignation“isanon‐specializedcommercialcategoryintendedtopermitabroadrangeofretailandservicebusinesses.”Area2isdesignatedSpecificPlanbytheCity’s General Plan and is within the East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan area, which includes mostpropertieswithEastColoradoBoulevardfrontagebetweenCatalinaBoulevardandSycamoreAvenueaswellasallparcelswithfrontageonNorthAllenAvenuebetweenColoradoBoulevardandtheFoothillFreeway.The Specific Plan Area denotes “areas that are targeted for a significant portion of projected futuredevelopment while preserving and enhancing areas of historical architectural significance.” The EastColoradoSpecificPlandesignationisintendedtoincludepropertiesinproximitytolightrailtransitstationswhereexistinglandusescanbemodifiedtocreateopportunitiesforresidentstolivenearemploymentandtransitcenters,tohelpalleviatecongestionandimprovethequalityofair.

Consistency with Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies

In 1994, the General Plan allocated 750 housing units and 650,000 square feet on non‐residentialdevelopment to the East Colorado Specific Plan. As of April 29, 2013, the East Colorado Specific Planretained a General Plan allocation of 737 housing units and 243,322 square feet of non‐residentialdevelopmentpotential. The113rentalunitsand5,000squarefeetofgroundfloorcommercial/restaurantusesproposedontheSpecificPlanportionoftheProjectsite(Area2)arewithintheseallocations, leavingtheSpecificPlanwith624housingunitsand238,322squarefeetofnon‐residentialspace.TableB‐6,CityofPasadenaGeneral Plan Consistency, includes a discussion of the Project’s consistency with the applicableGeneralPlanobjectivesandpolicies.AsindicatedinTableB‐6,theProjectwouldbesubstantiallyconsistentwiththeapplicableobjectivesandpoliciesintheGeneralPlan.

Table B‐6

City of Pasadena General Plan Consistency

Objectives and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency

Land Use Element

Policy1.3–Transit‐OrientedandPedestrian‐OrientedDevelopment: Within targeted development areas,cluster development near light rail stations and alongmajor transportation corridors thereby creating transitoriented development “nodes” and encourage pedestrianaccess.

Consistent.TheProject siteislocated0.15milessouthofthe Foothill freeway and one‐quarter mile south of theAllenAvenueGoldLineStation. TheProjectproposes toconstruct 128 multi‐family residential units and 5,000squarefeetofgroundfloorcommercial/restaurantuses.

Policy1.4–Mixed‐use: AuthorizeandencourageMixedUse development in targeted areas, including in‐townhousing,live‐workspaces,andin‐towncommercialuses.

Consistent.RefertotheResponsetoPolicy1.3, above.

Policy2.3–UrbanOpenSpaces:Encourageandrequire,where feasible, the incorporation of publicly accessibleurban open spaces, including parks, courtyards, waterfeatures, gardens, passageways and plazas, into publicimprovementsandprivateprojects.

Consistent. The Project would include outdoor openspace areas to enhance the residential andcommercial/retail environments andwouldmaintain theexisting trees onNorthAllenAvenue andwouldprovidenew street trees on East Walnut Street, to enhance thepedestrian experience on those roadways. The Projectwould includeoutdoor landscaped areas, courtyards andgardens, fountain features with seating, and barbequearea.


Table B‐6 (Continued)




Policy5.9–ContextualandCompatibleDesign:Urbandesignprogramsshallensurethatnewdevelopmentshallrespect Pasadena’s heritage by requiring that newdevelopment respond to its context and be compatiblewith the traditions and character of Pasadena, and shallpromote orderly development which is compatible withitssurroundingscaleandwhichprotectstheprivacy,andaccesstolightandairofsurroundingproperties.

The western building would be three stories and amaximum of 45 feet in height above adjacent grade andtheeasternbuildingwouldbefourstoriesandamaximumheightof60feetaboveadjacentgrade(throughtheCity’sDesignReviewprocess,theseheightsmaybemodifiedbutwouldbe limited to45 feet for thewesternbuildingand60feetfortheeasternbuilding.

Thebuildingswouldhave articulated facades facingEastWalnut Street and North Allen Avenue, includingcourtyardsandotheropenspacevisiblefromEastWalnutStreet,andwould incorporatevaryingrooflines, recessedbays, arches, colonnades, and varying vertical elementsthatwouldbreakuptheexteriorfaçadeandreducevisualmassing. Conceptualbuildingdesignplansproposelight‐colored stucco cladding, tile roofs, and a range of earth‐tonebuildingmaterialsandpaintcolors.Accentssuchasrecessed tile elements, heavy timber trellises, profiledstucco‐encased window sills, precast stone trim andsurrounds, wrought iron or other metal railings, andenhanced vinyl casement window trim would also beincorporatedthroughouttheexterior.

TheProject issitedatthesoutheastcorneroftheProjectsitewithanemphasisgiventothecornerbuildingdesignwith the incorporationof theheavilyglazedground‐floorcommercialandrestaurantcomponent.Thearchitecturaldetails/elements, articulated building base, stoop entry,canopy at the residential entry, courtyard/buildingbreaks, and commercial and restaurant storefront reflectthescaleofthestreet. TheProjectwouldbeconstructedwith insulatedwallswith recesseddual‐glazedwindows,canopies,andlargeoverhangsinthesouthernexposureofthe building. The Project would comply with theapplicable design guidelines of the Citywide DesignPrinciples & Criteria in the General Plan, the DesignGuidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi‐FamilyDistricts,andtheEastColoradoSpecificPlanGuidelines.

Policy5.10–SpatialAttributes: Promotedevelopmentthat creates and enhances positive spatial attributes ofmajorpublicstreets,openspaces,cityscapeandmountainsightlinesandimportant“gateways”intotheCity.

Consistent.RefertotheResponsetoPolicy5.9,above.

Objective 3 – Affordable Housing: Encourage theretention and creation of affordable housing throughoutPasadena by providing sufficient land and densities todevelopnewaffordablehousing.

Consistent. The Project would include ten affordableunits(twostudios,fiveone‐bedroomunits,andthreetwo‐bedroom units) to comply with the City’s inclusionaryaffordableunitrequirements.

Policy 15.1 – Sizes and Types: Provide a range ofhousing sizes and types for themany sizes and types offamiliesinthecommunity

Consistent. Refer to Response Objective 3. Theresidential unit mix would include 21 studios, 64 one‐bedroomunits,and43two‐bedroomunitsranginginsizefrom565squarefeet(studios)to1,065squarefeet(two‐bedroomunits).






Policy15.2–IncreaseSupply:Increasethetotalnumberof market rate and affordable housing units within theCity.

Consistent.RefertotheResponsetoObjective3,above.

Policy 22.1 – Urban Design: Urban design programsshall encourage pedestrian‐oriented development,includingencouragementofpedestriancirculationamongparcels,uses,transitstops,andpublicorpubliclyaccessedspaces; requiring human scale; encouraging varied andarticulatedfacades;requiringregularvisual(asintheuseoffirstfloorwindowsandclearglass)andphysicalaccessfor pedestrians; requiring that ground floor residentialand commercial entries face and engage the street; andencouraging pedestrian‐oriented streetscapes andamenities.

Consistent.RefertotheResponsetoPolicy1.3,Policy2.3,Policy5.9,

Policy27.4–Consultation:Encourageprojectapplicantsto contact the surrounding neighborhood prior tosubmittingaformalapplicationfortheproject.Applicantswillbeencouragedtoseekcommentsfromresidentsandwork with them to resolve conflicts on design, traffic,noise,useofthesiteandotherimpactsspecificallyrelatedtotheproject.

Consistent. The Project Applicant has met withneighborhood associations during conceptual designdevelopment and environmental review. A communitymeeting was held on March 23, 2013. Other noticedpublicmeetingsincludethePreliminaryConsultationwiththe Design Commission held on March 11, 2013 and aninformationalpresentationtotheCityCouncilheldonMay20,2013.

Sources: PCR Services Corporation, 2013; City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department, Predevelopment Plan Review Comments, Design and Historic Preservation Comments, February 14, 2013.

City of Pasadena Zoning Code (Zoning Code)

Area1iszonedCGpertheZoningCode.PerZoningCodeSection17.24.020,thepurposeoftheCGDistrictis“toprovideopportunitiesforthefullrangeofretailandservicebusinessesdeemedsuitableforlocationinPasadena.” BecauseArea1 is locatedwithinone‐quartermileof theAllenAvenueGoldLineStation, it issubjecttothedevelopmentstandardsestablishedintheTODsectionoftheZoningCode. PerZoningCodeSection17.50.340,Transit‐OrientedDevelopment,TODstandardsareintendedto“provideforamixtureofcommercial,high‐densityresidential,mixed‐use,public,andsemi‐publicusesincloseproximitytolightrailstations, encouraging transit usage in conjunction with a safe and pleasant pedestrian‐orientedenvironment.” These standardsemphasize intensificationof development and reduced relianceonmotorvehiclesandapplytonewdevelopmentwithin1,320feet(one‐quartermile)ofalightrailstationplatform.Area2iszonedECSP‐CG‐3pertheZoningCode. Chapter17.31oftheEastColoradoSpecificPlan,Section17.31.020,PurposesofECSPZoningDistrictsoftheZoningCode,statesthat,“thepurposeoftheECSPzoningdistrictsistoimplementtheEastColoradoSpecificPlanbybalancingandoptimizingeconomicdevelopment,historicpreservation,andthemaintenanceoflocalcommunityculture”,andto:



Promoteavibrantmixoflanduses,aunifiedstreetscape,andaseriesofdistinctive‘places’alongtheBoulevard;

Improvetheappearance,function,andurbanambianceofEastColoradoBoulevard;

Identify areas of East Colorado Boulevard,which are appropriate locations for developingmixed‐useandhousingprojects,andareaswherecommercialdevelopmentshouldbeconcentrated;

Retain the eclecticmix of uses and protect the vitality of small, independent businesses. UpholdColoradoBoulevardasalocationforspecialtyandnicheretailbusinesses;

Beautify the streetscape though installation ofstreettrees,streetandmedianlandscapingto softentheurbanedge,andaconsistentselectionofurbanfurnishings;

Create a pedestrian‐friendly environment that balances the needs of pedestrians and vehiculartraffic,recognizingtheheavylocalandregionaluseofColoradoBoulevard;

Protecthistoric resourcesand honor the past of Colorado Boulevard and its surroundingcommunities throughsubarea identificationandremembranceofColoradoBoulevardasRoute66;and

EffectivelyplanfortheutilizationofthelightrailstationsatAllenAvenueandSierraMadreVillaatthe 210 Freeway through the establishment of special development standards in these light rail‘nodes’.”

Consistency with the City of Pasadena Zoning Code

Mixed‐usebuildingsareallowedwithintheECSP‐CG‐3portionofthesite(Area1).AlthoughtheCGzoningdistrictdoesnotpermithousingormixed‐useprojects,becausethisportionof thesite(Area2) is locatedwithin one‐quarter mile of the Allen Avenue Gold Line Station, Section 17.50.340, Transit OrientedDevelopment, of the Zoning Code, housing is permitted to be constructed on a site with approval of aConditionalUsePermit(CUP).WithintheCGzoningdistrict,andpertheTODsectionoftheZoningCode,themaximumallowedresidentialdensity is48unitsperacre. Basedonthemaximumdensityandanareaof0.44acres,themaximumallowabledensityis21units.ThefourparcelscomprisingtheProject’sArea2arezoned ECSP‐CG‐3. The maximum allowable residential density for mixed‐use projects within the EastColoradoSpecificPlanAreawithinone‐quartermileof theAllenAvenueGoldLineStation is60unitsperacre.Withanareaof1.48acres,themaximumpermittedresidentialdensityonArea2is89units.SimilartoArea1,Area2islocatedwithinone‐quartermileoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationandissubjecttothedevelopmentstandardsintheTODsectionoftheZoningCode.Atotalof110unitsarethereforepermittedunderexistingzoning.However,theProjectApplicantintendstoinvoketheDensityBonusprovisionsoftheZoningCodeforaffordablehousingprojects(Chapter17.43,DensityBonus,Waivers,andIncentives),whichwould permit up to a 33 percent increase in the number of allowable residential units. In addition, perChapter17.61.030,DesignReview,oftheZoningCode,theProject’sdesignwouldbereviewedbytheDesignCommission.Further,theProjectwouldcomplywithallsetback,height,size,andlandscapingstandardsandrequirements of theZoningCode. As such, theProjectwouldbe substantially consistentwith theZoningCode.

Design Review

PerChapter17.61.030,DesignReview,theProjectissubjecttoDesignReview,withtheDesignCommissionbeingthereviewingauthority.DesignReviewisintendedtoimplementurbandesigngoalsandpoliciesand



thecitywidedesignprinciplesintheGeneralPlanandtoapplytheCity’sadopteddesignguidelinestoDesignReview.Morespecifically,thepurposesoftheDesignReviewareto:

Apply citywide urban design principles to ensure that new construction supports the best of theCity’sarchitecturaltraditions;

Encouragenewstructuresthatshowcreativityandimagination,adddistinction,interest,andvarietytothecommunity,andareenvironmentallysustainable;

Promote architectural and design excellence in new construction and discourage poor‐qualitydevelopment;

Ensurethatfuturedevelopmentshould:

o Reflectthevaluesofthecommunity;

o Enhancethesurroundingenvironment;

o Visuallyharmonizewithitssurroundingsandnotunnecessarilyblockscenicviews;and

o Avoidnostalgicmisrepresentationsthatmayconfusetherelationshipsamongstructuresovertime.

Ensurethatnewlandscapingprovidesavisuallypleasingsettingforstructuresonthesite;

Promotetheprotectionandretentionoflandmark,native,andspecimentreesandiffeasiblematurecanopytreesandothersignificantlandscapingofaestheticandenvironmentalvalue;

Ensurethat thedesign,quality,and locationofsignsareconsistentwith thecharacterandscaleofthe structures to which they are attached and are visually harmonious with surroundingdevelopment;and

Promotetheconservation,enhancement,preservation,andprotectionofhistoricresources.

TheapplicabledesignguidelinesfortheProjectaretheCitywideDesignPrinciples&Criteria intheGeneralPlan, the Design Guidelines forNeighborhood Commercial &Multi‐Family Districts, and the East ColoradoSpecific Plan Guidelines. Compliance with these design guidelines is ensured through the City’s DesignReview process. The City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department and DesignCommissionconductedpreliminarydesignreviewof theProject inFebruaryandMarch2013.22 The staffreportsfocusedonProjectmassing,siting,designcompatibilitywithitssurroundings,landscaping,signage,and architectural materials and finishes. The reports recommended, in part, that the Project preservesightlinestotheSanGabrielMountainstothenorth;enhance,wherepossible,thoseProjectamenitiesthatwould support a pedestrian orientation; and ensure that the Project meets the Specific Plan goal ofbeautifyingkeyintersectionsandcommunitygatewaystoestablishasenseofplace. Further,theProject’sfinaldesignshouldminimizebuildingmassing(especiallyalongWalnutStreet)withconsiderationofmoregenerousopeningsandviewsto interiorcourtyardspaces fromthesurroundingstreets. ThestaffreportsalsorecommendedProjectcompliancewithapplicablestandardsforside‐andrear‐yardsetbacks,buildingheights, and community open space requirements. In addition, the Design Commission recommended a

22 CityofPasadenaPlanning&CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PredevelopmentPlanReviewComments,DesignandHistoric

Preservation Comments, dated February 14, 2013; and City of Pasadena Planning& CommunityDevelopmentDepartment StaffReport,ApplicationforPreliminaryConsultation1787EastWalnutStreet–NewConstructionofa128‐UnitMixed‐UseResidentialProject,datedMarch11,2013.



close studyof theCity’sunique architecturalheritage tohelp further align thebuildingdesignwithothernotablearchitecturaldesignexampleswithintheCity,tocreateauniquelysite‐specificdesignthatrespondstotheuniqueurbansetting.

The reports concluded that the Project was well‐sited and suited to the site, and placed appropriateemphasisontheEastWalnutStreet‐NorthAllenAvenuecornertreatment,withincorporationofsubstantialareasoftransparentglazing.Theyrecommendedfurtherstudiesbeundertakentobreakdownbuildingmass(especiallyalongWalnutStreet),withconsiderationofgenerousopeningsandviews to interiorcourtyardspacesfromthesurroundingstreets.

The current Project design is generally responsive to the preliminary design review recommendations inthatitmeetstheCity’srequirementsforside‐andrear‐yardsetbacks,buildingheights,andcommunityopenspace. The Project design concept is intended to unify the development’s North Allen Avenue frontage,whichfacesthepedestriancorridorbetweentheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationtothenorthandPasadenaCityCollegetothesouth,andEastWalnutStreetfrontagethroughtheplacementofcommercial/restaurantusesthatwouldserveasanchorsatthatcorner,whileprovidingpedestrian‐scaledarcadesandpatiosandglazingtoallowviewsintointeriorspaces. Thedesignincludesground‐floorretailusesalongNorthAllenAvenue, includingcourtyardsfrontingAllenthatwouldserveasactivespacesaswellas invitingpassages.PleaserefertoResponses1.aand1.cforfurtherdiscussionofProjectdesignfeaturesthatwouldcontributetobeautifyingtheProjectareaandcreatingasenseofplace.TheProject’suseofvaryingfootprints,verticalelements, accent features, and varying roof lines would serve to break up the scale and massing of theproposed buildings and would create the appearance of a collection of separate buildings, rather than asinglemassorblock.RefertoResponse1.aforfurtherdiscussionoftheProjectdesignfeaturesthatwouldminimizethemassingandscaleoftheproposedbuildings.Asnotedtherein,theProjectproposesamoderninterpretationofMediterranean‐inspiredarchitecturaldesign;thereisnoparticularprominentorcoherentarchitecturalthemeembodiedintheotherbuildingsintheProjectvicinity,whicharestylisticallyeclectic.

As discussed in Response 1.a, scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains ridgelines would largely bepreserved fromvantages alongNorthAllenAvenue, andviewsof themountains fromEastWalnut Street,whicharelimited,wouldnotbesubstantiallyalteredbyProjectimplementation.

Overall,basedontheabovedesignconsiderationsandProjectdesignfeatures,thecurrentProjectdesignisgenerallyconsistentwiththepreliminarydesignreviewrecommendationsinthestaffreports..

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation

plan (NCCP)?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. There isnoadoptedHabitatConservationPlan (HCP),NaturalCommunityConservationPlan(NCCP),orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orStatehabitatconservationplaninplacefortheProjectsiteortheCity.Thus,noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.



12. MINERAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

and

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact(a‐b). Noactiveminingoperationsexist in theCity. Thereare twoareas in theCity thatmaycontainmineralresources;EatonCanyonWash,whichwasformerlyminedforsandandgravel,andDevil’sGateReservoir,whichwas formerlymined for cement concrete aggregate. TheProject site isnot locatedneartheseareas.Further,theProjectsiteisdevelopedwithurbanuses,andthusthepotentialofuncoveringmineralresourcesduringProjectconstructionisconsideredlow.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotresultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplan,orotherlanduseplanas therearenoknownmineral resourcesormineral resourcerecoverysitesonornear theProjectsite.Noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

13. NOISE

Wouldtheprojectresultin:

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis evaluates the potential noise impacts at noise‐sensitivelandusesresultingfromconstructionandoperationoftheProject.Theanalysisalsoevaluatesthepotentialnoiseimpactsfromthesitenoiseenvironmenttotheproposedresidentialuses.



Applicable Noise Regulations

Title9,Chapter9.36oftheMunicipalCodeincludesnoisestandardstoprohibitunnecessary,excessiveandannoyingnoises fromallsourcessubject to itspolicepower. Thenoisestandardsset limitsonthe levelanoise sourcemay impact an interiormulti‐family residential property. TableB‐7,CityofPasadenaNoiseStandards summarizes the interior noise standard. The ordinance also applies different criteria duringdifferenttimeperiods;thenoiseduringthelatenightandearlymorninghoursaremorerestrictive.

Section 9.36.070 of the PMC allows operation of construction equipment within a residential district orwithinaradiusof500feetthereforebetweenthehoursof7:00A.M.to7:00P.M.MondaythroughFriday,8:00A.M.5:00P.M.onSaturday.Nooneshalloperateanypiledriver,powershovel,pneumatichammer,derrickpower hoist, forklift, cement mixer, or any other similar construction equipment outside these hours.OperationofanyconstructionequipmentisprohibitedonSundaysandholidays.

Section 9.36.080 of the PMC limits noise levels generated by construction equipment by prohibitingconstructionequipmentnoiseatalevelinexcessof85dBAwhenmeasuredwithinaradiusof100feetfromsuchequipment.Noisefromapointsourcegenerallyattenuatesbyafactorof6.0dBAforeachdoublingofdistance. Constructionequipmentmovingwithinaconfinedarea isnormallyconsideredapointsourceofnoise.

Section 9.36.090 of the PMC establishes acceptable ambient sound levels to regulate intrusive noise (e.g.,stationarymechanicalequipmentsuchaspump,fan,andairconditioningapparatus)atthepropertylineofanyproperty. InaccordancewiththeNoiseRegulation,anoise levelexceedingtheambientnoise levelbymorethan5decibelsatanadjacentpropertylineisconsideredanoiseviolation.

The Noise Element of the General Plan is primarily used by the Planning Department as a permittingguideline to prevent noise‐sensitive land use developments from encroaching upon existing preemptivenoisesourcesunlessadequatenoiseabatementisincorporatedintotheencroachingdevelopment.TheCityofPasadenaNoiseElement contains anoise compatibilitymatrix that showsacceptable andunacceptable

Table B‐7

City of Pasadena Interior Noise Standards

Type of Land Use

Interior Noise Standard, (dBA)

Interior

7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.

Multi‐FamilyResidentialProperty 60 50

a It isunlawful foranyperson toproduce, sufferorallow tobeproducedonanymulti‐familyresidentialproperty,soundsata level inexcessofthoseenumerated inthistablewhenmeasured insideanydwellingunitonthesameproperty or twenty (20) feet from the outside of the dwelling unit inwhich the noise source or sourcesmay belocated.

Source: Pasadena Municipal Code Section 9.36.060.



rangesofnoiseforvariouslanduses.ThenoisecompatibilitymatrixisshowninTableB‐8,CityofPasadenaGuidelinesforNoiseCompatibleLandUse,(appearsasFigure1intheCity’sNoiseElement).23

These guidelines are set forth in theCityofPasadenaRevisedNoiseElementof theGeneralPlan (2002) intermsoftheCommunityNoiseEquivalentLevel(CNEL).CNELguidelinesforspecificlandusesareclassifiedinto fourcategories: (1)“clearlyacceptable,”(2)“normallyacceptable,”(3)“conditionallyacceptable,”and(4)“normallyunacceptable.” AsshowninTableB‐8,aCNELvalueof70dBA is theupper limitofwhat isconsidereda “normallyacceptable”noiseenvironment formulti‐family andmixedcommercial/residentialuses.24

TheCityhasnotadoptedpoliciesorguidelinesrelativetoground‐bornevibration. Assuch,ground‐bornevibrationpoliciesandguidelinesfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(“Caltrans”)areutilizedinthisanalysis. Withrespecttoground‐bornevibrationfromconstructionactivities,Caltranshasadoptedguidelines/recommendations to limit ground‐borne vibration based on the age and/or condition of thestructuresthatarelocatedincloseproximitytoconstructionactivity.

The Caltrans technical publication Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual(June2004)providesavibrationdamagepotentialcriteriaof0.5inch‐per‐secondPPVforolderresidentialstructures, 1.0 inch‐per‐second PPV for newer residential structures, and 2.0 inch‐per‐second PPV formodern industrial/commercial buildings. Caltrans also provides the following criteria to define humanannoyance from vibration: barely perceptible, distinctly perceptible, strongly perceptible, and severe. Avibrationlevelof0.04inchespersecondPPVisconsideredtobebarelyperceptible.

Existing Conditions

TheProject site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City and is generally surroundedby amix ofretail, commercial, and residential uses. Adjacent uses include automotive repair and multi‐familyresidentialusestothenorth;coffeeshop,self‐storage,andautomotiverepairusestotheeast;fastfood,glassshop,dentaloffice,antiqueshop,realestateoffice,andmulti‐familyresidentialusestothesouth;andstereoshopandautomotiverepairusestothewest.

TrafficalongNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetrepresentsthedominantsourceofexistingnoiseinthe Project vicinity. Additional noise sources in the area include commercial and retail activities. Toquantify the existing noise environment, long‐term (24‐hour) measurements were conducted at twolocations, identified as R1 and R2. Two short‐term (15‐minute) measurements were recorded at twolocations, identified as R3 and R4. The noise measurement locations are provided in FigureB‐3,NoiseMeasurementLocations.Thelong‐termambientnoisemeasurementsatlocationsR1andR2wereconductedfromTuesday,July24,throughWednesday,July25,2013.Theshort‐termnoisemeasurementsatlocationsR3andR4wereconductedonJuly25,2013betweenthehoursof1:00P.M.and2:00P.M..Descriptionsofthenoisemeasurementlocationsareprovidedbelow:

23 CityofPasadenaRevisedNoiseElement,December2002.24 CityofPasadenaRevisedNoiseElement,December2002.



Table B‐8

City of Pasadena Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use

Land Use Category

Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL, dBA

55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential – Multi- Family and Mixed Commercial/Residential Use

Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

CLEARLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken after an analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: If new construction or development proceeds, an analysis of the noise reduction requirement should be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, unless it can be demonstrated than an interior level of 45 dBA can be achieved.

* Please note that these guidelines are general and may not apply to specific sites. Source: California, General Plan Guidelines, 1998, as modified by the City of Pasadena, 2002

AÎAÎ

AÎ

AÎ

E. Walnut Street

N.

Alle

n A

venu

eLocust Street

N.

Sie

rra

Bo

nita

Ave

nue

N.

Bon

nie

Ave

nue

N.

Me

ridith

A

venu

e

N.

Par

kwoo

d A

ven

ue

E. Corson Street

CommercialMulti-Family

Single-Family and Multi-Family

Commercial

Commercial

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial CommercialCommercial Commercial

Commercial

Commercial

Allen Avenue Gold Line Station §̈¦210

Multi-Family Multi-Family Multi-Family Multi-FamilyMulti-Family

R4

R3

R2R1

AÎ Noise Monitoring Locations

Project Boundary


FIGURE

Source: Microsoft, 2010; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 250 500 Feet


Noise Measurement Locationso B-3



Measurement Location R1: This measurement location represents the noise environment of theProjectsite.Thesoundmeasuringdevice(soundlevelmeter)wasplacedonthewesternboundaryoftheProjectsitealongNorthAllenAvenue.

Measurement Location R2: This measurement location represents the noise environment of theProjectsite. Thesound levelmeterwasplacedonthesouthernboundaryof theProjectsitealongEastWalnutStreet.

Measurement Location R3: This measurement location represents the noise environment of theadjacent residential uses north of the Project site. The sound level meter was placed on thenorthwesternsideoftheProjectsitenearbytheadjacentmulti‐familyresidentialuses.

Measurement Location R4: This measurement location represents the noise environment of themulti‐familyresidentialusessouthoftheProjectsitealongMeridithAvenue.Thesoundlevelmeterwasplaced in front ofmulti‐family residential uses approximately 120 feet from the southeasterncornerofEastWalnutStreetandMeridithAvenue.

The ambient noise measurements were conducted using a Larson‐Davis 820 Precision Integrated SoundLevelMeter(SLM).TheLarson‐Davis820SLMisaType1standardinstrumentasdefinedintheAmericanNationalStandardInstitute(ANSI)S1.4.Measurementinstrumentswerecalibratedandoperatedaccordingtomanufacturerspecifications.Themicrophonewasplacedataheightof5feetabovethelocalgrade.

TheresultsoftheambientsoundmeasurementdataaresummarizedinTableB‐9,SummaryofAmbientNoiseMeasurements.Asshowntherein,thelong‐termmeasuredCNELatLocationsR1andR2rangesfrom68to69dBAinwhichtheprimarysourceofnoisewastrafficalongNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreet.Asindicatedbythenoisedata inTableB‐9, theProjectsite isgenerallyconsidered“normallyacceptable”[bythe City of Pasadena’s Guidelines forNoise Compatible LandUse], formixed commercial/residential landuses.

Tofurthercharacterizethearea’snoiseenvironment,theCNELnoiselevelsgeneratedbyexistingtrafficonlocalroadwayswascalculatedusinganoisepredictionmodeldevelopedbasedoncalculationmethodologies

providedintheCaltransTechnicalNoiseSupplement(TeNS)documentandtrafficdataprovidedintheEastWalnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study (herein referred to as the “Traffic Study”)(AppendixI).TheroadwaynoisecalculationproceduresprovidedintheCaltransTeNSareconsistentwithFederal Highway Administration RD‐77‐108 roadway noise predictionmethodologies. Thismethodologyallows for the definition of roadway configurations, barrier information (if any), and receiver locations.Noisefromalinesource,suchasmotorvehiclesonabusyroad,generallyattenuatesbyafactorof3.0dBAforeachdoublingofdistancewhenencounteringa“hard”siteconditionsuchaspavementandbyafactorof4.5dBAperdoublingofdistancewhenencounteringa“soft”groundconditionsuchasgrass.Giventhebuiltnatureofthesurroundingarea,thisanalysisassumesahardgroundcondition.

Amodelcalibrationtestwasperformedtoestablishthenoisepredictionmodel'saccuracy.RoadsegmentsincludedinthecalibrationtestwereNorthAllenAvenue(R1)andEastWalnutStreet(R2). Ateachnotedlocation, a minimum of 15‐minute noise recording was made concurrent with logging of actual trafficvolumesandautofleetmix(i.e.,standardautomobile,mediumdutytruck,orheavydutytruck).Thetrafficcountswereenteredintothenoisemodelalongwiththeobservedspeed,laneconfiguration,anddistancetotheroadway tocalculate the trafficnoise levels. Thedifferencesbetween thenoise levels fromthe trafficnoisemodelresultsalongNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetandthemeasurednoiselevelsalong



thesameroadwaysegmentsarelessthanwithin1dBA,whichiswithintheindustrystandardtoleranceofthenoisemodel(i.e.,+/‐1dBA).Therefore,theProject‐specifictrafficnoisepredictionmodelisconsideredaccurateandspecifictotheProjectconditions.

Short‐Term Construction Noise

On‐Site Construction Activities

As discussed abovemulti‐family residential uses are located north of the Project site (location R3). TheresidentialusesarepositionedadjacenttotheProjectsiteandrepresenttheclosestsensitivereceptor.TheProject would result in a temporary increase in noise from demolition, preparation of the site forconstruction, and construction of the new building. The construction for the Project is estimated to lastapproximately18months.

Noise from the construction activities would be generated by vehicles and equipment involved duringvariousstagesofconstructionoperations,whichwouldinclude:demolition,grading,buildingconstruction,andpaving. Thenoise levelscreatedbyconstructionequipmentwouldvarydependingon factorssuchasthe type of equipment, the specific model, the operation being performed and the condition of theequipment.ConstructionnoiseassociatedwiththeProjectwasanalyzedusingamixoftypicalconstruction

Table B‐9

Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements

Receptor Location

Measured Ambient Noise Levelsa (dBA)

Daytime (7 A.M. to 10 P.M.)

Hourly L50

Nighttime (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.)

Hourly L50 24‐Hour Average,

CNEL

R1–7/24/13Tuesday(12:00P.M.to11:59P.M.)through7/25/13Wednesday(12:00A.M.to12:00P.M.)

62–70 48–64 69

R2–7/24/13Tuesday(12:00P.M.to11:59P.M.)through7/25/13Wednesday(12:00A.M.to12:00P.M.)

53–69 51–64 68

R3–7/25/13Wednesday(1:00P.M.to2:00P.M.) 56 N/A N/A

R4–7/25/13Wednesday(1:00P.M.to2:00P.M.) 61 N/A N/A

a Detailedmeasurednoisedata,includinghourlyL50levels,areincludedinAppendixH,NoiseData,ofthisdocument.Source:PCRServicesCorporation,2013.



equipment,estimateddurationsandconstructionphasing.TheProjectconstructionnoisemodelisbasedonconstructionequipmentnoiselevelsaspublishedbytheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)25.

In an outdoor environment, sound levels attenuate through the air as a function of distance. Suchattenuationiscalled“distanceloss”or“geometricspreading”andisbasedonthesourceconfiguration,pointsourceorlinesource.Forapointsourcesuchasconstructionequipment,therateofsoundattenuationis6dBperdoublingofdistancefromthenoisesource.Thatis,anoiselevelof85dBAatareferencedistanceof50 feet from theequipmentwouldattenuate to79dBAat100 feet, and73dBAat200 feet. TableB‐10,Estimates of Off‐site Construction Noise Levels (Leq) from On‐site Equipment, provides the estimatedconstruction noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptors where current ambient noise levels wererecorded.

Table B‐10

Estimates of Off‐Site Construction Noise Levels (Leq) from On‐site Equipment

Construction Phases

Estimated Construction Noise Levels at 100 Feet from

Construction Equipment,a Hourly Leq (dBA)

Significance Level at 100 Feet from Construction Equipment, (dBA)

Exceeds Significance

Level?

Demolition

Grading

BuildingConstruction

Paving

74

72

71

74

85

No

No

No

No

Note: Noise Sensitive Receptor locations are shown on Figure B‐3. a Partially shielded from the construction site by existing walls. b Partially shielded from the construction site by existing buildings. Source:PCRServicesCorporation,2013.

AsshowninTableB‐10,thespecificon‐siteequipmentexpectedtobeusedineachofthefourconstructionphasesispredictedtogenerateoff‐sitenoiselevelsbetween71and74dBAatadistanceof100feetfromtheconstructionsite.Theconstruction‐periodnoiselevelswouldnotexceedthe85dBANoiseOrdinancelimit.Assuch,constructionnoiseimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

Off‐Site Construction Activities

Constructioningress/egressfortheProjectsitewouldbeonEastWalnutStreetwithallworkerparkingandstagingtobeaccommodatedon‐site.TheanticipatedprimarytruckhaulroutewouldbealongNorthAllenStreet to the Foothill Freeway via the Maple Street or Corson Street ramps. It is estimated that duringdemolitiontherewouldamaximumof52haultrucktripsperday.TheProject’shaultruckswouldgenerate25 RoadwayConstructionNoiseModel,FederalHighwayAdministration,2006



approximately55dBA(Leq)at25 feetdistancealongNorthAllenAvenue,MapleStreet,andCorsonStreet(haulroute),whichwouldbebelowtheexistingambientnoiselevelof62to70dBA(Leq)alongtheroadways(as shown inTableB‐10 and traffic noise calculations provided inAppendix I). Therefore, noise impactsfromoff‐siteconstructiontrafficwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

Operational Noise

TheexistingnoiseenvironmentintheProjectvicinityisdominatedbytrafficnoisefromnearbyroadways,withnoisealsobeingcontributedfromnearbycommercialandresidentialactivities.Thissectionprovidesadiscussionofpotential operationalnoise impacts, following completionofProject construction, onnearbynoise‐sensitive receptors. Specific operational noise sources considered herein include mechanicalequipment/point sources (i.e., HVAC equipment), community open space, pool area, parking areas, andloadingdockandrefusecollectionareas.

Off‐Site Traffic Noise

AsshowninTableB‐11,Off‐SiteTrafficNoiseImpacts,theoff‐siteroadwaytrafficvolumesassociatedwiththe Project would result in a maximum increase in CNEL of 0.9 dBA along the segments of North AllenAvenue, south of Colorado Boulevard. The largest cumulative roadway noise impact (i.e., Project plusambientgrowthplusotherknownrelatedprojectsinthevicinityoftheProjectsite)wouldbe1.1dBACNEL,which is predicted to occur along North Allen Avenue, south of Colorado Boulevard. The predictedcumulative noise levels at sensitive receptors adjacent to the street segments studied from growth inambient traffic and the incremental increase inproject‐related trafficwould range from65.1dBA to 70.0dBA, at or below themaximum level that is considered “normally acceptable” for single‐ ormulti‐familyresidential and commercial/residential mixed uses. Therefore, operational noise impacts to off‐sitereceptorsfromproject‐relatedvehiculartrafficwouldbelessthansignificant.

On‐Site Operational Noise

On‐sitenoisegeneratedbytheProjectwouldconsistprimarilyofmechanicalequipment/pointsources(i.e.,HVACequipment),communityopenspace,poolarea,parkingareas,andloadingdockandrefusecollectionareas.

Mechanicalandelectricalequipment (e.g.,parkingstructureairventsandbuildingheatingventilationandair conditioning, HVAC, equipment) would be designed to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinancerequirement, Section 9.36.090. To comply with this Ordinance, the Project mechanical designdocumentation would include appropriate design features that reduce HVAC/mechanical noise levels asneededtopreventexceedingtheambientnoiselevelby5dBAatanypointonneighboringpropertyline,inaccordance with Section 9.36.090 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, noise impacts from Projectmechanicalandelectricalequipmentwouldbelessthansignificant.

The Project would include public open spaces and pool area in the western portion of the Project site.Communityopenspaceamenitieswouldincludeat‐gradelandscapedandhardscapeopenspace,courtyardsandgardens,thecommunityroom,rooftopviewdecks,andbalconiesonsomeunits.Thecommunityopenspaceandpoolareawouldbeshieldedfromthenoisesensitivereceptors,R3,bywallsof themulti‐familyresidential uses. Therefore, outdoor noise from the community open space and pool areas would beeffectivelymitigatedbywallsofthemulti‐familyresidentialusesandthus,wouldnotresultinasignificantimpact.



Table B‐11

Off‐Site Traffic Noise Impacts

Roadway Segment

Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25 feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA)

Project Increment c

Cumulative Increment d Existing

Future 2015No Project a

Future 2015with Project b

NorthAllenAvenue

NorthVillaStreet 67.6 67.9 67.9 0.0 0.3

betweenVillaStreetandMapleStreet‐I‐210WBOn‐OffRamps

68.3 68.6 68.6 0.0 0.3

betweenCorsonStreet‐I‐210EBOn‐OffRampsandEastWalnutStreet

68.0 68.3 68.3 0.0 0.3

EastWalnutStreetandColoradoBoulevard

66.4 66.7 66.7 0.0 0.3

SouthofColoradoBoulevard 64.0 64.2 65.1 0.9 1.1

EastWalnutStreet

WestofHillAvenue 67.4 67.9 67.9 0.0 0.5

BetweenHillAvenueandNorthAllenAvenue 67.1 67.7 67.8 0.1 0.7

BetweenNorthAllenAvenueandGreenwoodAvenue 66.4 67.0 67.0 0.0 0.6

EastofGreenwoodAvenue 66.5 67.0 67.0 0.0 0.5

HillAvenue

NorthofEastWalnutStreet 69.4 70.0 70.0 0.0 0.6

SouthofEastWalnutStreet 68.9 69.6 69.6 0.0 0.7

MapleStreet

WestofNorthAllenAvenue 65.7 66.2 66.2 0.0 0.5

MarinaHillsDrive

EastofNorthAllenAvenue 64.5 65.2 65.3 0.1 0.8

a Includefuturegrowthplusrelated(cumulative)projectsidentifiedinthetrafficstudy.b Includefuturegrowthplusrelated(cumulative)projectsandProjecttraffic.c IncreaseduetoProject‐relatedtrafficonlyatProjectbuild‐out.d Increaseduetofuturegrowth,related(cumulative)projects,andProjecttraffic.Source:PCRServicesCorporation,2013.



Theproposedbuildingssurroundingthecommunityopenspaceandpoolareawouldactasanoisebarrierforopenspaceuses.Nocommunityopenspaceandpoolareawouldhavedirectline‐of‐sighttoEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue,andthebuildingswouldbeofsufficientheighttoattenuateroadway‐relatednoisetowellbelow70dBA,CNELforcommunityopenspaceandpoolarea.Assuch,potentialimpactstothepoolareaswouldbelessthansignificant.

All Project parking, including 203 parking stalls to serve Project residents, guests, andcommercial/restaurantemployeesandpatrons,wouldbelocatedon‐sitewithinasinglesubterraneanlevelandanat‐gradepodiumlevel.Noiseassociatedwiththesurfaceparkingprimarilyincludesmovingvehiclenoise and infrequent car alarms. Noise associated with vehicle activities, (e.g. slamming doors and caralarms), would be largely shielded to surrounding land uses due to the enclosed parking structure.Therefore, parking facility noise would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearest multi‐familyresidentialuses.Assuch,noiseimpactsassociatedwiththeparkinggaragewouldbelessthansignificant.

Within the at‐grade level parking structure, adjacent to the commercial/restaurant space, a designatedcommercial/restaurant loading and unloading delivery areawould be provided. Similar to trash pick‐uptrucks, delivery trucks would enter at the East Walnut Street (Meridith Avenue) entrance and proceedthroughtheparkingstructuretothedesignatedloading/unloadingarea.Loadingdockandrefuseservice‐relatedactivitiessuchas truckmovements/idlingand loading/unloadingoperationswouldgeneratenoiselevels that have a potential to adversely impact adjacent land uses during long‐term Project operations.Noiseassociatedwithloadingdockandrefusecollectionactivitieswouldbelargelyshieldedtosurroundingland uses due to the enclosed parking structure. Therefore, loading dock and refuse collection activityrelatednoisewouldnotincreaseambientnoiselevelsatthenearestmulti‐familyresidentialuses.Assuch,noiseimpactsassociatedwiththeparkinggaragewouldbelessthansignificant.

Noise/Land Use Compatibility Impacts

Based on the ambient noisemonitoring data provided in Table B‐11, the Project would introduce noise‐sensitiveuses(i.e.,residentialuses)toanambientnoiseenvironmentthatalreadyexperiencesupto69dBA(CNEL). According to the City Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use, the Project site is considered“normally acceptable” for the proposed development. As noted in Table B‐8, conventional constructionnormallyprovidesthenecessarysoundattenuationtocomplywiththeNoiseInsulationStandardsofTitle24oftheCaliforniaCodeRegulations,especiallyinconjunctionwithoperable(closed)windows,.Furthermore,duringtheplancheckprocess,thefinalsiteplansfortheProjectwouldbereviewedtoconfirmtheproposedbuildingdesignachievesaninteriorsoundenvironmentof45dBA(CNEL),perNoiseInsulationStandardsofTitle24.

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

levels?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



LessThanSignificantImpact.TheMunicipalCodedoesnotaddressgroundbornevibration.AccordingtotheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA),groundvibrations fromconstructionactivitiesveryrarelyreachthelevelthancandamagestructures.26Apossibleexceptionisthecaseofconstructionoccurringnearold,fragilebuildingsofhistoricalsignificancewherespecialcaremustbetakentoavoiddamage.

The constructionactivities that typically generate themost severevibrationsareblasting and impactpiledriving, which would not be used for the Project. The Project would be constructed using typicalconstruction techniques. Heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer and excavator)would generate alimitedamountofground‐bornevibrationduringconstructionactivitiesatshortdistancesaway(i.e.,within50 feet) from the source. Based on the vibration data by the FTA, typical vibration velocities from theoperation of a large bulldozerwould be approximately 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from thesource of activity. The nearest residential building (multi‐family residential uses, R3), which isapproximately 25feet from the Project construction site, would be exposed to vibration velocities of0.089inchespersecondPPV.Asthisvalueisconsiderablybelowthe0.5inchespersecondPPVsignificancecriteria (potential building damage for older residential building), vibration impacts associated withconstructionwouldbelessthansignificantatthenearestresidentialbuilding.

Post‐constructionon‐siteactivitieswouldbe limited to residentialuses thatwouldnotgenerateexcessivegroundborne noise or vibration. As such, ground‐borne vibration and noise levels associated with theProjectwouldbelessthansignificant.

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

existing without the project?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. TheexistingnoiseenvironmentintheProjectareaisdominatedbytrafficnoise fromnearbyroadways,withnearbycommercial,retail,andresidentialactivitiesalsocontributingtothe noise environment. Long‐term operation of the Project would not have a significant effect on thecommunity noise environment in proximity to the Project site. Noise sources thatwould have potentialnoise impacts include: off‐site auto traffic, on‐site parking, mechanical (i.e., air‐conditioning) equipment,communityopenspaceandpoolarea,andloadingdockandrefusecollection.MotorvehicletravelonlocalroadwaysattributabletotheProject,asdiscussedinResponseNo.4.12.a,wouldhavealessthansignificantimpact on community noise levels. Noise levels associated with on‐site operations (e.g., parking andmechanical equipment) are also considered less than significant as discussed in ResponseNo. 4.12.a. Assuch,noiseimpactsinthisregardwouldbelessthansignificant.

26 U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalTransitAdministration,TransitNoiseandVibrationImpactAssessment,1995



d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.TheProjectwouldresultinatemporaryincreaseinambientnoiseneartheProject siteduring constructionperiod. Constructionnoise impacts arediscussed inResponse4.12.a. Asdiscussed therein,noisegeneratedbyon‐siteconstructionactivitieswouldresult ina less thansignificantimpact.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. TheProject site is not locatedwithin an airport landuse plan area orwithin twomiles of apublicairportorpublicuseairport. Therefore,constructionoroperationof theProjectwouldnotexposepeopletoexcessiveairportrelatednoiselevels.Noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. TheProjectsite isnot locatedwithin thevicinityofaprivateairstrip,orheliportorhelistop.Therefore, theProjectwouldnotexposepeopleresidingorworking in theProjectarea toexcessivenoiselevelsfromsuchuses.Noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.



14. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Wouldtheproject:

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)?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.TheProjectwouldintroduce128multi‐familyresidentialunits(rental)thatwouldgenerateanewresidentialpopulationofapproximately31027personsandupto5,000squarefeetofcommercial/restaurantspacethatwould indirectly increasethepopulationbyapproximatelyone28personintheProjectareabothon‐andoff‐siteforatotalof311persons.29 The311newresidentsthatwouldbegenerated by the Project would represent an inconsequential 0.23 percent increase in the existingpopulation(137,122persons30) in theCity. Therefore, thenewresidentswouldnotresult inasubstantialincreaseinthelocalpopulation.

AsmentionedinResponse11.b.,in1994,theGeneralPlanallocated750housingunitsand650,000squarefeet on non‐residential development to the East Colorado Specific Plan. As of April 29, 2013, the EastColoradoSpecificPlan retainedaGeneralPlanallocationof737housingunitsand243,322square feetofnon‐residential development potential. The 113 rental units and 5,000 square feet of ground floorcommercial/restaurant uses proposed on the Specific Plan portion of the Project site are within theseallocations, leaving the Specific Plan with 624 housing units and 238,322 square feet of non‐residentialspace.

Additionally,asstated in theCityofPasadenaGeneralPlanHousingElement2008‐2014,providingsufficientandaffordablehousing for lower income familieswithchildren isan importantgoal in theCity. TheProjectwould includetenaffordableunits(twostudios, fiveone‐bedroomunits,andthreetwo‐bedroomunits) tocomplywith theCity’s inclusionaryaffordableunitrequirements. Furthermore,theProjectis locatedinanareaalreadyservedbyexistinginfrastructure(i.e.,roadways,utilitylines,etc.).

27 128residentialunitsX2.42persons=309.76directresidents(pertheaveragehouseholdsizeof2.42persons/householdfortheCity

of Pasadena, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1).

28 5,000squarefeet(0.11acres)ofretail/restaurantX20.18employeesperacre(perTheNatelsonCompany,TableB‐1,EmploymentDensities [employeesperacre]byAndersonCode)=2.22 employees (2 employees). 2.22 employeesX .25X2.42=1.34 indirectresidents(1indirectresident).Indirectresidentsareone‐quarteroftheemployeesmultipliedby2.42personsperhousehold.

29 Totalresidents=310directresidents+1indirectresident=311.30 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=̴

DEC_10_DP_DPDP1.



Assuch,theProjectwouldnotinducesubstantialpopulationgrowthintheareaeitherdirectlyorindirectlyandimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

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

housing elsewhere?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

and

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

elsewhere?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact(b‐c).Projectimplementationwouldinvolvethedemolitionofthefourexistingon‐sitebuildingsand paved areas and removal of existing vegetation including on‐site trees and existing infrastructureincluding three existing on‐site power poles. Development of the Project would not displace existinghousing.Therefore,noimpactwouldoccurtoexistinghousingwithProjectimplementation.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new orphysically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmental impacts, inorder tomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimesorotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthepublicservices:

a. Fire Protection


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.FireprotectionandemergencymedicalservicesareprovidedbytheCityofPasadenaFireDepartment(PFD).ThePFDconsistsof185fulltimeemployees,154shiftpersonnel,and32bureau/administrativepersonnel.ThePFDoperatesfourdivisions:FireManagement,FirePrevention,FireOperations, and EmergencyMedical Services (“EMS”). The FireManagement Division provides planning,control, and management of all PFD activities and staff support for all divisions. This division includesdisasterservicesplanning,financialmanagement,training,mediarelations,andgeneraladministration.The



FirePreventionDivisionprovidesreviewofconstructionplans,neworremodeling, issuanceofpermitsasrequiredbyCitycodes,periodicinspectionofalloccupancieswithintheCityexceptsinglefamilydwellings,annualbrushsurveys,hazardousmaterialsdisclosurepermitsandhazardouswastetracking, investigationoffirestodeterminecauseandorigin,andallotherrequiredfirepreventionactivities.TheFireOperationsDivision performs all duties related to emergency response (i.e., fire, rescue, medical, and hazardabatement),non‐emergencyservicecalls,firepreventionandpubliceducationprograms,in‐servicetrainingfor all personnel, andmaintains fire station apparatus, quarters grounds, and equipment. The personnelassigned to the Fire Operations Division are divided between three shifts/platoons (A, B, and C) of 51personnelstaffingengines,trucks,andrescueambulanceswithoneplatooncommander(battalionchief)pershift.Theemergencyunitsrespond24hoursperday,sevendaysaweek,fromeightstrategicallylocatedfirestationswithin the City. The EMSDivision provides 24 hour emergency paramedic ambulance response,treatmentandtransportationofillandinjured,planningandstaffingofmedicalcoverageforspecialevents,and related activities. Emergency medical response is performed together with the Fire OperationsDivision.31

PFDFireStations32,33,and34wouldprovideprimaryfireprotectionandemergencymedicalservicestothe Project site. Fire Stations 32, 33, and 34 are located approximately 0.75 miles northeast, one milenorthwest,and0.75milessouthwest,of theProjectsite, respectively. Eitherstationmightrespondto theProject site, depending on availability. Table B‐12, City of Pasadena Fire Station Facilities, providesinformationonthelocation,typeofequipmentandpersonnel,andtheapproximatedistance/directionfromtheProjectsite.Staffingateachstationisdependentonthenumberandtypeoffireapparatusatthestation.

TheCityhasnotadoptedaPFDresponsetimegoalormeasure.However,theCity’srecommendationistohaveafireunitonthesceneforanemergencyincidentwithinsevenminutesfromreceiptofcall,90percentof the time. The current PFD response time for the first fire apparatus on scene is fiveminutes and 52seconds,91.1percentofthetime.32Duetothecloseproximityofmultiplestations,theresponsetimetotheProject site would be within this recommended response time. In 2010, the PFD responded to 14,941incidentsforanaverageof41incidentsperday.Ofthoseincidentresponses,73percentofthoseweretotheEMS division, 2.18 percent to fires of all types, 76 building fires (or 6.3 per month), 40 percent wereincidentsatdwellings,17percentonstreetsandfreeways,and15percentatcommercial/businesses.33

Construction activities associatedwith the Projectmay temporarily increase the existing demand on fireprotectionandemergencymedical services. Construction ingress/egress for theProject sitewouldbeonEast Walnut Street and emergency access would be maintained. While it is intended that constructionparkingwouldbeon‐siteduringthemajorityofconstructionactivities, itwouldbenecessaryduringsomephasesofProject construction forworkers toparkoff‐siteatnearbyparking facilities. In suchcases, it isanticipated that theProjectApplicantwouldrentspaces forconstructionworkerswithinavailablenearbyparking lots,ata locationtobedetermined. Assuch, theProjectApplicantwouldberequiredtosubmitaConstructionStagingandTrafficManagementPlanforreviewandapprovalbythePublicWorksDepartmentpriortothestartofconstructionortheissuanceofanypermits.31 City of Pasadena Fire Department Website, General Information, http://www.cityofpasadena.net/Fire/General_Information/,

accessedAugust8,2013andCityofPasadenaFireDepartmentWebsite,Divisions,http://www.cityofpasadena.net/Fire/Divisions/,accessedAugust8,2013.

32 FireDepartment StationLocation Study,CityofPasadena,PowerpointPresentationpresentedbyCalvinE.Wells,FireChiefandKevinCosta,DeputyFireChief,preparedbyCitygateAssociates,LLC,presentedonMarch26,2012.

33 Ibid.



The Project Contractor would be required to obtain permission for limited street parking duringconstructionwork hours only. The Project Applicant anticipates intermittent parking and/or traffic laneclosuresprimarilyalongEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenStreetduringCity‐approvedconstructionhours.Constructionactivitiesmaycausetheoccasionalexposureofcombustiblematerials,suchaswood,plastics,sawdust, coverings and coatings, to heat sources including machinery and equipment sparking, exposed

Table B‐12

City of Pasadena Fire Station Facilities

Fire Station Address Apparatus Equipment Personnel

ApproximateDistance/Direction from Project sitea

FireStation31 135SouthFairOaksAvenue

ParamedicEngine31,Truck31,RescueAmbulance31,BicycleParamedics,

AntiqueEngine

30(10/shift)

2milessouthwest

FireStation32 2424EastVillaStreet

ParamedicEngine32,Truck32,RescueAmbulance32,UrbanSearchandRescue32,PublicEducationUnits,Reserve

UrbanSearchandRescueUnit,ReserveTruck32

30(10/shift)

0.75milesnortheast

FireStation33 515NorthLakeAvenue

ParamedicEngine33,RescueAmbulance33,ReserveEngine37,ReserveEngine34,ReserveEngine32,ReserveTruck,ReserveRescueAmbulances736and33

12(4/shift)

1milenorthwest

FireStation34 1360EastDelMarBoulevard

RescueAmbulance34,Battalion3,StrikeTeamLeaderUnit,ReserveBattalion

Units,UtilityUnit

2or8?(7/shift)

0.75milessouthwest

FireStation36 1140NorthFairOaksAvenue

ParamedicEngine36andRescueAmbulance36

18(6/shift)

2.25milesnorthwest

FireStation37 3430EastFoothillBoulevard

ParamedicEngine37,Patrol37,WaterTender37

12(4/shift)

2mileseast

FireStation38 1150LindaVista

ParamedicEngine38andPatrol38 12(4/shift)

3.75milesnorthwest

FireStation39b 50Avenue64 ParamedicEngine39 12(4/shift)

3.75milessouthwest

a Approximate distance/direction from Project site in miles is a straight line distance, not a drive distance. b Fire Station 39 recently closed due to an independent safety audit showed it posed a significant risk of structural failure in a

major earthquake and is currently being rehabilitated with completion expected by the end of 2013, prior to any construction activities at the Project site. In the mean‐time, one rescue ambulance is temporarily located nearby at 159 Glen Summer Road.

Sources: City of Pasadena Fire Department Website, Station Directory, http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Fire/Station_Directory/,

accessed August 8, 2013.

Code2High Website, http://www.code2high.com/index.htm, accessed August 8, 2013.

City of Pasadena, Pasadena Fire Department, Fire Department Facilities Condition Evaluation, prepared by WLC Architects, Inc., dated April 2011.



electricallines,weldingactivities,andchemicalreactionsincombustiblematerialsandcoatings. However,in compliance with the requirements of Occupational Safety and Health Administration, constructionmanagers and personnelwould be trained in emergency response, and private firemonitoring personnelwould be trained with regard to the sequence of operations guidelines. Further, Project construction isrequired to comply with the 2010 CBC, the 2010 California Fire Code (“CFD”), and Chapter 14.28, FirePreventionCode,oftheMunicipalCode. TheProject’sconstructionphasewouldbeshort‐termandwouldnot permanently increase fire services demand or require construction of new facilities. Therefore,constructionimpactsonfireprotectionserviceswouldbelessthansignificant.

Projectoperationwouldincrementallyincreasedemandforfireprotectionandemergencymedicalservices.The Project would introduce 128 multi‐family residential units that would generate a new residentialpopulationofapproximately310personsandupto5,000squarefeetofcommercial/restaurantspacethatwouldindirectlyincreasethepopulationbyapproximatelyonepersonintheProjectareabothon‐andoff‐site for a total of 311 persons. The 311 new residents that would be generated by the Project wouldrepresentaninconsequential0.23percentincreaseintheexistingpopulation(137,122persons)intheCity.AsshownonPlateP‐2,SummaryofHazardsMap(II),oftheGeneralPlanSafetyElement(2002),theProjectsite is not located in an area ofmoderate or very high fire hazard. Further, according to the City’s “FireHazardSeverityZone”map34,theProjectsiteisdesignated“urbanunzoned”,notinanareaofmoderateorvery high fire hazard. The nearest fire hazard severity zone to the Project sitemapped by the City is a“moderate” firehazardzone located justwestof the I‐210andSR‐134merger,approximately2.5miles tothe west. In addition, the Project site is surrounded by urban development and not adjacent to anywildlands.Therefore,nofuelmodificationforfirefuelmanagementwouldberequired.

As required by CBC, CFD, the Municipal Code, and the PFD, the Project would include design standardsensuringadequatefireprotection.Firehydrantswouldnotflowlessthan1,500gpmat20psiandbelocatedwithin400 feetof all exteriorportionsof thebuildings,with200‐foot average spacingbetweenhydrants.ThreeexistingfirehydrantsarelocatedwithinthevicinityoftheProjectsite:(1)firehydrant816‐5,locatedatthesouthwestcornerofEastWalnutStreetandMeridithAvenue,approximately67feetsouthofthesouthpropertylineofEastWalnutStreet;(2)firehydrant816‐15,locatedatthesoutheastcornerofEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue,approximately68feetsouthofthesouthpropertyline;and(3)firehydrant816‐16, locatedat thenorthwest cornerofNorthAllenAvenueandLocustStreet, approximately308 feetnorthofthenorthpropertylineofEastWalnutStreet.

TheProject requires aminimumof five feet unobstructed firefighter access to all exteriorportionsof thebuildings.TheProjectwouldincludeinstallationofastandpipesystemwithafullyautomaticfiresprinklersystem. Knox locks for emergency building entry requirements would be provided at all main buildingpointsofentry,includingtheparkinggarageentry,asrequiredbytheMunicipalCode.Thebuildingswouldprovide a fully automatic and manual fire alarm detection and notification system with approved radiocoverage for emergency responders. All residential units would have smoke alarms and at least oneoperabledoororwindowapprovedforemergencyescapeorrescuethatwouldopendirectlyintoapublicstreet,yard,orexitcourt. Theemergencydoororwindowwouldbeoperablefromtheinsidetoprovideafull, clear openingwithout the issue of separate tools. Emergency accesswould be provided via a singledriveway following the current alignment of Meridith Avenue, as described in Section 17,

34 FireHazardSeverityZone,PasadenaFireDepartment,createdbyInformationTechnologyServicesDivision,datedJuly1,2008.



Transportation/Traffic, below. Traffic signaling systems serving the Project site are required to haveemergencyvehiclesignalpreemptioncontrolsinstalled.Further,finalProjectsiteplanswouldbesubjecttoreviewandapprovalbythePFDtoensureadequateemergencyaccessisprovidedbytheProject.

Anotherimportantcomponentofensuringfireprotectionserviceistheavailabilityofadequatefirefightingwaterflow.Fireflowrequirementsarecloselyrelatedtolanduse.Thequantityofwaternecessaryforfireprotectionvarieswiththetypeofdevelopment,lifehazard,occupancy,andthedegreeoffirehazards. Perthe PFD, a current fire flow report (not older than six months) performed by the Pasadena WaterDepartment,wouldbeprovidedtothePFDwhenapplyingforbuildingpermitstoconstructanystructure.Theminimum fire flow for the Project sitewould be 8,000 gallons perminute (“gpm”) at 20 pounds persquareinch(“psi”). TheabilityofthewaterserviceprovidertoprovidewatersupplytotheProjectsiteisfurtherdiscussedbelowinSection18,UtilitiesandServiceSystems.

Further, the PFD’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees, andallowedgovernmentassistance. Facilities,personnel,andequipmentexpansionandacquisitionaretiedtothe City budget process and tax‐based expansion. Tax‐base expansion from development of the Projectwouldgeneratefundingforfireprotectionandemergencymedicalservices.

Basedon the above, impacts regarding fireprotection services and emergencymedical serviceswouldbelessthansignificantandnoneworalteredfirefacilitieswouldoccurasaresultofProjectimplementation.

b. Libraries


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. The Pasadena Public Library (PPL) provides library services to the City,includingtheProjectsite. ThePPLconsistsof thePasadenaCentralLibraryandninebranch libraries. Inaddition to circulating a wide range of books and collections in a variety of formats, the PPL sponsorsprogramsforadultsandchildren,servicestothehomebound,preschoolstoryhours,andtheCity’sSummerReadingProgram.ThePPLofferscollectionsfarinexcessofthenationalpercapitaguidelinesestablishedbytheAmericanLibraryAssociation’sPublicLibraryDivision.AccordingtotheCaliforniaStateLibrary,thePPLprovided5.67totalmaterialspercapitaduringthe2009‐2010fiscalyearswhiletheStatewideaveragewas2.16 total materials per capita.35 Over 66 percent of the City residents possess library cards andapproximately4,000residentsuseoneof theCity’s librariesdaily. Theannualaveragenumberof librarymaterialscheckedoutperresidentis12,comparedtothenationalaverageof6.4forcitieswithapopulationover100,000 residents. TheCentral Library is visitedby an averageofmore than55,000 residents eachmonth.36 TheProject site is locatedwithinapproximately fourmiles of thePasadenaCentralLibraryandninebranchlibraries. Specifically,thenearestlibraries,HillAvenueBranchandLamandaParkBranch,are

35 LincolnAvenueSpecificPlanDraftEIR,Section5.10,PublicServices,preparedbyThePlanningCenter/DC&E,datedMarch2013.36 CityofPasadenaLibraryWebsite,AbouttheLibrary,http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/library/about_the_library/,accessedAugust12,

2013.



located approximately 0.50miles southwest and 0.94miles northwest, respectively. TableB‐13, City ofPasadena Library Facilities, provides information on the location, size, collection, service area, and theapproximatedistance/directionfromtheProjectsite.

Table B‐13

City of Pasadena Library Facilities

Name Address Size

(square feet) Collection (books)

Service Area (population)

ApproximateDistance/Direction from Project sitea

CentralLibrary

285EastWalnutStreet 130,000 345,591 20,967 1.75mileswest

AllendaleBranch

1130SouthMarengoAvenue 3,172 41,418 8,7602.40milessouthwest

HastingsBranch

3325EastOrangeGroveBoulevard

7,800 64,069 19,8601.85milesnortheast

HillAvenueBranch

55SouthHillAvenue 4,752 41,859 22,5720.50milessouthwest

LaPintorescaBranch

1355NorthRaymondAvenue 6,225 56,861 33,2912.40milesnorthwest

LamandaParkBranch

140SouthAltadenaDrive 6,225 51,846 5,6210.94milesnorthwest

LindaVistaBranch

1281BryantStreet 3,500 28,976 5,4473.86milesnorthwest

SanRafaelBranch

1240NithsdaleRoad 3,882 37,555 5,2013.63milessouthwest

SantaCatalinaBranch 999EastWashingtonBoulevard 5,850 48,589 20,270

1.56milesnorthwest

VillaParkeBranch 363EastVillaStreet 1,500 12,861 11,920 1.64mileswest

a Approximate distance/direction from Project site in miles is a straight line distance, not a drive distance.

Source: City of Pasadena Library Website, About the Library, http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/library/about_the_library/, accessed August 12, 2013.

Project operation would incrementally increase demand for library services. The estimated 311 newresidentsthatwouldbegeneratedbytheProjectwouldrepresentaninconsequential0.23percentincreasein the existing population (137,122 persons) in the City. Since the PPL has not adopted specific servicestandards,thenumberofsquarefootageandmaterialsrequiredfortheadditional311newresidentscannotbequantified. However,due to theproximityof theProject site to allCity libraries, theeffectof anyonelibrarywouldbenominalanddistributedover the localvicinity. Further, thePPLprovidesover twiceasmanymaterialspercapitacomparedtotheStatewideaverage.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotbeexpectedto



impactthelibrarysystem.Toensurethatthelibraryservicesarenoterodedbyfuturedevelopment,priortothe issuance of a building permit for the construction of residential and commercial/restaurant uses, theProject Applicant would pay the required Library Special Tax to the City, as set forth in Chapter 4.109,LibrarySpecialTax,Section4.109.180,TaxRate,oftheMunicipalCode.37TheserevenuesaredepositedintoaLibrarySpecialTaxFundandareusedexclusivelyforthemaintenance,improvements,andoperationsofthe library and to cover the costs of administering the special tax itself. Therefore, impacts to libraryservicesandfacilitieswouldbelessthansignificant.

c. Parks


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.TheCityhasapproximately338.2acresoftotalparklandand502.3acresofopenspace.38ParkswithintheCityincludefourcitywideparks,fivecommunityparks,and15neighborhoodparks.39 Citywideparks have contactwith thenatural and/orhistoric environment andpossess a uniquecharacterorfunctionnotfoundincommunityorneighborhoodparks.Citywideparkscontainfacilitiesthatare used by residents throughout the City for activities that cannot be accommodated in other parks.Community parks provide a broad range of both passive and active recreational opportunities with theprimary purpose to provide recreational opportunities for use by both residents and visitors from thesurroundingregion.NeighborhoodparksareintendedtoserveCityresidentswholiveincloseproximity.40

TheCity’sGreenSpace,Recreation,andParksMasterPlan(“ParksMasterPlan”)identify¼and½mileradiior “walkable service areas” as the distance at which parks are a convenient walk from residences. AsdescribedintheParksMasterPlan,½milerepresentsa10‐20minutewalkformostpeoplewhilea¼milerepresentsanappropriatedistanceforthoseresidentswithlimitedwalkingabilities.Barrierstowalkability,suchastheI‐210andI‐134freeways,areobstacleswhichmostpeoplewouldnotcrossinordertoaccessacommunityorneighborhoodpark.41Thenearestneighborhoodpark,JeffersonPark,islocatedacrosstheI‐210,approximately0.34milesnorthwestoftheProjectsite.Usingthe¼‐mileand½‐mileradiuswalkableservice areas and considering the I‐210 freeway as an obstacle to walking between the Project site andJeffersonPark,theParksMasterPlanidentifiestheProjectareaasa“greenspacegap”,specifically“Gap4”,anareaaroundPasadenaCityCollege.ThismeanstheProjectsite’sresidentsdonothaveaccesstoparksat

37 PerTitle4,RevenueandFinance,Chapter4.109,LibrarySpecialTax,Section4.109.180,TaxRate,foreachresidentialunitofamulti‐

unitbuildingwhich isnotacondominiumproject, theannualspecial tax shallbeequal to the special tax in theprior fiscalyearmultipliedbyafactorequaltooneplusthechangeintheConsumerPriceIndex(CPI)preparedbytheBureauofLaborStatisticsoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofLaborforallurbanconsumersfortheLos‐Angeles‐Riverside‐OrangeCountystatisticalarea,oranysucceeding index, during the 12‐month period ending the last day of the prior fiscal year, plus three dollars ($3.00); for eachnonresidentialparcel,plusthirtydollars($30.00).

38 GreenSpace,RecreationandParksMasterPlan,Section2,ExistingRecreationFacilities,http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Planning/CommunityPlanning/Green_Space_Element_and_Master_Plan/,accessedAugust13,2013.

39 Ibid.40 Ibid.41 Ibid.



a level recommendedby theCity. However, theProject site is locatedwithinapproximately twomilesofthree community parks, eight neighborhood parks, and two community centers. Table B‐14, ExistingPasadenaParksandRecreationalFacilitiesNeartheProjectSite,providesinformationonthetype, location,size, park amenities/activities, and the approximate distance/direction from the Project site. Due to theproximityoftheProjectsitetonumerousparksandrecreationalfacilities,theeffectofanyoneparkwouldbenominalanddistributedoverthelocalvicinity,resultinginnoincreaseindemandtoanyonerecreationalfacility and would not be sufficient to substantially deteriorate, or accelerate the deterioration ofrecreational facilities or resources. Further, the Projectwould positively impact the site by providing anenhanced pedestrian corridor, resulting in better connections to existing parks. Project improvementswouldincludemarkedcrosswalks,curbextensions,pedestrianstreetlighting,maintaining/providingstreettrees,andlandscapedareas.

Projectoperationwouldincrementallyincreasedemandforparkservices.Theestimated311newresidentsthatwould be generated by the Projectwould represent an inconsequential 0.23 percent increase in theexisting population (137,122 persons) in the City. Implementation of the Project would also indirectlyincrease the need for parkland by permitting development of up to 5,000 square feet ofcommercial/restaurantspace,whichwouldslightlyincreasethedaytimepopulationintheProjectareagiventhenewemployeesandpatrons.AsmentionedintheCity’sParkImpactFeeNexusStudy(2004),theCity’sstandardfordevelopedparklandis2.17acresand1.49acresofopenspaceforatotalof3.66acresofparkand open space per 1,000 residents. Based on this standard, the estimated population increase wouldrequire0.6742additionalacresofparklandand0.4643additionalacresofopenspaceforatotalof1.1344acresofparkandopenspace.TheProjectdoesnotincludeproposedparksandwouldnotresultintheexpansionofexistingfacilities. Residentialamenitieswould includeapoolandspa,communityroom/fitness facility,totlot,barbecuefacilities,andaself‐servepetspa.Communityopenspaceamenitieswouldincludeat‐gradelandscaped and hardscape open space, courtyards and gardens, fountain features with seating, outdoorfurniture,thecommunityroom,rooftopviewdecks,andbalconiesonsomeunits.

The Project would meet the parkland dedication or fee requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act andChapter4.17,ResidentialImpactFee,Section4.17.050,FeeforParklandAcquisition,CapitalImprovementsandMaintenance, of theMunicipal Code. According to the Residential Impact Fee, the Project Applicantwouldpayaparkmitigationfeeof$756.00peraffordableunitand$19,743perresidentialunitforatotalof$2,337,234.0045fortheresidentialcomponentoftheProject.TheCityfurthercollectsanimpactfeeof$3.09per square foot of non‐residential space. Per the Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would pay anadditional $15,450.0046 for the commercial/restaurant component of the Project. Payment of these parkimpact feeswould reduce impacts onparks. Therefore, theProjectwouldnot have a significant physicalimpactuponrecreational facilities,norwouldtherebeasignificant increase indemandforexistingpublicparkfacilities.Thus,alessthansignificantimpactonparksintheProjectvicinitywouldoccur.

42 311newresidents/1,000persons=0.31.0.31X2.17=0.67acresofdevelopedparkland.43 0.31X1.49=0.46acresofopenspace.44 0.67acresofdevelopedparkland+0.46acresofopenspace=1.13acresofparklandandopenspace.45 $756.00 X 10 affordable units = $7,560.00. $19,743 X 118 residential units = $2,329,674.00. $7,560.00 + $2,329,674.00 =

$2,337,234.00.46 $3.09X5,000squarefeet=$15,450.00.



Table B‐14

Existing Pasadena Parks and Recreational Facilities Near the Project Site

Name (Type) Location

Size (acres/square feet) Parks Amenities/Activities

Approximate Distance/Directionfrom Project sitea

EatonBlanchePark(Neighborhood

Park)

3100EastDelMarBoulevard

5.50

Twotenniscourtswithlights,onesoftballdiamond,onebasketballcourtwithlights,playgroundequipment,ninepicnictables,opengrassarea,rosegarden,andparking

lot

1.70milesnorthwest

EatonSunnyslopePark

(NeighborhoodPark)

SunnyslopeAvenueandPalomaStreet

1.88 Children’splayarea,picnictables,opengrassarea,anddrinkingfountains

1.50milesnortheast

GrantPark(Neighborhood

Park)

232SouthMichiganAvenue

2.5

Twotenniscourtswithlights,half‐basketballcourts,softballdiamond,threehorseshoepits,largeplaygroundareaforchildren,barbecuepits,picnictableswithcanopies,opengrassareawithseveraltrees,drinkingfountains,andrestrooms

0.80milessouthwest

GwinnPark(Neighborhood

Park)

OrangeGroveBoulevardandSunnyslopeAvenue

2.7 Picnictables,opengrassareas,anddrinkingfountains

1.48milesnortheast

JeffersonPark(Neighborhood

Park)

1501EastVillaStreet

4.4

Onesoftballdiamondwithlightsandbleachers,smallopenfieldforsoccer/flagfootball/overlaysoftball,basketballcourtwithlights,waterpark,payareas,picnictables,benches,anddrinkingfountains

0.34milesnorthwest

MemorialPark(CommunityPark)

85EastHollyStreet

5.3

Bandshellandseating,picnicfacilities,benches,largeopengrassarea,exercisewalk,drinkingfountains,restrooms,and

thePasadenaSeniorCenter.

1.90mileswest

McDonaldPark(Neighborhood

Park)

1000EastMountainStreet

4.8

Onesoftballdiamond,onebasketballcourt,volleyballcourt,twosidedhandballcourts,opengrassarea,playgroundequipment,picnicfacilities,benchesandpergola,drinkingfountains,andrestrooms

1.00milenorthwest

VictoryPark(CommunityPark)

2575PalomaStreet

24.6

Threesoftballdiamondswithlightsandbleachers,onebaseballdiamondwith

lights,onemulti‐purposelitfieldsuitableforsoccerorflagfootball,sandvolleyballcourt,largechildren’splayarea,picnicareas,drinkingfountains,restrooms,and

theVictoryParkCenter

1.06milesnortheast

VictoryParkCenter 2575PalomaStreet

N/A

Recreationalactivitiesandopportunities,largegymnasium,all‐purposemeetingroom,socialrecreationalrooms,smallmeetingroomwithkitchen,drinking

fountains,andrestrooms

1.06milesnortheast



Existing Pasadena Parks and Recreational Facilities Near the Project Site


Name (Type) Location

Size (acres/square feet) Parks Amenities/Activities

Approximate Distance/Directionfrom Project sitea

VillaParke(CommunityPark)

363EastVillaStreet

8.1

Softballdiamondwithlightsandbleachers,oneregulationsoccerfieldwithlights,one

multi‐purposefield,fourbasketballbackboards,swimmingpool(openduringsummermonthsonly),children’splayarea,

grassareawithtrees,picnictables,drinkingfountains,restrooms,parkinglot,andtheVilla‐ParkeCommunityCenter

1.64milesnorthwest

Villa‐ParkeCommunityCenter

363EastVillaStreet

41,475

Largeauditoriumwithstageandstoragearea,weightroom,boxingrooms,gymnasiumwithshowers,lounge,social/recreationroom,teenfacility

meetingrooms,seniorroom,severalsmallmeetingrooms,andtwokitchens

1.64milesnorthwest

VinaViejaPark(Neighborhood

Park)

3026EastOrangeGroveBoulevard

7.5Largepicnicshelter,threeadditionalpicnicareas,andadogparkdividedintotwosectionsforlargedogsandsmalldogs

1.65milesnortheast

WashingtonPark(Neighborhood

Park)

WashingtonBoulevardandElMolinoAvenue

5.5

Onesmallsoftballdiamond,twotenniscourtswithlights,onebasketballcourtwithlights,twoone‐wallhandballcourts,children’splayareawithequipment,smallopengrassareasurroundedbytrees,twopicnicareas,drinkingfountains,and

restrooms

1.73milesnorthwest

a Approximate distance/direction from Project site in miles is a straight line distance, not a drive distance. Source: City of Pasadena Website, Facilities and Parks, http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/HumanServices/Facilities_and_Parks/, accessed

August 13, 2013.

d. Police Protection


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. ThePasadenaPoliceDepartment (PPD)providespoliceprotection in theCity, including the Project site. The PPD station is located at 207 North Garfield Avenue, locatedapproximately1.7milestothewestoftheProjectsite.Thepoliceforceconsistsofapproximately235swornofficers and 113 civilian personnel.47 The PPD station equipment includes the following police vehicles47 LincolnAvenueSpecificPlanDraftEIR,Section5.10,PublicServices,preparedbyThePlanningCenter/DC&E,datedMarch2013.



(units): supervisormobile command, patrol, K‐9,motorcycle, jail transportation, bicycle, air (helicopter),miscellaneous, community volunteer, and identification technicians. The PPD consists of the followingdivisions: Administration, Air Operations Section, Support Operations Division, Criminal InvestigationDivision, Field Operations Divisions, and Strategic Services Division.48 The PPD divides the City into fivegeographic areas eachwith its own Lieutenant and division of officers. The Project site is located in theCentral Service Area 3, which includes the central portion of the City east of Lake Avenue and west ofAltadenaDrive.49ThePPD’sstandardfordesiredresponsetimetoemergencyandnonemergencycallsistomaintainanaverageresponsetimeofsixminutesorlesstoprioritycalls.50

DuringProject construction, equipmentandbuildingmaterials couldbe temporarily storedon‐site,whichcould result in theft, graffiti, and vandalism. However, the site is located in an areawith high vehicularactivity. In addition, the construction site would be fenced. Given the visibility of the Project site fromadjacentroadwaysandsurroundingproperties,existingpolicepresenceintheCity,maintainedemergencyaccess,constructionfencingandtheprovisionofon‐sitesecurity,asnecessary,theProjectisnotexpectedtoincreasedemandonexistingpoliceservicestoameaningfulextent.Therefore,theProjectwouldhavealessthansignificanttemporaryimpactonpoliceprotectionduringtheconstructionphase.

Operation of the Project would only incrementally increase demand for police protection services. Theestimated311new residents thatwouldbe generatedby theProjectwould represent an inconsequential0.23percentincreaseintheexistingpopulation(137,122persons)intheCity.ImplementationoftheProjectwould also indirectly increase the need for police protection by permitting development of up to 5,000square feet of commercial/restaurant space,whichwould slightly increase the daytime population in theProjectareagiventhenewemployeesandpatrons.TheProjectwouldincludethepresenceofafull‐timeon‐sitemanager during Project operation to ensure the safety of its residents and site visitors. The on‐sitemanagerwouldmonitorentrancesandexitsofbuildings;manageandmonitorfire/life/safetysystems;andpatroltheproperty.Thebuildingswouldincludecontrolledaccesstotheparkinggarageandthecommunityroom/fitness facilitybythe issuanceofelectronicaccesscards. Accesstocommercialandrestaurantuseswouldbeunrestrictedduringbusinesshours,withpublicaccessdiscontinuedafterbusinesseshaveclosed.Projectdesignalsoincludesfeaturestoenhancesitesecurityincludingsuchitemsaslightingofentry‐waysandpublicareas,nighttimesecuritylighting,videosurveillance,andlocksandalarmsonthecommercialandrestaurantuses.

The PPD’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees, and allowedgovernmentassistance. Facilities,personnel,andequipmentexpansionandacquisitionaretiedtotheCitybudget process and tax‐based expansion. Tax‐base expansion from development of the Project wouldgeneratefundingforpoliceprotection.

Basedontheabove,impactsregardingpoliceprotectionserviceswouldbelessthansignificantandnoneworalteredpolicefacilities,equipment,orofficerswouldoccurasaresultofProjectimplementation.

48 Code2HighWebsite,http://www.code2high.com/index.htm,accessedAugust8,2013.49 CityofPasadenaPoliceDepartmentWebsite,PoliceCommunityServicesAreas,

http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Police/Community_Service_Areas/,accessedAugust14,2013.50 LincolnAvenueSpecificPlanDraftEIR,Section5.10,PublicServices,preparedbyThePlanningCenter/DC&E,datedMarch2013.



e. Schools


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Pasadena Unified School District(“PUSD”).Thereare26schoolsinthedistrict:15elementaryschools(kindergartenthroughfifthgrade[K‐5]),twoK‐8schools(kindergartenthrougheighthgrade[K‐8]),threemiddleschools(grades6‐8),fourhighschools (grades 9‐12), and two continuation schools. District‐wide enrollment for the 2011‐2012 schoolyearwas9,060elementaryschoolstudents,4,035middleschoolstudents,and5,454highschoolstudentsforatotalof18,652students.51 ThePUSDisexpectedtoexperienceadeclineinenrollmentoverthenextfewyears,withthedeclineseenthroughoutthegradelevels.TheK‐12districtstudentpopulationisprojectedtodecreasebyapproximately1,822studentsovertheprojectiontimeframe. Theelementaryschoolstudentpopulation isexpected todecreaseby583students. Themiddleschoolstudentpopulation isexpected todecreaseby454studentsbythefallof2015/2016.Thehighschoolstudentpopulationisexpectedtohavethe greatest decline,with the projected 9‐12 student population falling 796 students over the projectionperiod.52

Projectconstructionwouldcreatetemporaryconstructionjobs.Constructionworkerswouldbedrawnfromanexistingworkpool,andwouldworkatthesiteforonlyshortdurations.TherewouldbenonewstudentpopulationassociatedwithProjectconstruction.

Project operation would incrementally increase demand for school services. The estimated 311 newresidentsthatwouldbegeneratedbytheProjectwouldrepresentaninconsequential0.23percentincreaseintheexistingpopulation(137,122persons)intheCity.IfProjectemployeescurrentlyresideinneighboringcommunities andhave school children, it is expected the childrenwould remain enrolled in their currentschool.However,ifsomeemployeeswithschoolagechildrenchoosetomoveclosertowork,orifsomenewemployees with children are hired from the surrounding community or another City, there could be anegligible increase in student population in the nearby schools. The Project site is located within theattendanceboundariesoftheHamiltonElementarySchool,theWilsonMiddleSchool,andthePasadenaHighSchool.53 TheHamiltonElementarySchool,K‐6, is located2089RoseVillaStreet,approximately0.7milessoutheastoftheProjectsite.TheWilsonMiddleSchoolislocatedat300SouthMadreStreet,approximately1.9 miles southeast of the Project site. The Pasadena High School is located at 2925 East Sierra MadreBoulevard,approximately1.5milesnortheastoftheProjectsite.

To ensure less than significant impacts related to schools, the Project Applicant would pay the requiredSenateBill50(SB50)developmentfeespursuanttoSection65995oftheCaliforniaGovernmentCode. In51 CityofPasadenaUnifiedSchoolDistrictWebsite,AtaGlance2011‐2012,http://pasadenausd.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/

cms/917180/File/At%20a%20Glance%20Eng%20&%20Span.pdf,accessedAugust14,2013.52 Pasadena Unified School District, Fall 2009/2010 Student Population Projection Report, Fall 2010/11 – Fall 2016/17 Student

PopulationProjectionsbyResidence,preparedbyDavisDemographics&Planning,Inc,datedFebruary26,2010.53 City of Pasadena Unified School District Website, School Site Locator, http://www.schoolsiteonline.com/schoolsitelocator/?

districtCode=19474,accessedAugust14,2013.



accordancewithSB50,thepaymentofthisfeeisdeemedtoprovidefullandcompletemitigationforimpactsto schools facilities. Further, the City collects a PUSD Construction Tax on all new construction, bothresidential and commercial. These fees would be used to fund additional school facilities and schoolimprovements thatmay be required to provide adequate school services to the Project area. Therefore,impactstoschoolservicesandfacilitieswouldbelessthansignificant.

f. Other Public Facilities


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. TheProject residents,employees,andvisitorswouldutilizeand, to someextent,impactthemaintenanceofpublicfacilities,includingroads.However,implementationoftheProjectwouldresult inaninconsequential increase(0.23percentpopulationincrease) inthetypeorfrequencyofuses of area governmental services and roadways. Therefore, development of the Project would notsignificantly increasetheuseofgovernmentservicesbeyondcurrent levels. Constructionactivitieswouldresultinatemporaryincreaseduseofthesurroundingroads.However,theuseofsuchfacilitieswouldnotrequiremaintenanceof such facilitiesbeyondnormal requirements. TheProjectApplicantwouldneed topayallCity impact fees, including theapplicableCityTripReduction/Transportation Improvement feesasdescribed in Section 17, Transportation/Traffic, below. Overall, less than significant impacts togovernmentalservices,includingroads,wouldoccur.

16. RECREATION

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

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

accelerated?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.SeeResponseNo.15.c.,above.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.SeeResponseNo.15.c.,above.



17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Wouldtheproject:

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.ThefollowinganalysisoftrafficimpactsisbasedontheEastWalnutStreetMixed‐UseProjectTrafficImpactStudy(hereinreferredtoasthe“TrafficStudy”),preparedbyLinscott,Law&Greenspan,Engineers,datedMarch19,2013(AppendixI).

Traffic Study Intersections

The Traffic Study assessed the following seven study intersections designated by City of PasadenaDepartmentofTransportation(PasDOT)staff:

1. HillAvenue/WalnutStreet;

2. AllenAvenue/VillaStreet;

3. AllenAvenue/MapleStreet‐I‐210FreewayWestbound(WB)On‐Off‐Ramps;

4. AllenAvenue/CorsonStreet‐I‐210FreewayEastbound(EB)On‐OffRamps;

5. AllenAvenue/WalnutStreet;

6. AllenAvenue/ColoradoBoulevard;and

7. GreenwoodAvenue/WalnutStreet‐FoothillBoulevard

The locations of the study intersections are illustrated inFigureB‐4,TrafficStudyArea. All seven studyintersections are presently controlled by traffic signals. The existing intersection controls and roadwayconfigurationsatthesevenstudyintersectionsareillustratedinFigureB‐5,ExistingStreetSystem.

Traffic Study Street Segments

TheTrafficStudyassessedthefollowingfourstudystreetsegmentlocationsdesignatedbyPasDOTstaff:

1. WalnutStreetwestofMeridithAvenue;

2. AllenAvenuenorthofWalnutStreet;

3. AllenAvenuesouthofWalnutStreet;and



4. WalnutStreeteastofAllenAvenue

TheexistingtravellanesandpostedspeedlimitsonthestudystreetsegmentsarealsoillustratedinFigureB‐5.

Intersection Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios

AspartoftheTrafficStudy,thefollowingscenarioswereevaluated:

ExistingConditions;

ExistingWithProjectConditions;

FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthConditions;

FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthandRelatedProjectsConditions;and

FutureWithProjectConditions

Thetrafficvolumesforeachnewconditionwereaddedtothevolumesinthepriorconditiontodeterminethechangeincapacityutilizationatthestudyintersections.

Intersection Analysis Methodology

The seven study intersectionswere evaluated using the Intersection CapacityUtilization (ICU)method ofanalysiswhichdeterminesVolume‐to‐Capacity(V/C)ratiosonacriticallanebasis.TheoverallintersectionV/CratioissubsequentlyassignedaLevelofService(LOS)valuetodescribeintersectionoperations.LevelsofServicevaryfromLOSA(freeflow)toLOSF(jammedcondition).

City of Pasadena Intersection Impact Criteria and Thresholds

TherelativeimpactoftheaddedProjecttrafficvolumestobegeneratedbytheProjectduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhourswasevaluatedbasedontheanalysisofexistingandfutureoperatingconditionsatthe study intersections, without andwith the Project. The capacity analysis procedureswere utilized toevaluatethefutureV/Crelationshipsandservicelevelcharacteristicsateachstudyintersection.

ThesignificanceofthepotentialimpactsofProject‐generatedtrafficateachstudyintersectionwasidentifiedusing criteria set forth in the City of Pasadena’s Transportation Impact Review Current Practice andGuidelines. According to the City’s Sliding ScaleMethod for calculating the level of impact due to trafficgeneratedbyaprojectasignificanttransportationimpactisdeterminedbasedonthecriteriapresentedinTableB‐15,CityofPasadenaIntersectionImpactThresholdCriteria.TheCity’sSlidingScaleMethodrequiresmitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed development causes anincrease of the analyzed intersection V/C ratio by an amount equal to or greater than the values shownbelow.TheICUcalculationsusealanecapacityof1,700vehiclesperhour(vph)forleft‐turn,through,andright‐turnlanes,andadualturnlanecapacityof3,060vph.Aclearanceintervalof0.10isalsoincludedintheICUcalculations.

FIGURETraffic Study Area Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan B-4

P C R

Not to scale

N

P C R

FIGURE

Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan B-5Not to scale

N



City of Pasadena Street Segment Impact Criteria and Thresholds

As required by City traffic study guidelines, existing and net new Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT)volumesweredeterminedatfourstreetsegmentlocationsinthevicinityoftheProject.TheCityADTimpactthreshold criteria for street segments are listed in Table B‐16, City of Pasadena Street Segment ImpactThresholdCriteria.

Existing Light Rail Transit Service

TheMetroGoldLineisalightrailtransitlinethatrunseast‐westfromEastPasadenatothePasadenaCivicCenterareaandnorth‐southfromthePasadenaCivicCenterareatoUnionStationinDowntownLosAngeles.TheMetroGoldLine travelswithin themedianof theFoothill Freeway (I‐210) and inMetro right‐of‐waybetweenRaymondAvenueandArroyoParkway.TheGoldLineLightRailsystemprovidessixstationsintheCity:1)SierraMadreVillaStation,2)AllenAvenueStation,3)LakeAvenueStation,4)MemorialParkStation,5)DelMarStation,and6)FillmoreStreetStation. TheAllenAvenueGoldLineStationis locatedlessthantwoblocks fromtheProjectsite. Thestationsserveas transportationhubsthatconnect travelers to localandregionaltransitservicesprovidedbyPasadenaARTS,FoothillTransit,Metro,andothers.ConstructionisunderwayfortheMetroGoldLineFoothillExtensionProject.54TheFoothillExtensioncurrentlyisplannedtotraverse24milesthrough11citieslocatedeastofPasadena.Eachofthe11citiesalongthecorridorhasstationsitesunderstudy. Each lightrailcarcancarry215people(sittingandstanding). TheMetroGoldLinewouldbeabletoaccommodatethree‐cartrains.Itisprojectedthattrainswouldstopatstationsevery10 minutes during rush hour and every 20 minutes during off‐peak hours. Metro would integrate theFoothill Extension into existingMetro Rail service and oversee operation of the line once construction iscomplete.AtripfromMontclairtoDowntownPasadenawouldtakealittleover40minutes;toLosAngeleswouldtakeapproximately75minutes.TheGoldLineFoothillExtensionwouldconnecthistoricdowntownsrevitalizing theestablishedcommunitiesalong the corridor; fourhistoricdepotsare slated for renovationand incorporation into future stations. TheFoothillExtensionhas received thebackingof all 11corridorcitiesissuingcitycouncilresolutionsofsupport.54 Source:http://www.foothillextension.org/extention.html

Table B‐15

City of Pasadena Intersection Impact Threshold Criteria

Level of Service Project Related Increase in Volume‐to‐Capacity (V/C) Volume‐to‐Capacity

(V/C) Ratio

A Equaltoorgreaterthan0.06 0.000‐0.600

B Equaltoorgreaterthan0.05 0.600‐0.700

C Equaltoorgreaterthan0.04 0.700‐0.800

D Equaltoorgreaterthan0.03 0.800‐0.900

E Equaltoorgreaterthan0.02 0.900‐1.000

F Equaltoorgreaterthan0.01 Greaterthan1.000

Source: East Walnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated March 19, 2013.



Existing Public Bus Transit Service

Public bus transit service within the Project study area is currently provided by Metro, Foothill TransitService,andPasadenaAreaRapidTransitService. Asummaryoftheexistingtransitservice, includingthetransitroute,destinations,andpeakhourheadwaysispresentedinTableB‐17,ExistingTransitRoutes.TheexistingpublictransitroutesintheProjectsitevicinityareillustratedinFigureB‐6,ExistingPublicTransitRoutes.

Existing Bicycle Access

BicycleaccesstotheProjectsitewouldbefacilitatedbytheCitybicycleroadwaynetwork. Atotalofeightbicycleroutes(i.e.,ClassIIBikeLanes,ClassIIIBikeRoutes,orEnhancedClassIIIBikeRoutes)intheCity’sbicyclenetworkarelocatedwithinanapproximateone‐mileradiusfromtheProjectsite.ClassIIbikewaysarelanesontheoutsideedgeofroadwaysreservedfortheexclusiveuseofbicycleswithdesignatedspecialsigning and pavement markings. Class III bikeways are roadways recommended for bicycle use withdesignatedsignspostedalongroadways.EnhancedClassIIIbikewaysincludefour‐inchwhiteedgelinesand“SharetheRoad”signage.TableB‐18,BicycleRoutesNearProjectSite,identifiesbicyclerouteslocatedneartheProject.

Table B‐16

City of Pasadena Street Segment Impact Threshold Criteriaa

Traffic Growth on Street Segment Required Multi‐Modal Measures

0.0‐2.4%DailyTrafficGrowthProjectReviewandInitialStudy StaffReviewandConditions

2.5‐4.9%DailyTrafficGrowthExaminedbyInitialStudyFocusedTrafficStudy

InitialStudyRequiredifExistingCountisgreater

than2,000VPDSoftMeasuresRequired

5.0‐7.4%ADTGrowthExaminedbyInitialStudyFullTrafficStudyRequired

InitialStudyRequiredSoftMeasuresRequired

PhysicalImprovementsmaybeRequired

7.5%+ADTGrowthExaminedbyInitialStudyFullTrafficStudyRequired

InitialStudyRequiredSoftMeasuresRequired

ExtensivePhysicalImprovementsmaybeRequired

ProjectAlternativesmaybeConsidered

a The City of Pasadena Street Segment Impact Threshold Criteria was updated in April 2013. The Traffic Study cites the threshold criteria prior to the April 2013 update. However, the analysis and conclusions remain unchanged.

Source: East Walnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan,

Engineers, dated March 19, 2013 and Transportation Impact Review Current Practice & Guidelines, prepared by Transportation Planning & Development Division Department of Transportation, http://www.cityofpasadena.net/Transportation/Transportation_Impact_Review/.



Table B‐17

Existing Transit Routes

Route Destinations Roadway(S) Near Site

NO. OF BUSES/TRAINSDURING PEAK HOUR

DIR A.M. P.M.

MetroRoute180/181HollywoodtoAltadenaviaGlendale,EagleRock,

Pasadena ColoradoBoulevard,AllenAvenue EB 4 3 WB 4 4

MetroRoute686/687 CommercetoAltadenaviaEastLosAngeles,CSULA, AllenAvenue,VillaStreet,WalnutAvenue, NB 2 2ElSereno,HighlandPark,Pasadena ColoradoBoulevard SB 2 2

MetroGoldLine804 EastLosAngelestoPasadena AllenAvenue,MapleStreet,CorsonStreet NB 10 10 SB 10 10

FoothillTransitLine187MontclairtoPasadenaviaClaremont,LaVerne,San

Dimas, ColoradoBoulevard,AllenAvenue EB 3 3Glendora,Azusa,Duarte,Monrovia,Arcadia WB 3 3

Arts10AllenGoldLineStationtoOldPasadenavia

PasadenaCity AllenAvenue,MapleStreet,CorsonStreet, EB 3 3College,Caltech WalnutStreet,ColoradoBoulevard WB 3 3

Arts40 SierraMadreVillaGoldLineStationtoOldPasadena AllenAvenue,VillaStreet,CorsonStreet EB 3 3 WB 3 3

Arts60 PasadenaCityCollegetoHastingsRanchviaPasadena AllenAvenue,ColoradoBoulevard EB 1 2CommunityUrgentCare,SierraMadreVillaStation WB 1 2

Total 52 53Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS), and Foothill Transit websites, 2013.East Walnut Street Mixed‐

Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated March 19, 2013.



Existing Traffic Volumes

Newmanualcountsofvehicularturningmovementswereconductedateachofthesevenstudyintersectionsduring the weekday morning (A.M.) and afternoon (P.M.) commuter periods to determine the peak hourtrafficvolumes.Aweekendanalysiswasnotperformedbecausetrafficvolumesatintersectionsaretypicallyloweronweekendsascomparedtoweekdays. Inconjunctionwith themanual turningmovementvehiclecounts,acountofbicycleandpedestrianvolumeswerecollectedduringthepeakperiods.ThetrafficcountswereconductedwhenlocalschoolsandPasadenaCityCollegewereinsession.Trafficvolumesatthestudyintersectionsshowthemorningandafternoonpeakperiodstypicallyassociatedwithpeakcommuterhoursinthemetropolitanarea.

TheexistingweekdayA.M. andP.M. peak commuterperiodmanual countsof turningvehicles at the studyintersections are summarized inTableB‐19ExistingTrafficVolumes. The existing traffic volumes at thestudyintersectionsduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakcommuterhoursareshowninFigure5‐1,ExistingTrafficVolumes –WeekdayA.M. PeakHour andFigure 5‐2, ExistingTrafficVolumes –Weekday P.M. PeakHourintheTrafficStudy,respectively.

Automatic 24‐hourmachine traffic counts of the four study street segments were conducted by a trafficsubconsultant,CityTrafficCounters. Theautomatic24‐hourmachinetrafficcountswereconductedwhenlocal schools andPasadenaCityCollegewere in session. The existing24‐hourADTvolumes at the studystreetsegmentsarepresentedinFigure5‐3,ExistingWeekdayADTVolumesoftheTrafficStudy.

Table B‐18

Bicycle Routes Near Project Site

Directional Route Street Bike Route Identification

North‐South

WilsonAvenueClassIIIBikeRoute–northofColoradoBoulevardClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)–southofColoradoBoulevard

HillAvenue ClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)SierraBonitaAvenue ClassIIIBikeRoute

AllenAvenue ClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)CraigStreet ClassIIIBikeRoute

East‐West

VillaStreetClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)–westofHillAvenueClassIIBikeLane–eastofHillAvenue

MapleStreet ClassIIBikeLaneCorsonStreet ClassIIBikeLaneCordovaStreet ClassIIBikeLane

DelMarBoulevardClassIIIBikeRoute–westofWilsonAvenueClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)–eastofHillAvenue

CaliforniaBoulevardClassIIIBikeRoute–westofLakeAvenueClassIIIBikeRoute(Enhanced)–eastofLakeAvenue


FIGUREExis ng Public TransitAllen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan B-6

Source: Metropolitan Transporta on Authority (Metro) website, 2013.P C R

N

PROJECT SITE



Table B‐19

Existing Traffic Volumesa

A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR

NO. INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME

1 HillAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:45 661 5:00 1,235

WalnutStreet SB 1,479 1,073

EB 301 955 WB 952 703

2 AllenAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:30 624 4:45 1,096

VillaStreet SB 1,201 769

EB 196 311 WB 177 148

3 AllenAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:30 608 4:45 983

MapleStreet SB 1,196 740

EB 0 0 WB 819 659

4 AllenAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:30 631 5:00 971

CorsonStreet SB 1,169 774

EB 344 667 WB 0 0

5 AllenAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:45 503 5:00 657

WalnutStreet SB 861 763

EB 324 1,077 WB 786 625

6 AllenAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 8:00 327 5:00 496

ColoradoBoulevard SB 497 509

EB 393 972 WB 885 730

7 GreenwoodAvenue/ 02/07/2013 NB 7:45 22 5:00 28

WalnutStreet‐FoothillBlvd NW 209 232

EB 345 1,061

WB 586 393

a Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters. Source: East Walnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated March 19,

2013.



Cumulative Growth

Aforecastofon‐streettrafficconditionspriortooccupancyoftheProjectwaspreparedbyincorporatingthepotential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area. Thepotential impactoftheProjectcanbeevaluatedwithinthecontextofthecumulativeimpactofallongoingdevelopment.ThelistofrelatedprojectswasbasedoninformationprovidedbyPasDOTtotheProjecttrafficengineeringconsultantandincorporatedintotheTrafficStudy.ThelistofrelatedprojectsintheProjectsiteareaispresentedinTableB‐20,RelatedProjectsListandTripGeneration.ThelocationofrelatedprojectsisshowninFigureB‐7,LocationofRelatedProjects.

TrafficvolumesexpectedtobegeneratedbytherelatedprojectswerecalculatedusingratesprovidedintheInstituteofTransportationEngineers’(ITE)TripGenerationmanual55.TherelatedprojectsrespectivetrafficgenerationfortheA.M.andP.M.peakhours,aswellasonadailybasisforatypicalweekday,issummarizedinTableB‐20. Theanticipateddistributionof the relatedprojects’ trafficvolumes to thestudy intersectionsduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhours isdisplayedinFigure6‐2,RelatedProjectsTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure6‐3,RelatedProjectsTrafficVolumes–WeekdayP.M.PeakHouroftheTrafficStudy,respectively.

Ambient Traffic Growth

Inordertoaccountforarea‐wideregionalgrowthnotincludedinthisanalysis,theexistingtrafficvolumeswere increased at an annual rate of one and one‐half percent (1.5 percent) to the year 2015 (i.e., theanticipated year of Project build‐out). The ambient growth factor was based on general traffic growthfactorsprovided in the2010CongestionManagementProgram forLosAngelesCounty (the “CMPmanual”)anddetermined in consultationwithPasDOT staff. It is noted that basedon reviewof the general trafficgrowthfactorsprovidedintheCMPmanualfortheSanGabrielValleyarea,itisanticipatedthattheexistingtrafficvolumesareexpectedtoincreaseatanannualrateoflessthan1.0percentperyearbetweentheyears2010and2015.Thus,applicationofthisannualgrowthfactorallowsforaconservative,worstcaseforecastoffuturetrafficvolumesinthearea.Further,itisnotedthattheCMPmanual’strafficgrowthrateisintendedtoanticipatefuturetrafficgeneratedbydevelopmentprojectsintheProjectvicinity.Thus,theinclusioninthis traffic analysis of both a forecast of traffic generated by known related projects plus the use of anambientgrowth traffic factorbasedonCMPtrafficmodeldataresults inaconservativeestimateof futuretrafficvolumesatthestudyintersections.

Trafficgenerationisexpressedinvehicletripends,definedasone‐wayvehicularmovements,eitherenteringorexitingthegeneratinglanduse. Generationequationsand/orratesprovidedintheITETripGeneration,9thEditionpublication,andintheSanDiegoAssociationofGovernments(SANDAG)BriefGuideofVehicularTrafficGenerationRates for theSanDiegoRegion. The trip generation rates and forecast of the vehiculartrips anticipated tobegeneratedby theProject arepresented inTableB‐21,ProjectTripGeneration. Assummarized in Table B‐21, the Project is expected to generate a net increase of 59 vehicular trips (11inbound trips and48outbound trips)during theweekdayA.M. peakhour. During theweekday P.M. peakhour,theProjectisexpectedtogenerateanetincreaseof80vehicletrips(51inboundtripsand29outboundtrips).Overa24‐hourperiod,theProjectisforecasttogenerateanetincreaseof883dailytripendsduringatypicalweekday(approximately442inboundtripsand442outboundtrips).

55 InstituteofTransportationEngineersTripGenerationmanual,9thEdition,2012,Washington,D.C.

October 2013 ‐ Attachment B: Explanation Of Checklist Determinations


Table B‐20

Related Projects List And Trip Generation

MAP NO.

PROJECT STATUS

PROJECT NAME/NUMBER ADDRESS/LOCATION

LAND USE DATA PROJECTDATA

SOURCE

DAILY TRIP

ENDS [2] A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2]

P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2]

LAND‐USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1 Proposed 1201E.ColoradoBoulevard Hotel 80 Rooms [3] 714 31 23 54 27 29 56 2 Proposed 550EColoradoBoulevard MedicalOfficeBuilding 112,000 GSF [4] 4,047 212 56 268 112 288 400 3 Proposed 880EColoradoBoulevard Office 140,000 GSF [5] 1,544 192 26 218 36 173 209 Condominiums 5 DU [6] 29 0 2 2 2 1 3 Hotel 156 Rooms [3] 1,392 61 44 105 53 56 109 4 Proposed 1043EDelMarBoulevard Condominiums 30 DU [6] 174 2 11 13 11 5 16 5 Proposed 132NEuclidAvenue ChurchRelated 50,300 GSF [5] 555 69 9 78 13 62 75 6 Proposed 151SHillAvenue Church 34,453 GSF [7] 314 12 7 19 9 10 19 7 Proposed 270NLosRoblesAvenue Apartments 18 DU [8] 120 2 7 9 7 4 11 8 Proposed 123SLosRoblesAvenue Condominiums 34 DU [6] 198 3 12 15 12 6 18 Office 2,000 GSF [5] 22 3 0 3 1 2 3

9 Proposed 842EVillaStreetAssistedLiving/Senior

Apartments 25 DU [9] 86 2 3 5 3 3 6 10 Proposed 788EWalnutStreet Apartments 91 DU [8] 605 9 37 46 36 20 56 Retail 6,000 GLSF [10] 256 4 2 6 11 11 22 11 Proposed 153SHudsonAvenue Condominiums 9 DU [6] 52 1 3 4 3 2 5 MedicalOfficeBuilding 3,000 GSF [4] 108 6 1 7 3 8 11 12 Proposed 200S.SierraMadreBoulevard Condominiums 60 DU [6] 349 4 22 26 21 10 31 Restaurant 30,000 GSF [11] 2,699 20 4 24 151 74 225 Retail 20,000 GLSF [10] 854 12 7 19 36 38 74 Apartments 400 DU [8] 2,660 41 163 204 161 87 248 13 Proposed 105S.LosRoblesAvenue Condominiums 50 DU [6] 291 4 18 22 17 9 26 14 Proposed 680E.ColoradoBoulevard Office 137,000 GSF [5] 1,511 188 26 214 35 169 204 Restaurant 4,500 GSF [12] 572 27 22 49 26 18 44 Retail 3,700 GLSF [10] 158 2 2 4 7 7 14 15 Proposed 680E.WalnutStreet Apartments 82 DU [8] 545 8 34 42 33 18 51 Retail 5,600 GLSF [10] 239 3 2 5 10 11 21 16 Proposed 686E.UnionAvenue Apartments 118 DU [8] 785 12 48 60 47 26 73 Retail 10,000 GLSF [10] 427 6 4 10 18 19 37 17 Proposed 135‐145S.WilsonAvenue Condominiums 30 DU [6] 174 2 11 13 11 5 16

18 Proposed1336&1347E.Colorado

Boulevard Hotel 520 Rooms [3] 4,638 202 146 348 178 186 364 Retail 40,000 GLSF [10] 1,708 24 14 38 71 77 148

19 Proposed 270‐280S.OaklandAvenue Condominiums 30 DU [6] 174 2 11 13 11 5 16



Related Projects List And Trip Generation


MAP NO.

PROJECT STATUS

PROJECT NAME/NUMBER ADDRESS/LOCATION

LAND USE DATA PROJECTDATA

SOURCE

DAILY TRIP

ENDS [2] A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2]

P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2]

LAND‐USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

20 Proposed 1065LocustAvenue Condominiums 30 DU [6] 174 2 11 13 11 5 16 21 Proposed 922‐936E.GreenStreet Condominiums 43 DU [6] 250 3 16 19 15 7 22 Retail 8,000 GLSF [10] 342 5 3 8 14 16 30 22 Proposed 1661E.ColoradoBoulevard ConvenienceStore 2,356 GLSF [13] 1,739 79 79 158 63 60 123

TOTAL 30,505 1,255 886 2,141 1,275 1,527 2,802


FIGURE

Allen and Walnut Transit Oriented Development Plan B-7P C R

Not to scale

N

Loca ons of Related Projects



Table B‐21

Project Trip Generationa

LAND USE SIZE

DAILY TRIP ENDSb VOLUMES

A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMESb

P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMESb

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Project

Apartmentc 128 DU 851 13 52 65 51 28 79

‐LessTransitAdjustment(5%)d (43) (1) (3) (4) (3) (1) (4)

Retaile 5,000 GLSF 200 4 2 6 9 9 18‐LessInternalCapture/Walk‐inTrips(25%)f (50) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (4)

SubtotalProject 958 15 50 65 55 34 89

LessExisting

AutomobileCareCenterg (2,735) GLSF (75) (4) (2) (6) (4) (5) (9)

SubtotalExisting (75) (4) (2) (6) (4) (5) (9)

NETINCREASE 883 11 48 59 51 29 80

a Source: ITE “Trip Generation”, 9th Edition, 2012; and “Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region”, SANDAG, April 2002.

b Trips are on‐way traffic movements, entering or leaving. c ITE Land Use Code 220 (Apartment) trip generation average rates: ‐ Daily Trip Rate: 6.65 trips/dwelling unit; 50 percent inbound/50 percent outbound. ‐ A.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.51 trips/dwelling units; 20 percent inbound/80 percent outbound. ‐ P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.62 trips/dwelling units; 65 percent inbound/35 percent outbound. d Based on discussions with PasDOT staff, a transit adjustment of five percent has been applied to the residential land use component based on

proximity to the Allen Avenue Gold Line Stations (i.e., one block from the Project site) in order to provide a conservative forecast of Project‐related trips.

e SANDAG trip generation rates for Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial: ‐ Daily Trip Rate: 40.0 trips/1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area; 50 percent inbound/50 percent outbound. ‐ A.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.20 trips (3 percent of daily)/1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area; 60 percent inbound/40 percent outbound. ‐ P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.60 trips (9 percent of daily)/1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area; 50 percent inbound/50 percent outbound. f A 25 percent internal capture trip adjustment factor has been applies to account for the internal capture based on the synergistic effects of the

proposed land use mix at the site, as well as neighborhood walk‐ins for the local community serving retail use. Internal capture trips are trips made to and from other components of the Project site (e.g., between the residential and retail components). A 25 percent internal capture trip adjustment is applied only to the retail component to account for internal capture and neighborhood walk‐ins for the local community service retail use. The internal capture adjustments were estimated based on the methodology and recommended practice as described in ITE “Trip Generation” 9th Edition and ITE “Trip Generation Handbook”, June 2004.

g ITE Land Use Code 942 (Automobile Care Service) trip generation average rates: ‐ Daily Trip Rate: Average A.M./P.M. peak hour volumes assumed to represent 10 percent of daily volumes. ‐ A.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 2.25 trips/1,000 square feet; 66 percent inbound/34 percent outbound. ‐ P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.11 trips/dwelling units; 48 percent inbound/52 percent outbound. Source: East Walnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated March 19, 2013.



Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

Projecttrafficvolumesbothenteringandexitingthesitehavebeendistributedandassignedtotheadjacentstreetsystembasedonthefollowingconsiderations:

Thesite’sproximitytomajortrafficcorridors(i.e.,AllenAvenue,WalnutStreet,ColoradoBoulevard,etc.);

Expected localizedtraffic flowpatternsbasedonadjacentroadwaychannelizationandpresenceoftrafficsignals;

Existingsiteparcelaccessingress/egressschemes;

Ingress/egressschemeplannedfortheProject;and

InputfromPasDOTstaff

Thegeneral,directionaltrafficdistributionpatternsfortheProjectarepresentedinFigure7‐1,ResidentialComponent Project Trip Distribution and Figure 7‐2, Retail Component Project Trip Distribution of theTrafficStudy,fortheresidentialandretaillandusecomponents,respectively.TheforecastnetnewweekdayA.M. and P.M. peak hour Project traffic volumes at the study intersections associatedwith the Project arepresentedinFigure7‐3,NetNewProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure7‐4,NetNewProject Traffic Volumes –Weekday P.M. Peak Hour of the Traffic Study, respectively. The traffic volumeassignments presented in Figures 7‐3 and 7‐4, of the Traffic Study, reflect the traffic distributioncharacteristicsshowninFigures5‐1and5‐2,oftheTrafficStudy,andtheProjecttrafficgenerationforecastspresentedinTableB‐21.

Thegeneral,directionaltrafficdistributionpatternsfortheProjectarepresentedinFigure7‐1,ResidentialComponent Project Trip Distribution and Figure 7‐2, Retail Component Project Trip Distribution of theTrafficStudy,fortheresidentialandretaillandusecomponents,respectively.TheforecastnetnewweekdayA.M. and P.M. peak hour Project traffic volumes at the study intersections associatedwith the Project arepresentedinFigure7‐3,NetNewProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure7‐4,NetNewProject Traffic Volumes –Weekday P.M. Peak Hour of the Traffic Study, respectively. The traffic volumeassignments presented in Figures 7‐3 and 7‐4, of the Traffic Study, reflect the traffic distributioncharacteristicsshowninFigures5‐1and5‐2,oftheTrafficStudy,andtheProjecttrafficgenerationforecastspresentedinTableB‐21.

Study Intersection Analysis

ThetrafficimpactanalysispreparedforthestudyintersectionsusingtheICUmethodologyandapplicationof the City significant traffic impact criteria is summarized below inTableB‐22 Summary of Volume toCapacityRatiosandLevelsofServiceA.M.andP.M.PeakHours.

Existing Conditions

Asindicatedincolumn[1]ofTableB‐22,allsevenstudyintersectionsarepresentlyoperatingatLOSDorbetterduring theweekdayA.M. andP.M.peakhoursunderexisting (2013) conditions. Theexisting trafficvolumesatthestudyintersectionsduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhoursareillustratedinFigures5‐1and5‐2oftheTrafficStudy,respectively.



Table B‐22

Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

YEAR 2013 EXISTING

YEAR 2013 EXISTING WITH

PROJECT

YEAR 2015 FUTURE

PRE‐PROJECT W/ AMBIENT GROWTH (AG)

YEAR 2015 FUTURE

PRE‐PROJECT W/ AG & REL. PROJECTS

YEAR 2015 FUTURE WITH

PROPOSED PROJECT

CHANGE V/C

[(2)‐(1)] SIGNIF. IMPACT

CHANGE V/C

[(5)‐(4)] SIGNIF. IMPACT

PEAK

NO. INTERSECTION HOUR V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS

1 HillAvenue/ A.M. 0.701 C 0.706 C 0.005 NO 0.720 C 0.782 C 0.788 C 0.006 NO WalnutStreet P.M. 0.810 D 0.819 D 0.009 NO 0.832 D 0.912 E 0.921 E 0.009 NO

2 AllenAvenue/ A.M. 0.487 A 0.488 A 0.001 NO 0.500 A 0.518 A 0.518 A 0.000 NO VillaStreet P.M. 0.470 A 0.471 A 0.001 NO 0.483 A 0.501 A 0.501 A 0.000 NO

3 AllenAvenue/ A.M. 0.538 A 0.538 A 0.000 NO 0.552 A 0.580 A 0.581 A 0.001 NO MapleStreet P.M. 0.478 A 0.479 A 0.001 NO 0.491 A 0.500 A 0.501 A 0.001 NO

4 AllenAvenue/ A.M. 0.496 A 0.501 A 0.005 NO 0.510 A 0.528 A 0.532 A 0.004 NO CorsonStreet P.M. 0.556 A 0.559 A 0.003 NO 0.572 A 0.613 B 0.615 B 0.002 NO

5 AllenAvenue/ A.M. 0.528 A 0.536 A 0.008 NO 0.542 A 0.582 A 0.590 A 0.008 NO WalnutStreet P.M. 0.609 B 0.616 B 0.007 NO 0.626 B 0.666 B 0.673 B 0.007 NO 6 AllenAvenue/ A.M. 0.534 A 0.536 A 0.002 NO 0.549 A 0.587 A 0.588 A 0.001 NO ColoradoBoulevard P.M. 0.650 B 0.651 B 0.001 NO 0.668 B 0.704 C 0.706 C 0.002 NO

7 GreenwoodAvenue/ A.M. 0.361 A 0.362 A 0.001 NO 0.371 A 0.399 A 0.400 A 0.001 NO

WalnutStreet‐FoothillBoulevard P.M. 0.517 A 0.518 A 0.001 NO 0.531 A 0.563 A 0.565 A 0.002 NO

Source: East Walnut Street Mixed‐Use Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated March 19, 2013

.



Existing With Project Conditions

As indicated in column [2] ofTableB‐22, application of theCity’s threshold criteria to the “ExistingWithProject”scenarioindicatestheProjectisnotexpectedtocreatesignificantimpactsatanyofthesevenstudyintersections.Incremental,butnotsignificant,impactsarenotedatthestudyintersections.Astherearenosignificantimpacts,notrafficmitigationmeasuresarerequiredorrecommendedforthestudyintersectionsunder the “Existing With Project” conditions. The existing with Project traffic volumes at the studyintersectionsduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhoursareillustratedinFigure9‐1,ExistingWithProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure9‐2,ExistingWithProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayP.M.PeakHouroftheTrafficStudy,respectively

Future Without Project With Ambient Growth Conditions

Growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existingdevelopmentsandotherfactorswasassumedtobe1.5percent(1.5%)peryearthrough2015.ThisambientgrowthincrementallyincreasestheV/Cratiosatallofthestudyintersections.Asindicatedincolumn[3]ofTableB‐22,allsevenstudy intersectionsareexpectedtocontinueoperatingatLOSDorbetterduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhourswiththeadditionofambientgrowthtraffic throughtheyear2015. Thefuture without Project with ambient growth (existing with ambient growth) traffic volumes at the studyintersections during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours are illustrated in Figure 9‐3, FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthTrafficVolumes –Weekday A.M. PeakHour andFigure9‐4, FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthTrafficVolumes–WeekdayP.M.PeakHouroftheTrafficStudy,respectively.

Future Without Project With Ambient Growth and Related Projects Conditions

The V/C ratios at all of the study intersections are incrementally increased with the addition of trafficgeneratedbytherelatedprojectslistedinTableB‐20. Aspresentedincolumn[4]ofTableB‐22sixofthesevenstudyintersectionsareexpectedtocontinueoperatingatLOSDorbetterduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhourswiththeadditionofgrowthinambienttrafficandthetrafficduetotherelatedprojects.Thestudyintersection,IntersectionNumber1,HillAvenue/WalnutStreet,isexpectedtooperateatLOSEduringthe P.M. peak hourwith a V/C of 0.912. The futurewithout Project ambient growth and related projectstraffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours are illustrated inFigure9‐5,FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthandRelatedProjectsTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure9‐6,FutureWithoutProjectWithAmbientGrowthandRelatedProjectsTrafficVolumes–WeekdayP.M.PeakHour,oftheTrafficStudy,respectively.

Future With Project Conditions

Aspresentedincolumn[5]ofTableB‐22,applicationoftheCity’sthresholdcriteriatothe“WithProposedProject”scenarioindicatesthattheProjectisnotexpectedtocreatesignificantimpactsatanyofthesevenstudyintersections.Incremental,butnotsignificant,impactsarenotedatthestudyintersections.Becausetherearenosignificantimpacts,notrafficmitigationmeasuresarerequiredorrecommendedforthestudyintersections.ThefuturewithProject(existing,ambientgrowth,relatedprojectandProject)trafficvolumesatthestudyintersectionsduringtheweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhoursareillustratedinFigure9‐7,FutureWithProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayA.M.PeakHourandFigure9‐8,FutureWithProjectTrafficVolumes–WeekdayP.M.PeakHouroftheTrafficStudy,respectively.



Study Street Segment Analysis

The existing and forecast existing with Project volumes at the street segment study locations aresummarized inTableB‐23, Summary of Street Segment Analysis. The existing ADT volume is shown incolumn[1].ThetotalnetnewProjectADTvolumesatthestudylocationsareshownincolumn[2].Finally,the Project‐related percent increases in ADT growth for the analyzed street segments are presented incolumn[3].

Table B‐23

Summary of Street Segment Analysis

Location Dir.

[1] Existing Weekday

ADT Volume

[2] Net

Project ADT

Volume

[3] Percent ADT

Growth ([2]/[1])

1 WalnutStreetwestof EB 8,486 156 1.8% MeridithAvenue WB 8,714 221 2.5%

TotalLocation1 17,200 377 2.2%

2 AllenAvenuenorthof NB 10,416 106 1.0% WalnutStreet SB 9,771 172 1.8%


3 AllenAvenuesouthof NB 7,537 45 0.6% WalnutStreet SB 6,897 24 0.3%


4 WalnutStreeteastof EB 7,671 91 1.2% AllenAvenue WB 7,520 68 0.9%



Application of the City’s threshold criteria indicates that the Project is not expected to create significantimpacts at any of the four study street segments. As indicated in Table B‐23, the Project is forecast toincreaseADTvolumesonthestudystreetsegmentsassummarizedbelow:

StreetSegmentNo.1(WalnutStreetwestofMeridithAvenue):2.2percent;

StreetSegmentNo.2(AllenAvenuenorthofWalnutStreet):1.4percent;



StreetSegmentNo.3(AllenAvenuesouthofWalnutStreet):0.5percent;and

StreetSegmentNo.4(WalnutStreeteastofAllenAvenue):1.0percent

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO)

TheProject is subject to the requirements of theCity’s TransportationDemandManagement (TDM)/TripReductionOrdinance(TRO)(Chapter10.64,TransportationManagementProgram,of theMunicipalCode).Per the Transportation Management Program, the Project Applicant would submit a TDM Program Plan(separatefromtheTrafficStudy).TheTDMProgramPlanwouldbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofTransportationpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit,andthereafter,reviewedandapprovedannually.

Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee

The City has established the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee (TR‐TIF) programconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanandGovernmentCodeSection66477.Thepurposeofthefeeistopromotethegeneralhealth,safetyandwelfareoftheresidentsoftheCitythroughassurancethatanadequatelevelofserviceontheCity’stransportationsystemcanbemaintainedthroughtheimplementationofthestreetandtransitimprovementsidentifiedintheMobilityElement.RevenuesfromtheTR‐TIFprogramwouldbeusedto fund key intersection improvements, complete roadway extension projects identified in the MobilityElement and fund improvements to manage traffic on designated multimodal corridors. Additionally,approximately one‐half of the funds collected through the program would be allocated towardsimprovements to the ARTS system and to provide significant enhancements to the local transit serviceencouragingnon‐automobiletravelthroughouttheCity.TheTR‐TIFprogramisapplicabletonewindustrial,office,retailandresidentialdevelopment. TheProjectwouldberequiredtopaythecorrespondingTR‐TIFfortheprojectpriortotheissuanceofthebuildingpermit.

As summarized above, application of the City’s threshold criteria to the Project scenarios indicates theProject isnot expected to create a significant impact at the seven study intersectionsor four study streetsegments. Incremental,butnotsignificant, impactsarenotedatthestudyintersections. Additionally, it isconcluded that the Project is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the four study streetsegments. However,asnotedintheCity’strafficstudyguidelines(i.e., forADTgrowthonstreetsegmentsrangingfrom0.00to2.4percent),theProject‐relatedlevelofADTgrowthontheanalyzedstreetsegmentsissubjecttostaffreviewandconditions.Further,theProjectwouldberequiredtopaythecorrespondingTR‐TIF for theprojectprior to the issuanceof thebuildingpermit. Thus, less thansignificant impactswouldoccurinthisregard.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



LessThanSignificantImpact. Asrequiredby the2010CongestionManagementProgram(CMP) forLosAngelesCounty,aTrafficImpactAssessment(TIA)hasbeenpreparedtodeterminethepotentialimpactsondesignatedmonitoringlocationsontheCMPhighwaysystem.Theanalysishasbeenpreparedinaccordancewithproceduresoutlinedinthe2010CongestionManagementProgramforLosAngelesCounty,CountyofLosAngelesMetropolitanTransportationAuthority,July2010.

CMP Intersections

ThefollowingCMPintersectionmonitoringlocationsintheProjectvicinityhavebeenidentified:

CMPStationNo.119 IntersectionofArroyoParkway/CaliforniaBoulevard;

CMPStationNo.120 PasadenaAvenue‐SaintJohnAvenue/CaliforniaBoulevard;and

CMPStationNo.121 RosemeadBoulevard/FoothillBoulevard

The CMP TIA guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be examined if the Projectwouldadd50ormoretripsduringeithertheweekdayA.M.orP.M.peakhours.TheProjectwouldnotadd50or more trips during either the weekday A.M. or P.M. peak hours (i.e., of adjacent street traffic) at CMPmonitoring intersections, as stated in the CMP manual as the threshold criteria for a traffic impactassessment.Therefore,nofurtherreviewofpotentialimpactstointersectionmonitoringlocationsthatarepartoftheCMPhighwaysystemisrequired.

CMP Freeways

ThefollowingCMPfreewaymonitoringlocationsintheProjectvicinityhavebeenidentified:

CMPStationNo.1056 Route134FreewaywestofSanRafaelAvenue;

CMPStationNo.1060 I‐210FreewaywestofRoutes134‐710;and

CMPStationNo.1061 I‐210FreewayatRosemeadBoulevard

TheCMPTIAguidelinesrequire that freewaymonitoring locationsmustbeexamined if theProjectwouldadd150ormoretrips(ineitherdirection)duringeithertheweekdayA.M.orP.M.peakperiods.TheProjectwouldnotadd150ormoretrips(ineitherdirection)duringeithertheweekdayA.M.orP.M.peakhourstoCMPfreewaymonitoringlocationswhichisthethresholdforpreparingatrafficimpactassessment,asstatedintheCMPmanual.Therefore,nofurtherreviewofpotentialimpactstofreewaymonitoringlocationsthatarepartoftheCMPhighwaysystemisrequired.

CMP Transit

Asrequiredbythe2010CongestionManagementProgram,areviewhasbeenmadeofthepotentialimpactsoftheProjectontransitservice.Asdiscussedabove,existingtransitserviceisprovidedinthevicinityoftheProject. TheProjecttripgeneration,asshowninTableB‐21above,wasadjustedbyvaluessetforthintheCMP(i.e.,persontripsequal1.4timesvehicletrips,andtransittripsequal10.0percentofthetotalpersontrips)toestimatetransittripgeneration.PursuanttotheCMPguidelines,theProjectisforecasttogeneratedemandfor8transittripsduringtheweekdayA.M.peakhourand11transittripsduringtheweekdayP.M.



peakhour.Overa24‐hourperiod,theProjectisforecasttogeneratedemandfor124weekdaydailytransittrips.Therefore,thecalculationsareasfollows:

WeekdayA.M.PeakHour=591.40.10=8TransitTrips

WeekdayP.M.PeakHour=801.40.10=11TransitTrips

WeekdayDailyTrips=8831.40.10=124TransitTrips

As shown in Table B‐17 above, seven bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in closeproximityoftheProjectsite.AsoutlinedinTableB‐17,underthe“No.ofBuses/TrainsDuringPeakHour”column,theseseventransitlinesprovideservicesforanaverageof(i.e.,averageofthedirectionalnumberofbuses during the peak hours) generally 52 and 53 buses during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours.Therefore,basedontheabovecalculatedweekdayA.M.andP.M.peakhourtrips, thiswouldcorrespondtolessthanoneadditionaltransitriderperbus.ItisanticipatedthattheexistingtransitserviceintheProjectareawouldadequatelyaccommodatetheincreaseofProject‐generatedtransittrips.Thus,giventhenumberof Project‐generated transit trips per bus, no Project impacts on existing or future transit services in theProjectareaareexpectedtooccurduetotheProject.

As such, based on the CMP TIA guidelines for intersections, freeways, and transit, a less than significantimpactwouldoccurforanyanalysisscenariobasedonCMPcriteria.

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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. Thenearestpublicuseairport is theBurbank‐Glendale‐PasadenaAirport (BobHopeAirport)located in the City of Burbank, approximately 14miles to the northwest. As such, the Projectwould notresultinachangeinairtrafficpatternsincludingincreasesintrafficlevelsorchangesinlocationthatwouldresultinsubstantialsafetyrisks.Noimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. Underexistingconditions,vehicularaccess to theProjectsite iscurrentlyprovided by two driveways respectively accessing the former automotive repair garage and the formerlumberyard fromEastWalnutStreet. Access is furtherprovidedbydrivewaysaccessingbothproperties



fromMeridith Avenue, and a driveway accessing the former lumber yard fromNorthAllenAvenue. Theapproximately 125‐foot segment of Meridith Avenue between the two areas, which is currently publiclyaccessible, ispavedandlinedwithsidewalksonbothsidesandaplanterstripontheeastsideadjacenttoArea2.Therearenoexistinghazardousdesignfeaturessuchassharpcurvesordangerousintersectionson‐site.

Underproposedconditions,MeridithAvenuenorthofEastWalnutStreetwouldbevacatedandincorporatedinto the Project site. With the street vacation, access to the Project site would be provided via a singledrivewayfollowingthecurrentalignmentofMeridithAvenue.TheProjectdrivewaywouldprovideaccesstoboththesubterraneanandtheat‐gradeparkingstallsandaccommodatesfullaccesstoandfromEastWalnutStreet (i.e., left and right turning movements for Project site ingress and egress). The Project drivewaywould be constructed to City design standards. Pursuant to Chapter 12.04, Sidewalk Ordinance, of theMunicipalCode,allexistingsitedrivewayswouldbeclosedwithconcretecurb,gutter,andsidewalk. TheProjectApplicantwouldrepairanyexistingornewlydamagedcurb,gutter,andsidewalkwithoutcuttinganypavementalongtheNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetpropertyfrontages.Inaddition,theProjectApplicantwouldrepairanyexistingornewlydamagedsidewalkalongtheproperty’s frontagepriortotheissuanceofacertificateofoccupancy.Trashpick‐uptruckswouldenterattheEastWalnutStreet(MeridithAvenue)drivewayentranceand thebinswouldbepulled to the trash truckswitha smallervehicleorbyhand. Within the at‐grade level parking structure, adjacent to the commercial/restaurant space, adesignatedcommercial/restaurantloadingandunloadingdeliveryareawouldbeprovided.Similartotrashpick‐up trucks, delivery trucks would enter at the East Walnut Street (Meridith Avenue) entrance andproceed through the parking structure to the designated loading/unloading area. The loading/unloadingareaistenfeetby20feet,witha12‐footverticalclearance.Theparkingstructurewouldprovidea25‐footturningradiusallowingtrashpick‐uptrucksanddeliverytruckstoreversesafelyintothedesignatedarea.Further, PasDOT has conducted a preliminary review of site access and circulation to ensure the Projectwould not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Thus, impacts would be less thansignificantinthisregard.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. Construction ingress/egress for theProject sitewouldbeonEastWalnutStreetandemergencyaccesswouldbemaintained.Whileitisintendedthatconstructionparkingwouldbeon‐siteduringthemajorityofconstructionactivities, itwouldbenecessaryduringsomephasesofProjectconstructionforworkerstoparkoff‐siteatnearbyparkingfacilities.Insuchcases,itisanticipatedthattheProject Applicant would rent spaces for construction workers within available nearby parking lots, at alocationtobedetermined. Assuch,theProjectApplicantwouldsubmitaConstructionStagingandTrafficManagementPlanforreviewandapprovalbythePublicWorksDepartmentpriortothestartofconstructionortheissuanceofanypermits. TheProjectContractorwouldberequiredtoobtainpermissionforlimitedstreetparkingduringconstructionworkhoursonly.TheProjectApplicantanticipatesintermittentparkingand/ortrafficlaneclosuresprimarilyalongEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenStreetduringCity‐approvedconstructionhours.



Asmentionedabove,accesstotheProjectsitewouldbeprovidedviaasingledrivewayfollowingthecurrentalignmentofMeridithAvenue.TheProjectwouldbedesignedtopermitadequateemergencyaccesstothesiteandnot to impedeaccesstoanyadjacentorsurroundingproperties. NoothermodificationswiththepotentialtoaffectemergencyaccesswouldoccurinconjunctionwiththeProject.Assuch,constructionandoperationoftheProjectwouldresultinalessthansignificantimpactwithrespecttoemergencyaccess.

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

No Impact. Chapter17.46,Parking andLoading, Section17.46.040,NumberofOff‐StreetParkingSpacesRequiredandChapter17.50,StandardsforSpecificLandUses,Section17.50.340,TOD,oftheZoningCode,providesminimumparkingstandardsandrequirementsapplicabletotheProject.PerSection17.50.340,theProjectissubjecttomandatoryparkingreductionsforTODprojects.BasedonCityrequirements,theProjectisrequiredtoprovide160parkingspacesforresidentialand43parkingspacesforcommercial/restaurantand guest, including the ten percent TOD parking reduction, for a total of 203 parking spaces. Projectparking code requirements are summarizedbelow inTableB‐24, ProjectParkingSummary. TheProjectproposes203parkingstallstoserveresidents,guests,andcommercial/restaurantemployeesandpatrons.Thesubterraneanparkinglevelwouldaccommodate134residentparkingstalls.Theat‐gradepodiumlevelwouldaccommodate26residentandguestparkingstalls,43commercialandrestaurantparkingstalls,and27residentialandguestbicycleracksandstorage. Theparkingmixwouldinclude153standardstalls,41tandemstalls,andninehandicapstalls.Thebicyclespaceswouldbeprovidedinareadilyaccessiblelocationforbothresidentsandguests. Asshown inTableB‐24, theProjectwouldmeet theCity’sMunicipalCodeparkingrequirements.Assuch,noimpactsregardingtheProject’sparkingcapacitywouldoccur.

g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

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


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.TheProjectwouldbeconstructedandoperatedincompliancewithadoptedpolices,plans,andprograms supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would concentrateresidential and employee population on the Project site, providing opportunities for the use of light railtransit,bustransit,bicycle,andpedestriantransportationmodes.TheProjectsiteandsurroundingareaiswellservedbypublictransit.TheProjectsiteislocatedapproximatelytwoblockssouthoftheAllenAvenueGoldLineStation. TheStationservesasatransportationhubthatconnectstravelersto localandregionaltransitservicesprovidedbyPasadenaARTS,FoothillTransit,Metro,andothers.Sevenbustransitlinesandroutes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity of the Project site; refer to Table B‐17. Thus, it isexpectedthatmanyofthepersontripsgeneratedbytheProjectwouldutilizepublictransitastheprimarytransportationmode insteadofvehicles. Bicycleaccess to theProjectsitewouldbe facilitatedbytheCitybicycleroadwaynetwork. A totalofeightbicycleroutes (i.e.,Class IIBikeLanes,Class IIIBikeRoutes,or



EnhancedClass IIIBikeRoutes) in theCity’sbicyclenetworkare locatedwithinan approximateone‐mileradius fromtheProjectsite; refer toTableB‐18. Bicycle lanesarecurrentlystriped inbothdirectionsonEastWalnutStreetandNorthAllenAvenue. TheProjectprovidedsidewalksalongtheentireperimeteroftheProjectsitewithstairsandelevatorsconnectingall floorsof theProjectandthesubterraneanparkinggarage. TheProjectwouldnotconflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramssupportingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities.Thus,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

Table B‐24

Project Parking Summary

Parking Use Code Requirements Parking Spaces

Required Parking Spaces Provided

Vehicular

Residential

PerPMU17.50.340.D.3.a:1.0spaceperunitunder650sq.ft.and1.5spaceperunitover650sq.ft.

160a 160

CommercialPerPMU17.46.040,Table4‐6:3.0spacesper1,000sq.ft.ofoffice 8b

43Restaurant

PerPMU17.46.040,Table4‐6:10spacesper1,000sq.ft.ofrestaurant 25c

TODPerPMU17.50.340.D.1.b:TODtenpercentreduction ‐3d

Guest PerPMU17.46.040,Table4‐6:1spaceperevery10units

13e

TotalCommunityVehicularParking 203 203

Bicycle

ResidentialPerPMU17.46.320,Table4‐6:1spaceperevery6units 21f

27

Guest

PerPMU17.46.320,Table4‐6:Aminimumof4on‐sitebicycleparkingspaces(allnonresidentialstructureslessthan15,000squarefeet).

4

TotalCommunityBicycleRacksandStorage 25 27

a 64 residential units X 1.0 parking spaces = 64 parking spaces; 64 residential units X 1.5 parking spaces = 96 parking spaces. 64 parking spaces + 96 parking spaces = 160 parking spaces.

b 2,500 sq.ft. of commercial space/1,000 sq.ft. = 2.5 X 3 parking spaces = 7.5 parking spaces (rounded up to 8). c 2,500 sq.ft. of restaurant space/1,000 sq.ft. = 2.5 X 10 parking spaces = 25 parking spaces. d 8 commercial parking spaces + 25 restaurant spaces = 33 spaces X 10 percent = 3.3 parking spaces (rounded down to 3). e 128 residential units/10 parking spaces = 12.8 parking spaces (rounded up to 13). f 128 residential units/6 parking spaces = 21.3 parking spaces (rounded down to 21). Source: Allen and Watson T.O.D. Conceptual Design Review, prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, dated July 15, 2013.



18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.AsdiscussedindetailinSection10,HydrologyandWaterQuality,undertheLARWQCB NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surfacewaterswithin theCityaresubject toapplicable local, Stateand/or federal regulations. Newdevelopmentpursuant to implementationof theProjectmust to complywithall provisionsof theNPDESprogramandotherapplicableWDRs,asenforcedbytheLARWQCBandtheCaliforniaSWRCB.Therefore,implementationoftheProjectwouldnotresultinanexceedanceofwastewatertreatmentrequirements.

Wastewater collectedwithin theCity of PasadenaDepartmentofWater andPower (PWP) service area istransported to Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) and the San Jose Creek WRP, bothoperatedbytheSanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCounty(LACSD).DuetotheelevationdifferencebetweenthetwoWRPsandtheserviceareaofPWP,treatedwaterfromtheseWRPsisnotusedinthePWPservicearea.WithinthePWPservicearea,thereare3,500milesofsewerpipelines,rangingfromsixto42inchesindiameter. There are two sewer pump stations to transport wastewater to the twoWRPs in the LACSDservice area. Dry weather flows are estimated to be 13.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The WhittierNarrows WRP, located approximately 12 miles southeast of Pasadena near the City of South El Monte,providesprimary, secondary,and tertiary treatment for15milliongallonsofwastewaterperdaywithanaverage daily flow of 8.1 mgd. The San Jose Creek WRP, located approximately 22 miles southeast ofPasadenanear theCityof Industry,alsoprovidesprimary, secondary,and tertiary treatment for100mgdwithanaveragedailyflowof39mgd.56

Build‐out of the Project would not result in the discharge of wastewater to any surface water. Instead,operationaldischargeswouldbesenttothesewersystem,whichwouldultimatelybetreatedattheWhittierNarrowsWRPortheSanJoseCreekWRP.ThewastewaterreclamationplantsarerequiredtocomplywithassociatedWDRsand anyupdates ornewpermits issued. WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable inwaterdischarged froma facility. CompliancewithapplicableWDRswouldensure that implementationofthe Project would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB withrespecttodischargestothesewersystem.Assuch,impactswouldbelessthansignificantinthisregard.

56 PasadenaWaterandPower,Final2010UrbanWaterManagementPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJune2011.



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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact.

Wastewater

During Project construction, a negligible amount of wastewater would be generated by constructionworkers. It is anticipated that portable toilets would be provided by a private company and the wastedisposed off‐site. Wastewater generation from construction activities is not anticipated to cause ameasurableincreaseinwastewaterflowsatapointwhere,andatatimewhen,asewer’scapacityisalreadyconstrainedorthatwouldcauseasewer’scapacitytobecomeconstrained.Additionally,constructionisnotanticipated to generate wastewater flows that would substantially or incrementally exceed the futurescheduledcollectionof thePWPor thecapacityof theWhittierNarrowsWRPor theSan JoseCreekWRP.Therefore, construction impacts to the localwastewater conveyance and treatment systemwould be lessthansignificant.

Existingwastewaterfacilitiesinclude8‐inchsewermainsonthestreetcenterlinesofbothMeridithAvenueandEastWalnutStreetandwestofthecenterlineonNorthAllenAvenue.57Theexistingserviceconnectionsfor the former automotive repair garage and former lumber yard would be removed per future streetvacationfortheportionofMeridithAvenue,northofEastWalnutStreet.Theexisting8‐inchsewermainonMeridith Avenue would remain to serve the future building.58 As shown in Table B‐25 EstimatedWastewater Generation, implementation of the Project would generate approximately 17,190 gpd ofwastewater.TheProject‘swastewaterflowswouldbetreatedbytheWhittierNarrowsWRPortheSanJoseCreekWRP.TheWhittierNarrowsWRPandtheSanJoseCreekWRPhavecurrentcapacitiesof6.9mgdand61mgd,respectively. Giventhecurrentcapacityof the twowastewater treatment facilities thatservetheCity, Projectwastewater generationwould account for a less than onepercent increase indemandat thetreatmentplantsandtherewouldbeamplecapacitytotreatthisincrease.

According to the City of Pasadena Department of Public Works, City sewer infrastructure has adequatecapacitytoservetheProject.59On‐sitesewerpipeimprovementsandconnectionswouldbeprovidedbytheProject in consultationwithPWP,with theProjectApplicant responsible forpayment of all sewer facilityimprovementsandconnectionfeesassetforthinChapter4.52,SewerUseFeeandStormDrainCharge,andChapter 4.53, Sewer Facility Charge, of the Municipal Code. The fees are utilized to fund wastewatertreatmentandregionalwastewaterconveyance improvementsassociatedwith theProject. Thenecessaryimprovementswould be verified through the permit approval process of obtaining a sewer capacity and

57 PacificCoastCivil,Inc.,Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandum,July31,2013(AppendixA).58 Ibid.59 DanielA.Rix,CityEngineer,CityofPasadenaDepartmentofPublicWorks,letterdatedMarch28,2013.



connectionpermitfromtheCity.Therefore,givenexistingandanticipatedfuturecapacityatthewastewatertreatment facilitiesandwastewatergenerationexpected fromtheProject, impacts towastewater facilitieswouldbelessthansignificant.

Water

ThePWPprovideswaterandwater treatment to theCity, including theProject site. PWP’swater supplyconsists of three sources with an additional three sources planned over the 2035 timeframe. Currentsourcesareimportedwaterpurchases,groundwater,andsurfacesupplies.ThemajorityofthewatersupplyforPWPisfromimportedwaterfromtheMWD.MWDisthelargestwatersupplierinCalifornia,supplyingapproximately 1.7 billion gallons of water per day. PWP has a contract to purchase imported water tosupplementgroundwaterpumping.Onaverage,PWPreceives61percentofitswaterfromMWD.WaterisdeliveredtotheCityafterbeingtreatedattheMWD’sWeymouthWaterTreatmentPlant(“WTP”). Duringoutages at theWeymouthWTP,PWPreceives treatedwater fromMWD’s JensenWTP. Sufficient turnoutcapacity exists to meet existing and projected PWP demands. PWP currently utilizes two local watersupplieswithin theRaymondBasin: groundwater,which ispumpeddirectly into thedistributionsystem,andsurfacewater,whichisdivertedandspreadforgroundwaterpumpingcredits.Plannedsourcesinclude

Table B‐25

Estimated Wastewater Generation

Land Use Quantity Factor Average Daily Flow (gpd)

ExistingLandUses FormerAutomotiveRepairGarage 2,735s.f. 80gpd/1,000s.f. 219gpd

FormerLumberYard 12,013s.f. 80gpd/1,000s.f. 961gpd Total 961.04

ProposedLandUsesResidential

Studio 21units 80gpd/d.u. 1,680gpd1‐Bedroom 64units 120gpd/d.u. 7,680gpd2‐Bedroom 43units 160gpd/d.u. 6,880gpdCommercial 2,500s.f. 80gpd/1,000s.f. 200gpdRestaurant 2,500s.f. 300gpd/1,000s.f. 750gpd

Total 17,190gpd NetIncrease(Existing/Proposed) 16,229gpd

s.f. = square feet; gpd = gallons per day; d.u. = dwelling unit. Source: Generation factors based on Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation Sewer Generation Rates

table dated 3/20/2002. Uses not listed are estimated by the closest type of use available in the table.



recycledwater starting in2015,Devil’sGate surfacewaterdiversion starting in2015, andagroundwaterstorageprogramusingMWDreplenishmentwaterwhichwouldbeimplementedasneeded.60

Existingwaterdistributionfacilitiesincludethefollowing:8‐inchwatermainonEastWalnutStreet,19feetnorthofstreetcenterline;10‐inchwatermainonEastWalnutStreet,18 feetsouthofstreetcenterline;4‐inchwaterlineonMeridithAvenue,14feetwestofstreetcenterline;and8‐inchwatermainonNorthAllenAvenue,15feetwestofstreetcenterline.61Theexistingserviceconnectionsfortheformerautomotiverepairgarage and former lumber yardwould be removed per future street vacation for the portion ofMeridithAvenue,northofEastWalnutStreet.62ThedomesticandfirewaterservicefortheProjectwouldconnecttotheexisting8‐inchwatermainonEastWalnutStreet.63 Per thePFD,acurrent fire flowreport (notolderthan six months) performed by the Pasadena Water Department, would be provided to the PFD whenapplyingforbuildingpermitstoconstructanystructure. TheminimumfireflowfortheProjectsitewouldbe8,000gpmat20psi. TheconnectionswouldbeprovidedbytheProjectinconsultationwithPWP,withthe Project Applicant responsible for payment of all applicable water connection fees as set forth in theChapter13.20,WaterServiceandRates,oftheMunicipalCode.

TheProjectwouldresult inestimatedwaterconsumptionofapproximately21,488gpd(orapproximately7,650,000 gallons per year) when fully occupied. However, the Project would comply with the WaterConservationPlanandWaterShortageProcedureOrdinance(Chapter13.10,WaterWasteProhibitionsandWater Supply Shortage Plans, of the Municipal Code) and the City’s CWCP, which targets a 20 percentreductioninper‐capitawaterconsumptionbytheyear2020,inaccordancewithCalifornia’s20x2020Plan.Thewater‐conservationplanwouldbereviewedandapprovedby thePWPandBuildingDivisionprior toissuanceofabuildingpermit. TheProjectirrigationandplumbingplanswouldcomplywiththeapprovedwater‐conservationplanandtheCity’srequirements for landscape irrigation. Landscaping for theProjectwouldbeprovided inaccordancewithstandardCity requirementsperChapter17.44,Landscaping,of theZoningCode.

PWP’s 2011 WIRP provides water demand projections in five‐year increments through 2035, based ondemographicdata fromSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments’RegionalTransportationPlan, aswellasonbillingdataforeachmajorcustomerclass,weather,andconservation.TheCity’swaterdemandisestimatedtoreach43,300acre‐feetby2035,whichisanincreaseof3,300acre‐feet(lessthaneightpercent)fromtheestimated2015consumption.64Theestimated23.48acre‐feetperyear,increaseinwaterdemandgenerated by the Projectwould constitute approximately 0.7 percent of the City’s total increase inwaterdemandthrough2035,orapproximately0.05percentoftheCity’sprojectedwaterdemandfor2035(43,300acre‐feet).Assuch,theProjectwouldfallwithinPWP’savailableandprojectedwatersupplies.

PWPiscurrentlyabletomeetnewdemandandanticipatesbeingabletomeetfuturedemandsasalternativeplanned water supplies are implemented in the future. As such, PWPwould be able tomeet the waterdemandoftheProject,aswellastheexistingandplannedfuturewaterdemandsofitsservicearea.Based60 PasadenaWaterandPower,Final2010UrbanWaterManagementPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJune2011.61 PacificCoastCivil,Inc.,Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandum,July31,2013(AppendixA).62 Ibid.63 Ibid.64 PasadenaWaterandPower,2011WaterIntegratedResourcesPlan,Table3‐1,“ProjectedWaterDemandsforPWP”,page3‐4.



on the above, no additional water treatment facilities are required to meet the water supply demandsassociated with the Project, and the Project would not require the construction or expansion of watertreatmentfacilities. Therefore,watersupplyimpactsassociatedwithProjectoperationwouldbelessthansignificant.

Basedontheabove,alessthansignificantimpactwouldoccurinthisregard.

c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. Asdiscussed in Section10,HydrologyandWaterQuality, consistentwithapplicable regulatory requirements, post‐development runoff quantitieswouldnot exceed that of existingconditions.DrainagepatternsundertheProjectwouldbesimilartotheexistingsiteconditions.TheProjectsite gently slopes to the south with three to four feet of vertical relief across the property, and isapproximately98percentimpervious.65StormwaterrunoffisdischargedfromtheProjectsiteviaoverlandsheetflowintotheguttersliningMeridithAvenue,EastWalnutStreet,andNorthAllenAvenue.FlowsenterstormdraininletstoacatchbasinneartheintersectionofNorthAllenAvenueandEastWalnutStreetandareconveyed toa60‐inchstormdrainbeneathNorthAllenAvenue that ismaintainedby theLosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrict.Nooff‐sitestormdrainsystemsimprovementswouldbenecessary.Further,theProjectApplicantmustsubmitand implementanon‐sitedrainageplan thatmeets theapprovalof theBuildingOfficial and thePublicWorksDepartment; and the City’s SUSMPordinancewhich requires post‐developmentpeakstormwaterrunoffratestonotexceedpre‐developmentpeakstormwaterrunoffrates.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotrequireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities.Therefore,impactswouldbelessthansignificantinthisregard.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificant Impact. Project constructionwould create a temporary, intermittent demand forwater over the approximately 18‐year construction period, for such activities as soil watering for sitepreparation, fugitivedust control, concretepreparation,painting, cleanup, andother short‐termactivities.

65 PacificCoastCivil,Inc.,Walnut‐AllenMixedUseProjectMemorandum,July31,2013(AppendixA).



Construction‐relatedwaterusageisnotexpectedtohaveanadverseimpactonavailablewatersuppliesortheexistingwaterdistributionsystem,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

Water is supplied to theProject siteby thePWP. Current sourcesaregroundwater, surfacesupplies,andimportedwaterfromtheMWD,PWP’smainsource.AsdiscussedinPWP’s2010WaterIntegratedResourcePlan66 (herein referred to as the “2010WIRP”), which serves as a basis for the PWP 2010 UrbanWaterManagementPlan67(hereinreferredtoasthe“2010UWMP”),overtheperiodfrom2010to2035,thePWP’sprojectedwater demand increases from 38,460 acre‐feet per year (AFY) to 43,300 AFY, representing anannual increaseof0.5percent. Aspresented in the2010WIRP,MWDhasshownthat itwouldbeable tomeetthesupplementalneedsofallitsmemberagenciesreliablythrough2035duringaverage(1922‐2004hydrology), single dry (1977 hydrology), and multiple dry years (1990‐1992 hydrology), even duringprolongeddroughtevents.68

TheProjectwouldresultinestimatedwaterdemandofapproximately21,488gpdwhenfullyoccupied.Thiswould amount to approximately 23.1 AFY per year.69 The 23.1 AFY per year increase in water demandgeneratedbytheProjectwouldconstituteapproximately0.05percentoftheCity’sprojectedwaterdemandfor2035(43,300AFY).TheProjectwouldfallwithintheavailableandprojectedwatersuppliesprojectedinthe2010UWMP.

As discussed in Response 18.b., the Project would comply with theWater Conservation Plan andWaterShortageProcedureOrdinance(Chapter13.10,WaterWasteProhibitionsandWaterSupplyShortagePlans,oftheMunicipalCode)andtheCity’sComprehensiveWaterConservationPlan(“CWCP”),whichtargetsa20percent reduction in per‐capita water consumption by the year 2020, in order to meet the mandatoryconservationgoalsestablishedby theStateWaterConservationActof2009(“California’s20x2020plan”).Further,theProjectwouldberequiredtoincorporatewaterconservationeffortswhereapplicable,suchasusing drought‐resistant landscaping and using low‐flow faucets and toilets. The City’s Water EfficientLandscapingRegulationsOrdinance(Chapter13.22,WaterEfficientLandscape,ofMunicipalCode)haswaterefficiencyrequirementsfornewpublicandprivateprojectsintheCity,andtheProjectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththisordinance.GiventheProject’snominalincreaseinwaterdemandandrequiredcompliancewithapplicablewaterconservationmeasures, impactsregarding theCity’sexistingsupplieswouldbe lessthansignificant.

66 PasadenaWaterandPowerWaterIntegratedResourcesPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJanuary12,2011.67 PasadenaWaterandPower,Final2010UrbanWaterManagementPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJune2011.68 PasadenaWaterandPower,Final2010UrbanWaterManagementPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJune2011andPasadenaWater

andPowerWaterIntegratedResourcesPlan,preparedbyCDM,datedJanuary12,2011.69 1acre‐foot=325,851gallons.21,488gpd/325,851gallonsX365=24.1AFY.



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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response 18.b., the Project would result in estimatedwastewater generation of approximately 17,190 gpd when fully occupied. The proposed increase towastewater service demand is negligible compared to the existing service area of the PWP and LACDSwastewatertreatmentsystems.Further,theWhittierNarrowsWRPandtheSanJoseCreekWRPwouldhaveadequate capacity to serve the Project. Thus, Project impacts related to wastewater treatment capacitywouldbelessthansignificant.

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid

waste disposal needs?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.TheCityofPasadenaDepartmentofPublicWorks,StreetMaintenanceandIntegratedWasteManagementDivision(IWMD),collectsresidentialsolidwaste.Commercialandindustrialsolidwasteispickedupbyprivatehaulers.TheIWMDalsoprovidesacurbsiderecyclingprogramincludingpaper, cardboard, cans/aluminum, plastic, and glass. The recyclable materials are hauled to privaterecyclablematerials companies. TheCityproducesapproximately164,418 tonsof solidwasteperyear.70TheCitysendsitswastetoupto15landfillsasshownTableB‐26,LandfillsUsedbyPasadena. TableB‐26illustratesthepermitteddisposalrate,remainingcapacity,andestimatedclosuredateofall15landfillsthatserve theCity. Theprimary landfillusedwithin theCity, theSchollCanyonLandfill, ispermitted through2030 with a remaining capacity of approximately 9,900,000 cubic yards. As illustrated in Table B‐27,Projected SolidWaste GeneratedDuringOperation and based on solid waste generation factors from theCalifornia IntegratedWasteManagementBoard (CIWMB), theproposed128multi‐family residentialunitsand5,000squarefeetofcommercial/restaurantspacewouldgenerateatotalofapproximately53.7lbs/day(0.268 tons/day or 97.82 tons/year) of solidwaste. The annual amount of solidwaste generated by theProjectsitewouldrepresentaminoramount(lessthan0.06percent)oftheannualsolidwastedisposedofbytheCity(164,418tons/year),thusrepresentinganegligiblefractionofthetotalwastegeneratedcitywide.Inaddition,thesolidwastegeneratedbytheProjectcouldbeaccommodatedbythelandfillsservingtheCity.

70 LincolnAvenueSpecificPlanDraftEIR,Section5.11,UtilitiesandServiceSystems,preparedbyThePlanningCenter/DC&E,dated

March2013



The California Department of Resources and Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the California StateAgencythatpromotes the importanceofreducingwasteandoverseesCalifornia’swastemanagementandrecyclingefforts.CalRecyclehasissuedjurisdictionwastediversionratetargetsequivalentto50percentofthewastestreamasexpressinginpoundsperpersonperday.Thus,itisimportanttonotethattheestimateofsolidwastegeneratedbytheProjectisconservative,inthattheamountofsolidwastethatwouldneedtobe landfilled would likely be less than this forecast based on the City’s implementation of solid wastediversion targets. Assuming theProject achieves a50percentdiversion rate, theamountofProject solidwastethatwouldneedtobelandfilledwouldbereducedtoanestimated48.91tonsannually.

Table B‐26

Landfills Used by Pasadena

Landfill Permitted Disposal Rate

(tons/day) Remaining Capacity

(cubic yards) Estimated Closure Date

AntelopeValleyPublicLandfill

3,564 20,400,000 1/1/2042

AzusaLandReclamationCountyLandfill 6,500 34,100,000 1/1/2025

BakersfieldMetropolitanSanitaryLandfill 4,500 34,994,127 12/31/2038

ChiquitaCanyonSanitaryLandfill 6,000 29,300,000 11/24/2019

ElSobranteLandfill 16,054 145,530,000 1/1/2045

FrankR.BowermanSanitaryLandfill

11,500 205,000,000 12/31/2053

LancasterLandfillandRecyclingCenter

5,100 14,514,648 3/1/2044

Mid‐ValleySanitaryLandfill

7,500 67,520,000 4/1/2033

OlindaAlphaSanitaryLandfill

8,000 38,578,383 12/31/2021

SchollCanyonLandfill 3,400 9,900,000 4/1/2030

SimiValleyLandfillandRecyclingCenter 9,250,000 119,600,000 1/31/2052

SunshineCanyonCity/CountyLandfill 12,100 112,300,000 12/31/2037

VictorvilleSanitaryLandfill

3,000 83,510,000 10/1/2047

Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Facility/Site Summary Details. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search/, accessed August 15, 2013.



Construction of the Project would result in generation of solid waste such as scrap, lumber, concrete,residual wastes, packing materials, and plastics which could require disposal of construction associateddebris at the landfills. It is anticipated that a large amountof the constructiondebriswouldbe recycled.Disposal and recyclingof the constructiondebriswouldbe required to complywithall federal, State, andlocal regulations. In addition, the Project would comply with Section 8.62, Waste Management Plan forCertain Construction and Demolition ProjectsWithin the City of Pasadena (Construction and DemolitionWasteOrdinance),oftheMunicipalCode,andthedesignrequirementsforrefugestorageareasperSection17.40.120,RefuseStorageFacilities,oftheZoningCode.AccordingthetotheConstructionandDemolitionWaste Ordinance, the Project Applicantwould submit a construction and demolition recycling andwasteassessment plan prior to issuance of the permit. Monthly reports would be submitted throughout theconstructionoftheProject.Further,summaryreportswithdocumentationwouldbesubmittedpriortofinalinspection.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotcauseanysignificantimpactsfromconflictingwithstatutesorregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste.

Basedontheabove,alessthansignificantimpactregardingsolidwastewouldoccur.

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

NoImpact.Alllocalgovernments,includingtheCityofPasadena,arerequiredunderAssemblyBill939(AB939), the IntegratedWaste Management Act of 1989, to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, andcomposting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50

Table B‐27

Projected Solid Waste Generated During Operation

Land Uses Quantity Factora

Solid Waste Generated (lbs/day)

Solid Waste Generated (tons/day)

Solid Waste Generated (tons/year)

ProposedUse

Residential 128d.u. 4lbs/unit/day 512 0.256 93.44

Commercial 2,500s.f. 5lbs/k.s.f./day 12.5 0.006 2.19

Restaurant 2,500s.f. 5lbs/k.s.f./day 12.5 0.006 2.19

Total 53.7 0.268 97.82

Notes: d.u. = dwelling unit; s.f. = square feet; k.s.f.= thousand square feet; lbs. = pounds. a Generation factors provided by the CalRecycle website, refer to Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/default.htm, accessed August 15, 2013. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2013.



percent of their solidwaste generation into recycling. If the City’s target is exceeded, the Citywould berequiredtopayfinesorpenaltiesfromtheStatefornotcomplyingwithAB939.ThewastegeneratedbytheProjectwouldbeincorporatedintothewastestreamoftheCity,anddiversionrateswouldnotbealtered.Thus,noimpactsregardingcompliancewithSB939wouldoccurwithProjectimplementation.

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of 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?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact.Theprecedinganalysisdoesnotrevealanysignificantunmitigableimpactstotheenvironment.Basedonthesefindings,theProjectisnotexpectedtosignificantlydegradethequalityof the environment. TheProject site is located in ahighlyurbanizedareaof theCity. TheProject site isdeveloped with facilities associated with the former automotive repair garage and former lumber yard,including surface parking. As discussed Section 4,BiologicalResources, the Project site does not supportsensitive plant or animal species and less than significant impacts to biological resources would occur.AccordingtotheTreeReport,theProjectsiteincludes13trees,eightwithintheProjectsitetoberemovedandfivetoberetained,locatedinthepublicright‐of‐wayadjacenttothesite.Oftheeighttreesproposedforremoval,onlyone,aSawleafZelkova,withatrunkdiameterofeightinches,isontheCity’slistofprotectedspecies. However, the minimum trunk size for protection is 15 inches; it therefore does not quality forprotection under Chapter 8.52, City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, of the Municipal Code. Theremainingseventreesdonotqualifyforprotectionunderthe“maturetree”definitionastheyfallbelowthe19‐inch trunkdiameter required for preservation. TheProjectApplicantwould be required to plant andmaintainon theEastWalnut Street frontage, for aperiodof threeyears, amaximumofnine (9) officiallydesignated street trees in accordance with the City’s master street tree plan (Chinese pistache, Pistaciachinensis).AsdiscussedaboveinSection5,CulturalResources,theProjectsitedoesnotcontainanyknownculturalresourcesasdefinedbytheCEQAGuidelines.Therefore,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.

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 project.)


SignificantUnless



NoImpact



LessThanSignificantImpact.

AccordingtotheTrafficStudy,thereareatotalof22relatedprojectswithintheProjectareathatmightaddtraffictothestudyintersections;refertoFigureB‐7.Thus,theanalysisofcumulativeimpactsconsidersthedevelopment of these projects in addition to the Project. Please refer to Section 17, Traffic andTransportationforadescriptionofthe22relatedprojects.

CompliancewithapplicableCitystandardsandregulationswouldprecludecumulativeimpactsforanumberofenvironmental issues. Cumulative impactsareconcludedtobe less thansignificant for those issues forwhich it hasbeendetermined that theProjectwouldhaveno impact. Environmental issuesmeeting thiscriterion include agricultural and forestry resources, cultural resources, energy, and mineral resources.Compliance with applicable federal, State and City standards and regulations would preclude significantcumulativeimpactswithregardtobiologicalresources,geologyandsoils,greenhousegasemissions,hazardsandhazardousmaterials,andhydrologyandwaterquality.

TheProjectandtherelatedprojectscouldhaveacumulativeaestheticimpact.However,duetointerveningdevelopment and the visual separation of the Project from the related projects, the potential forsimultaneous viewing of the Project and the related projects is minimized. Therefore, no significantcumulativeaestheticimpactswouldoccur.

AsdiscussedinSection3,AirQuality,althoughtheProjectsiteislocatedinaregionthatisinnon‐attainmentforozone,PM10,andPM2.5,theemissionsassociatedwiththeProjectwouldnotbecumulativelyconsiderable,astheemissionswouldfallbelowSCAQMDdailysignificancethresholds. Inaddition,theProjectwouldbeconsistentwiththeAQMP,whichisintendedtobringtheBasinintoattainmentforallcriteriapollutants.Assuch, theProject’s contribution tocumulative impactsonairqualityareconcluded tobenotconsiderableandlessthansignificant.

Implementation of the Project and the related projects could have a cumulative impact relative toconsistencywithapplicablelanduseplans,policiesorregulations.Thoserelatedprojectsthatareconsistentwith applicable land use plans, policies or regulations would not contribute to a cumulative impact.Similarly, thoserelatedprojects thataredependentonmodifications toadopted landuseplanswouldnothavecumulativeconsistencyimpactswithnecessaryamendmentsinplace. Notwithstanding,eachoftheserelatedprojectswouldbesubjecttodiscretionaryreviewbytheCityinordertoaddressandresolvelanduseimpactsonan individualandcumulativebasis. Assuch,cumulative landuse impactsareconcluded tobelessthansignificant.

PotentialnoiseimpactsoftheProjectarerelatedtoconstructionactivity,Project‐relatedtrafficandon‐sitestationary sources. The Project and related projects are physically separated such that individualconstructionnoise levels arenot expected tohave cumulative effects. Nevertheless, eachof these relatedprojectspresumablywouldcomplywiththeapplicableprovisionsoftheMunicipalCode,therebyprecludingthepotentialforsignificantconstructionnoiseimpacts.Cumulativetrafficnoiseincreaseswouldbebelow3dBA,andthus,wouldnotcauseaperceptibleincreaseincumulativeroadwaynoise.On‐sitenoisesourcesfor the Project and all related projects are subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code and as such,compliance with the regulations established therein would preclude significant environmental impacts.Cumulative impacts from on‐site sources are anticipated to be less than significant given the distancebetween the Project and the related projects and that the impacts from each related project would bereducedtolessthansignificantlevels.



TheincreaseinareapopulationandemploymentresultingfromtheProjectandtherelatedprojectswouldhavealessthansignificantcumulativeimpactastheseincreasesareanticipatedtobewithinboththe2008‐2014HousingElementoftheGeneralPlanandtheSouthernCalifornia2020–APreliminaryGrowthForecast:RegionalOverview prepared by SCAG. In addition, the Project provides housing opportunities, includinginclusionaryhousing,toaccommodatethefuturepopulationofthearea.Nosignificantcumulativeimpactstopopulationorhousingareexpected.

TheincreaseinareapopulationresultingfromtheProjectwouldplacenewdemandsonpublicservicessuchas fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries andparks. Development of theProject and relatedprojectswouldincreasethedemandforpublicservices.AstheserviceproviderscollectCityrequiredimpactfees,adjusttheirresourcesaccordingly,andmonitorgrowth,cumulativeimpactsonCityserviceswouldbelessthansignificant. Cumulativedevelopmentwouldincreasethedemandforeducational facilitieswithinthe Project area. Pursuant to the provisions of SB50, all school impactswithin the PUSD are consideredreduced to less than significant levels through the payment of mandatory school impact fees. Thus,cumulativeimpactsonschoolfacilitiesresultingfromdevelopmentoftheProjecttogetherwithotherrelatedprojects are concluded to be less than significant. In addition, future development projects would berequired develop park facilities and/or open space areas or pay in‐lieu fees to provide recreational/parkfacilitiesinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheMunicipalCode.

AsindicatedinSection17,Transportation/Traffic,theProjectwouldnotadd50ormorepeak‐hourtripstoanyCMPmonitoringintersection,norwouldtheProjectadd150ormorepeak‐hourdirectionaltripstoanyCMPfreewaysegment.Assuch,theProjectwouldnotexceed,eitherindividuallyorcumulatively,alevelofservicestandardestablishedbythe2010CMPforLosAngelesCountyfordesignatedroadsorhighways.Inaddition,asdeterminedintheTrafficStudy,theProjectisnotexpectedtocausesignificantintersectionorstreetsegmentimpactsunderfutureconditionsincludingtrafficfromallidentifiedrelatedprojects.

Due to the shared urban infrastructure, the wastewater generation, stormwater discharge and waterconsumptionassociatedwith theProjectandtherelatedprojectscouldhaveacumulative impact. Duringtheapprovalprocessforeachrelatedproject,utilitysystemcapacitymustbedemonstrated.Astheserviceprovidersconducton‐goingevaluations toensure facilitiesareadequate toservethe forecastedgrowthofthecommunity,cumulativeimpactsonutilitiesareconcludedtobelessthansignificant.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?


SignificantUnless



NoImpact

LessThanSignificantImpact. Basedonthedocumentationprovidedherein,theProjectwouldnotcauseenvironmental effects that cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with theadoptionandimplementationofthemitigationmeasuresandcompliancewithapplicableCitystandardsandregulationsproposedthroughoutthisdocument.

Pcr Pasadena

80 South Lake AvenueSuite 570

Pasadena, California 91101TEL 626.204.6170

FAX 626.204.6171

Pcr santa MOnica

201 Santa Monica BoulevardSuite 500

Santa Monica, California 90401TEL 310.451.4488

FAX 310.451.5279

Pcr irvine

One VentureSuite 150

Irvine, California 92618TEL 949.753.7001

FAX 949.753.7002

[email protected]

www.pcrnet.com

allen and walnut tod project

Documents