CITY OF PASADENA · General Plan Designation: Per the City’s General Plan, ... Ingress/egress to the site is currently provided via a ... Agoura Hills Hidden Hills Arcadia Pasadena

Project Number PLN2017-00033 Initial Study March 2018 Page 1

CITY OF PASADENA

175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101-1704

INITIAL STUDY

In accordance with the Environmental Policy Guidelines of the City of Pasadena, this analysis, the associated “Master Application Form,” and/or Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and supporting data constitute the Initial Study for the subject project. This Initial Study provides the assessment for a determination whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION I – PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Madison Apartments Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena Planning Department 175 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, California 91101-1704

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner 626.744.7101

4. Project Location: 417 North Madison Avenue Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California 91101

The project site comprises two adjacent rectangular parcels (APNs 5731-021-056 and 5731-021-058) totaling 31,488 square feet (0.72 acres) on the west side of North Madison Avenue, mid-block between East Villa Street to the north and East Maple Street to the south (approximately 300 feet north of the Interstate 210 Freeway).

5. Project Applicant’s Name and Address: Steve Kuchenski, ONYX Architects 316 North Sierra Madre Boulevard

Pasadena, California 91107

6. General Plan Designation: Per the City’s General Plan, the project site is located within a High Density Residential area of the City.

7. Zoning: Per the City’s zoning ordinance, the project site is located within the zoning designation of RM-48-HL-36, Multi-Family Residential, 0-48 units/acre, 36-foot Height Limit Overlay.

8. Description of the Project:

Project Summary The proposed Madison Apartments Project (hereafter referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) would result in the removal of the existing single-family structure and parking lot on the project site and the construction of a new three-story multi-family residential building with a total of 35 dwelling units and 65 underground parking spaces. The project site is located within the City of Pasadena (City) at 417 North


Madison Avenue, as shown in Figure 1, Project Location and Figure 2, Project Site. The project site totals 31,488 square feet (0.72 acres). Existing Conditions The project site, which is approximately 0.72-acres, is currently developed with one 2,300-square-foot single-family residence situated in the southwestern corner of the project site. The remainder of the project site consists of a paved surface used for parking for the existing on-site structure. The site is relatively level, with approximately three feet of elevation change across the site, with the highest elevations toward the northern portion of the site. Existing drainage is via sheetflow across the site and into adjacent City streets. The existing residence on the site was constructed in 1948; however, according to City records, the residence is not eligible for listing as an historical resource under CEQA. Both the single-family residence and the paved parking area would be demolished as part of the project. Ingress/egress to the site is currently provided via a driveway along North Madison Avenue (hereafter referred to as “Madison Avenue”). Under existing conditions, the site’s Madison Avenue frontage is lined with an 8-foot block perimeter wall. In front of this wall, along the sidewalk, is a low-lying stone wall. The existing driveway and both walls would be removed as part of the project. Existing vegetation on the site is sparse, as the majority of the site is paved. However, there are five existing trees along the perimeter of the site: four camphor trees are located along the site’s Madison Avenue frontage, and one coast live oak tree is located along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing residential structure and partially within the property to the south. The camphor trees are public street trees. The project would retain the existing healthy oak tree and one existing camphor tree but would remove three of the existing camphor trees, which are diseased and/or in declining health. The City would require the applicant to re-plant three trees of an oak species in the vacant sites left by the removed camphor trees. Proposed Use The proposed project would involve construction and operation of an approximately 42,000–square foot multi-family residential structure. The structure would have 3 stories and would be approximately 35 feet in height. The structure would support 35 residential units, ranging in size from approximately 1,000 square feet to 1,777 square feet per unit. Each unit would have 2 bedrooms. The units would be arranged around a 5,244–square foot main garden area, which would be situated generally in the center of the structure and would remain largely open to the sky. A one-level subterranean parking structure would be located below the 3-story residential structure and would support 65 parking spaces. Parking areas (including the proposed driveway) would total 27,924 square feet. The driveway (providing both ingress and egress) would be positioned along Madison Avenue at the northeastern corner of the site and would consist of a ramp to the subterranean parking. Conceptual site plans for the proposed project are shown in Figure 3, elevations are shown in Figure 4, and floor plans are shown in Figure 5. The building’s frontage would be oriented to the east, along the Madison Avenue frontage. The Madison Avenue frontage would be bordered by raised planters and a low wall (approximately one foot in height). Along the western site boundary, a new 10-foot wall would be constructed, and a new 6-foot wall would be constructed along the southern site boundary. An existing 9-foot retaining wall along the northern site boundary would remain in place. Construction Construction is anticipated to begin in mid 2018 and last for 14 months. Construction activities would consist of demolishing the existing surface parking and single-family residence; grading and excavation; building construction; utility improvements; and exterior coating for the new structure. Grading and excavation is anticipated to result in the removal of 15,260 cubic yards of soil, of which 3,600 cubic yards would be used as on-site fill. The remaining soil (equating to 11,660 cubic yards) would be exported off site.

Project LocationMadison Apartments Project

SOURCE: ESRI 2017, USGS 7.5-Minute Pasadena Quadrangle

Date:

9/13

/2017

- L

ast s

aved

by:

mwa

tson

- P

ath: Z

:\Pro

jects\

j1062

501\M

APDO

C\DO

CUM

ENT\

IS_M

ND\F

igure

1_Pr

oject_

Loca

tion.m

xd

0 2,0001,000Feet

FIGURE 1

K e r n C o u n t y

O r a n g e C o u n t y

R i v e r s i d eC o u n t y

S a nB e r n a r d i n o

C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s

C o u n t y

V e n t u r aC o u n t y

LakewoodLong

BeachTorrance

El Segundo

Santa FeSprings

InglewoodWhittier

DiamondBar

IndustryMalibu El MonteBeverly Hills San Dimas

AgouraHills Hidden Hills Arcadia

DuartePasadena

SantaClarita

Palmdale

Lancaster

RedondoBeach

Santa Monica

LosAngeles

405

5

5

15

48

118

91

138

39

126

170

150

1

14

2

138

101

395

Project Site

EL

MO

LIN

O A

VE

S A N TAB A R B A R A S T

E V I L L A S T

210

E C O R S O N S T

N M

AD

ISO

N A

VE

N O

AK

LA

ND

AV

E

E M A P L E S T

N O

AK

LA

ND

AV

E

N M

AD

ISO

N A

VE

Project SiteMadison Apartments Project

SOURCE: NAIP 2016, LA County 2017

Date:

9/13

/2017

- L

ast s

aved

by:

mwa

tson

- P

ath: Z

:\Pro

jects\

j1062

501\M

APDO

C\DO

CUM

ENT\

IS_M

ND\F

igure

2_Pr

oject_

Site

.mxd

0 200100Feet

Project Site

FIGURE 2

Conceptual Site PlanMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 3

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

3_Co

ncep

tual_S

ite_P

lan

SOURCE: ONYX Architects, Inc. 2017

West and North Elevations Madison Apartments Project

FIGURE 4aSOURCE: ONYX Architects, Inc. 2017

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

4a_W

est_A

nd_N

orth_

Elev

ation

s

East and South ElevationsMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 4bSOURCE: ONYX Architects, Inc. 2017

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

4b_E

ast_A

nd_S

outh_

Elev

ation

s

Parking Level PlanMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 5aSOURCE: ONYX Architects, Inc. 2017

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

5a_P

arkin

g_Le

vel_P

lan

First Floor PlanMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 5b

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

5b_F

irst_F

loor_

Plan


Second Floor PlanMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 5c

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

5c_S

econ

d_Flo

or_P

lan


Third Floor PlanMadison Apartments Project

FIGURE 5d

Path:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j10

6250

1\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MENT

\IS_M

ND\F

igure

5d_T

hird_

Floor

_Plan



Permits and Approvals The proposed project would require design review approval from the Design Commission and a Minor Variance from the City’s Hearing Officer, to allow for a smaller front yard setback than what is allowed under the Municipal Code. (The Municipal Code requires a front yard setback of 60.5 feet for the project site, and the proposed project has a front yard setback of 20 feet.) 9. Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is situated approximately 300 feet north of the Interstate 210 (I-210) in an urbanized area that is primarily developed with multi-family residences. While the site is surrounded with multi-family residential uses on all sides, single-family residential neighborhoods are located approximately 0.3 miles north of the project site (across East Villa Street); commercial areas are located 0.4 miles east of the project site along Lake Avenue and to the south of the project site, on the south side of I-210. Commercial areas are also located 0.7 miles west of the project site, along Fair Oaks Avenue. Several transit facilities and recreational facilities are located within the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, the Metro Gold Line light rail Lake Station and bus stops for Pasadena Transit, Metro, Foothill Transit, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Commuter Express are located near the Lake Avenue / I-210 interchange, approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site. Villa Parke is a City park and recreational center located approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site. As described above, the project site is bordered by multi-family residential development on all sides. The immediately adjacent development is described in greater detail below:

North: To the north of the project site is a parking garage (1.5 stories in height) and an associated 11-story retirement housing apartment building called “Pilgrim Tower North.” The frontage of this building is located along East Villa Street, while the entrance to the parking garage is located along Madison Avenue, just north of the project site.

East: To the immediate east of the project site is Madison Avenue, a two-way roadway with sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides. Across the street from the project site, on the east side of Madison Avenue, is “Pilgrim Tower East,” a 9-story retirement housing apartment building. The entrance to the building is along Madison Avenue, and a surface parking lot associated with this building has an ingress/egress driveway along Madison Avenue, south of the building’s entrance.

South: To the south of the project site are two-story multi-family residential structures. The project site is separated from these structures by a block wall and by a driveway that provides access to the parking areas for these residences.

West: To the west and northwest of the project site are two-story multi-family residential structures. Open-air carports associated with these residences immediately border the project site to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

At this time, no discretionary public agency approvals are known to be required for the project other than those required by the City of Pasadena. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area

requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

Consultation was requested by one Native American tribe, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, and was subsequently initiated between the City and the tribe. See Section 20 in this document for details.


Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Geology and Soils Public Services

Agricultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Recreation

Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality

Transportation/Traffic

Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems

Energy Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

Greenhouse Gases Population and Housing


DETERMINATION: (to be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment., but at least effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards , and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date

Printed Name Printed Name

Reviewed By Date

Printed Name

Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on: Date

Adoption attested to by: Signature Date

Printed name

teaton

Rectangle


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist

answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation

of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 21, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an

effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15063( c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 21 at the end of the checklist.

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier documents and the extent to which address site-specific conditions for the project.

d) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

6) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

7) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.


SECTION II - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. BACKGROUND.

Date checklist submitted: March 27, 2018 Department requiring checklist: Planning & Community Development Case Manager: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (explanations of all answers are required):

Potentially Significant

Impact

Significant Unless

Mitigation is Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

3. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Per the regulations provided in SB 743, for residential, mixed-use residential, and employment center projects on infill sites in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), aesthetic impacts cannot be considered significant. A TPA is defined as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. Section 21064.3 of the PRC defines a “major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The proposed project is an infill residential development. The project is proposed on an infill site that has been previously developed and all surrounding parcels are developed with urban uses. The project site is located within one-half mile of the Lake Avenue Station of the LA Metro Gold Line. Therefore, the proposed project is within a TPA and aesthetic impacts cannot be considered significant under SB 743. The following discussion regarding aesthetic impacts is provided for informational purposes only.

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

A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides panoramic or focused views of a highly valued landscape or scenic resource for the benefit of the general public. The certified EIR for the Pasadena General Plan (City of Pasadena 2015a) provides the following description of the existing scenic features and visual resources in the City:

The City of Pasadena affords a variety of views of scenic landscapes and built environments. The San Gabriel Mountains, near the north City boundary, dominate the skyline from most of the City. The San Rafael Hills are along the western City boundary, and the Verdugo Mountains are further to the west. In addition, the Arroyo Seco corridor and Eaton Canyon traverse the western and eastern portions of the City, respectively. The City also offers scenic views of distinct architecture in the built environment, such as the Old Pasadena Historic District, Pasadena City Hall, Castle Green, St. Andrew Catholic Church bell tower, and Bungalow Heaven.

The project site lies within an urbanized portion of Pasadena where views of important scenic resources are largely limited to north–south roadway corridors that afford views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The proposed project would result in replacement of an existing parking lot and single-story residential structure with a three-story multi-family residential building. As such, the proposed project would represent an increase in building height and massing at the project site. However, there are currently no scenic vistas afforded from or through the site. Along Madison Avenue, views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north are largely obstructed by intervening development and vegetation, such as the street trees that line both sides of the roadway. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to existing 11-story, 9-story, and 2-story structures. As


Impact

Significant

Unless Mitigation is Incorporated


Impact

No Impact


such, the addition of a 3-story structure to the project site would not represent a new obstruction to views in the area, since the area is already built out with structures that are similar in size and massing. For these reasons, the proposed increase in building height and massing at the project site would not have a substantial effect on scenic vistas, since none are currently available from or through the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project is located in a neighborhood that is developed primarily with multi-family residential structures. Views of the City’s distinct architectural resources, such as the Old Pasadena Historic District, Pasadena City Hall, Castle Green, St. Andrew Catholic Church bell tower, and Bungalow Heaven, are not available from or through the project site. (These resources are located approximately one mile from the project site.) For these reasons, the proposed project would not obstruct any notable views of the San Gabriel Mountains or any other scenic landscape or built environment features, as none are currently visible from the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on aesthetics. Further, design review would be required for the proposed project, with the Design Commission as the reviewing authority. Although no significant impacts have been identified to scenic vistas as a result of the project, this regulatory procedure would provide the City with an additional layer of review for aesthetics and an opportunity to incorporate additional conditions to increase the aesthetic value of the project.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The only designated state scenic highway in the City of Pasadena is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Highway 2), which is located north of Arroyo Seco Canyon in the extreme northwest portion of the City (Caltrans 2011). The segment of State Route 110 (the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway) from Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena to U.S. 101 in downtown Los Angeles is identified as a National Scenic Byway by the Federal Highway Administration (USDOT 2017). In addition, the segment of State Route 110 from approximately Pasadena’s southern City boundary to Interstate 5 near downtown Los Angeles (between mileposts 31.9 and 25.7) is identified as a Historic Parkway (the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway) in the California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans 2011). The project site is not within the viewshed of the Angeles Crest Highway or the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on aesthetics.

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

The proposed project consists of developing a three-story multi-family residential building on a lot that is currently developed with a one single-story residential structure and a surface parking lot. The project is located in an area of the City that is primarily developed with multi-family residential buildings. The multi-family residential buildings that surround the project site range in height from 2 to 11 stories. The proposed project is within the height and density limitations of the Zoning Code and would be consistent with the overall existing visual character of the project area in height, design, and massing (see “Surrounding Land Uses” in the project description above). Further, it is noted that the project site is currently underutilized and degraded in appearance. The surface parking lot is generally used for long-term storage of vehicles, some of which are in disrepair. As such, replacement of these existing uses with the proposed project would represent an improvement in visual quality of the site. For these reasons, while development of the project would change the


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


appearance of the project site relative to existing conditions, it is not anticipated to degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, since it would be consistent in size and design with the existing development patterns in the area. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not lead to any demonstrable negative impact on visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, and visual character/quality. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on aesthetics. The project would involve grading and removal/replacement of three existing trees. The City’s Public Works and Planning and Community Development departments would review the grading and landscape plans for compliance with the City’s grading ordinance, landscape regulations, and tree protection ordinance. This regulatory procedure would ensure that the project’s landscape and grading plans are not approved unless they meet the City’s standards for engineering, site design, and suitability. Compliance with the City’s standards would ensure that the project is appropriately designed so that it would be generally consistent with applicable design standards and neighborhood character. The proposed project would also be subject to design review and compliance with the architectural standards in the Zoning Code for multi-unit residential projects (City of Gardens). Compliance with the City’s standards would ensure that the project is appropriately designed and is in character with the site and surroundings. Additionally, the design of the project would be reviewed for approval by the Design Commission. This regulatory procedure was established to ensure that the design, colors, and finish materials of development projects comply with adopted design guidelines and achieve compatibility with the surrounding area. Although it has been determined that the project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site and surroundings, this regulatory procedure provides the City with an additional layer of review for aesthetics and an opportunity to incorporate additional conditions to increase the aesthetic value of the project.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Light/Glare. The project site is within an existing multi-family residential neighborhood in a developed area of the City. Existing lighting in the project area consists of streetlights and exterior lighting associated with the surrounding multi-family residential structures and retirement housing. The City would require the project applicant to install a maximum of two new streetlights on or near the Madison Avenue frontage of the project site. Other lighting associated with the project would be limited to pedestrian safety lighting and landscaping lights. Because the project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and a single-story residential structure, the new lighting that is proposed as part of the project would represent an increase in lighting at the project site relative to existing conditions. However, the exterior lighting that is being proposed (i.e., two street lights, pedestrian safety lighting, and landscaping lights) would be consistent with existing lighting in the project area. The block of Madison Avenue on which the project is located already has street lighting and is generally lined with multi-family residential buildings that also have pedestrian safety lighting and landscaping lighting. Furthermore, the project does not include any lighting for nighttime events or sporting activities, nor does its design involve any highly reflective materials that could potentially cause significant glare during the day, such as stainless steel panels or expansive glass windows. Rather, building materials would primarily consist of cement plaster and architectural elements such as decorative wood fencing and wall tiles. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a substantial new source of light or glare to the extent that day or nighttime views in the area would be adversely affected. Rather, the proposed exterior lighting and building materials would be consistent with those of the surrounding developments. The proposed lighting would not be considered substantial; rather, it would be an important aide to public safety. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on aesthetics.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Further, the design of this project, including its finish, colors, and materials, would be reviewed for approval through the Design Review process. This regulatory procedure provides the City with an additional layer of review for aesthetics including light and glare, and an opportunity to incorporate additional conditions to improve the project’s building materials and lighting plans. Shade/Shadow. The proposed project would involve replacement of an existing single-story, 2,300-square-foot residential structure and a surface parking lot with a 3-story, 42,000-square-foot multi-family residential structure. As such, the proposed project would introduce a new structure to the project site that would be greater in height and massing relative to the existing structure, thereby increasing the amount of shade and shadow that is cast from the project site onto adjacent properties. However, the height of the proposed 3-story structure is within the 36-foot height limit that is applied in the RM-48-HL-36 zoning district. The surrounding uses range from 2 stories to 11 stories in height. Further, Madison Avenue and other nearby streets are lined with mature trees that provide substantial shade to the street and to the surrounding properties. The height of the proposed project would fall within the range of heights of the surrounding structures and would not, therefore, introduce a substantial new source of shade and shadow to the project area, which is already subject to numerous sources of shade and shadow, including existing mature tree growth and structures up to 11 stories in height. Additionally, Pasadena's City of Gardens Ordinance requires appropriate yards to prevent intrusive shadows. The proposed project would comply with the City’s yard requirements on the northern, southern, and western project site boundaries. However, the project would require a minor variance for the front yard requirement. The City’s Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 60.5 feet; however, the proposed project would have a front yard of 20 feet. The required 60.5-foot front yard setback is in part calculated using the setback of the existing building on the project site. The existing single-story residential structure is situated towards the rear of the lot (i.e., near the western boundary of the project site.) As such, the required front yard setback is much greater than the existing front yard setbacks that are currently in place on other lots in the project area. For example, the proposed 20-foot front yard setback is generally consistent with the front yard setbacks along Madison Avenue for the lots to the north and south of the project site. The multi-family residential structures to the south of the project site are set back between 29 and 34 feet from Madison Avenue. The parking garage to the north of the project site is set back 10 feet from Madison Avenue. As such, while the proposed project would vary from the Zoning Code requirements relative to front yard setbacks, the proposed setback would be consistent with the existing surrounding conditions in the project area. As such, the proposed project’s setbacks would generally comply with the requirements of the RM-48-HL-36 zoning district, which would help reduce possible shade and shadow impacts. Where the project’s setbacks do not comply with the zoning district requirements, the project is in conformance with the setbacks of surrounding development and would not, therefore, present a new source of shade and shadow by establishing a structure that is substantially closer to the street relative to surrounding buildings. For these reasons, the proposed project would not introduce a substantial source of shade or shadow to the project area. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on aesthetics. 4. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The City of Pasadena is a developed urban area surrounded by hillsides to the north and northwest. The western portion of the City contains the Arroyo Seco, which is a naturalized area that runs from north to south


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


through the City. The Arroyo Seco has commercial recreation, park, natural, and open space land uses. The City contains no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. As such, no impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur as a result of the proposed project.

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

The City of Pasadena has no land zoned for agricultural use other than commercial growing areas. (Commercial Growing Area/Grounds is permitted in the CG (General Commercial), CL (Limited Commercial), and IG (General Industrial) zones and conditionally in the RS (Residential Single-Family) and RM (Residential Multi-Family) districts. The use is also permitted within certain specific plan areas.) However, no commercial growing occurs at the project site. It is currently developed with a single-story residential structure and a surface parking lot and supports little plant life. The City does not have any lands that are within a Williamson Act contract. No agricultural uses exist in the proposed project area. As such, development of the project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning, and no impacts would occur.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))?

There is no timberland or Timberland Production zone in the City of Pasadena. Further, the project is located in a fully urbanized area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land, timberland or Timberland Production areas since none exist on the site or in the surrounding areas. No impacts would occur.

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

As discussed above, there is no forest land in the City of Pasadena; therefore the proposed project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land. No impacts would occur.

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?

As discussed above, there is no farmland in the City of Pasadena; therefore the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


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

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD administers the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB, which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most recent adopted AQMP is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP represents a new approach, focusing on available, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The purpose of a consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and, thus, if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993):

Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP.

Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

To address the first criterion regarding the project’s potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions were estimated and analyzed for significance and are addressed under Section 5(b), below. Detailed results of this analysis are included in Appendix A. As presented in Section 5(b), project construction and operation would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. The second criterion regarding the project’s potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining consistency between the project’s land use designations and potential to generate population growth. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). The SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2016), which is based on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, for the development of the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


2017).1 The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, and associated Regional Growth Forecast, are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2016 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans. The General Plan land use designation for the project is High Density Residential and the project site is located within the zoning designation of RM-48-HL-36, Multi-Family Residential. The project is consistent with the existing land use designation and does not propose a change in land use designation. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in the SCAQMD AQMP development. In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP would be less than significant.

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

A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine whether proposed project construction and operational activities would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants that may cause exceedances of the NAAQS or CAAQS, or contribute to existing nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Criteria air pollutants include O3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), PM2.5, and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated herein include VOCs and NOx, which are important because they are precursors to O3, as well as CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5. Regarding NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status,2 the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 standards, and federal and state PM2.5 standards (CARB 2016; EPA 2017). The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for state PM10 standards; however, it is designated as an attainment area for federal PM10 standards. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal and state CO standards, federal and state NO2 standards, and state SO2 standards.3 Although the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB has been designated as nonattainment for the federal rolling 3-month average lead standard, it is designated attainment for the state lead standard.4 The SCAQMD has established Air Quality Significance Thresholds, as revised in March 2015, which set forth quantitative emissions significance thresholds below which a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality under project-level and cumulative conditions (SCAQMD 2015). The quantitative air quality analysis provided herein applies the SCAQMD thresholds to determine the potential for the project to result in a significant impact under CEQA. The SCAQMD mass daily construction thresholds are as follows: 75 pounds per day for VOC, 100 pounds per day for NOx, 550 pounds per day for CO, 150 pounds per day for SOx, 150 pounds per day for PM10, and 55 pounds per day for PM2.5. The SCAQMD mass daily operational thresholds

1 Information necessary to produce the emission inventory for the SCAB is obtained from the SCAQMD and other governmental

agencies, including CARB, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socio-economic projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into their Travel Demand Model for estimating/projecting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and driving speeds. SCAG’s socio-economic and transportation activities projections in their 2016 RTP/SCS are integrated in the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017).

2 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the CAAQS. These standards are set by

the EPA and CARB, respectively, for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. Attainment = meets the standards; Attainment/Maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation; Nonattainment = does not meet the standards.

3 Federal designations for SO2 are on hold by the EPA; the EPA expects to make the designations by December 2017 (EPA 2016b).

4 The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in

impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


are as follows: 55 pounds per day for VOC, 55 pounds per day for NOx, 550 pounds per day for CO, 150 pounds per day for SOx, 150 pounds per day for PM10, and 55 pounds per day for PM2.5. The following discussion quantitatively evaluates project-generated construction and operational impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Construction Emissions Construction of the project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with temporary construction activities were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2,5 consistent with the SCAQMD guidance. Construction emissions were calculated for the estimated worst-case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily emissions estimated during each year of construction (2018 through 2019). Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on information provided by the project applicant and default values provided in CalEEMod were used where detailed project information was not available. The assumptions are intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on the best information available. To estimate project emissions, and based on information provided by the project applicant, it is assumed that construction of the project would begin in mid 2018 and would last approximately 14 months, ending in mid 2019. The analysis contained herein is based on the following assumptions (duration of phases is approximate):

Demolition: 2 weeks

Grading and Excavation: 8 weeks

Building construction – Parking Garage: 8 weeks

Building construction – Residential: 9 months

Architectural coating: 4 weeks

Installation of utilities was assumed to occur during the grading phase. Both the parking garage and the residential development would be painted during the 4-week architectural coating phase. No paving is assumed to be required. The construction phasing, vehicle trip assumptions, and construction equipment mix, used for estimating the project-generated construction emissions are shown in Table 5-1. For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site 5 days per week (22 days per month) during project construction.

5 CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies,

land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation of a variety of land use projects.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Table 5-1

Construction Scenario Assumptions

Construction Phase

One-way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips

Average Daily Vendor Truck Trips

Total Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity

Usage Hours

Demolition 10 0 112 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6

Grading & Excavation 8 0 1,458 Excavators 1 8


Building construction – parking garage

26 4 0 Pumps 1 8


Building construction – residential (above garage)

12 6 0 Cranes 1 4

Forklifts 2 6


Architectural coating 8 2 0 Air Compressors 1 6

Construction worker estimates and vendor truck trips by construction phase were based on CalEEMod default values. Haul truck trips during the grading phase were based on project applicant–provided earthwork quantities. Demolition of the existing 2,303 square foot building and demolition of the existing asphalt pavement would require approximately 56 round trips (112 one-way truck trips). Grading is currently estimated to involve 15,260 cubic yards (CY) of cut, of which 3,600 CY would be used as on-site fill. The excess 11,660 CY of soil will be exported off site. Assuming a haul truck capacity of 16 CY per truck, earth-moving activities would result in approximately 729 round trips (1,458 one-way truck trips) during the grading phase. CalEEMod default trip length values were used for the distances for all construction-related trips. Implementation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from entrained dust, off-road equipment exhaust, vehicle emissions, and architectural coating application. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust emissions generated during the grading activities. Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active sites two times per day depending on weather conditions. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The application of architectural coatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes, would also produce VOC emissions; however, the contractor is required to procure architectural coatings from a supplier in compliance with the requirements of SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Table 5-2 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 5-2

Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

pounds per day

2018 1.24 19.01 10.02 0.04 1.93 0.72

2019 14.90 12.66 10.59 0.02 1.02 0.77

Maximum Daily Emissions 14.90 19.01 10.59 0.04 1.93 0.77


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Table 5-2

Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. See Appendix A for complete results. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. These emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output, which accounts for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (watering two times daily); no CEQA mitigation measures were assumed in the modeling.

As shown in Table 5-2, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during construction in any construction year. Construction-generated emissions would be temporary and would not represent a long-term source of criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Operational Emissions The project involves development of a multi-family residential project, support facilities, and underground parking spaces. Operation of the project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from: mobile sources, including vehicle trips from future residents; area sources, including the use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; and energy sources, including combustion of fuels used for space and water heating and cooking appliances. Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod. Project-generated mobile source emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on project-specific weekday trip rates provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis – Outside of CEQA Analysis (Category 1) prepared for the project (City of Pasadena 2017a), which are consistent with the CalEEMod weekday trip rates for mid-rise apartments. The CalEEMod default trip rates for Saturday and Sunday were applied. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate emissions from the project area and energy sources. Table 5-3 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with operation (year 2019) of the project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 5-3

Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

pounds per day

Area 1.01 0.03 2.91 0.00 0.02 0.02

Energy 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01

Mobile 0.53 2.56 7.36 0.02 1.72 0.48

Total 1.55 2.69 10.31 0.02 1.75 0.51 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. See Appendix A for complete results. Totals may not sum due to rounding. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. These emissions reflect operational year 2019. No mitigation was assumed.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


As shown in Table 5-3, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Impacts associated with project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

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)?

Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. If a project’s emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD 2003). As discussed in Section 5(b), the SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5

and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. Construction and operation of the project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (which are precursors to O3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 5-2 and 5-3, project-generated construction and operational emissions, respectively, would not exceed the SCAQMD emission-based significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. As discussed in the analysis of the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Section 5(a)), the project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be considered speculative.6 However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation, if the project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SCAQMD. Cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SCAQMD. Based on the previous considerations, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

6 The CEQA Guidelines state that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and

terminate discussion of the impact (14 CCR 15145). This discussion is nonetheless provided in an effort to show good-faith analysis and comply with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). Residential land uses are located to the north, south, east, and west of the project. The closest off-site sensitive receptors to the project site include residences located approximately 5 feet south of the project site boundary. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis The SCAQMD recommends a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis to evaluate localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site as a result of construction activities. The project is located in Source-Receptor Area (SRA) 8 (West San Gabriel Valley). The impacts were analyzed using methods consistent with those in the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (2009). The project site is approximately 0.72 acres. For the purposes of the LST analysis a 1-acre site was assumed, which is the smallest acreage provided in the SCAQMD lookup tables. The nearest sensitive-receptor land uses (residences) are located approximately 5 feet south of the project site. As such, the LST receptor distance was assumed to be 82 feet (25 meters), which is the shortest distance provided by the SCAQMD lookup tables. In summary, this analysis applies the SCAQMD LST values for a 1-acre site within SRA 8 with a receptor distance of 25 meters. Project construction activities would result in temporary sources of on-site criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust and dust-generating activities. Off-site emissions from vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicle trips are not included in the LST analysis consistent with the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, which states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2009). The maximum daily on-site construction emissions generated during construction of the proposed project are presented in Table 5-4, and compared to the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for SRA 8 to determine whether project-generated on-site construction emissions would result in potential LST impacts. As shown in Table 5-4, the project would not result in potentially significant LST impacts.

Table 5-4

Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction

Maximum Onsite Emissions NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5

Pounds per Day

2018 11.03 8.48 1.16 0.65

2019 9.82 7.54 0.61 0.56

Maximum Daily Onsite Emissions 11.03 8.48 1.16 0.65 SCAQMD LST Screening Threshold 69 535 4 3

LST Screening Threshold Exceeded?

No No No No

Source: SCAQMD 2009. Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


See Appendix A for detailed results. Localized significance thresholds are shown for 1-acre project sites corresponding to a distance to a sensitive receptor of 25 meters. These emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output, which accounts for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (watering two times daily); no CEQA mitigation measures were assumed in the modeling. Greatest on-site NO2 and PM2.5 emissions in 2018 are associated with the residential building construction phase. Greatest on-site CO emissions in 2018 are associated with the garage building construction phase. Greatest on-site PM10 emissions in 2018 are associated with the grading and excavation phase. Greatest on-site NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions in 2019 are residential building construction phase and paving phase in 2018.

The SCAQMD has also established LSTs to evaluate localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site as a result of project operation. However, the LST analysis only evaluates on-site sources of emissions, such as those from stationary sources, on-site mobile equipment, or aggregate operations. Because the project does not include an on-site source of emissions, an operational LST analysis is not required. CO Hotspots Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” CO transport is extremely limited and disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at a level of service (LOS) E or worse. Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots. To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted. The Transportation Impact Analysis – Outside of CEQA Analysis (Category 1) (City of Pasadena 2017a) evaluated whether there would be a decrease in the level of service (LOS) (i.e., increased congestion) at the intersections affected by the project. The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated based on the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis. The California Department of Transportation Institute of Transportation Studies Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol; Caltrans 2010) was followed. CO hotspots are typically evaluated when (1) the LOS of an intersection decreases to LOS E or worse; (2) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (3) sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and hospitals are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. The project’s Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated 4 intersections under AM and PM peak hours. As determined by the Transportation Impact Analysis, the intersections under the existing and existing plus project scenarios operate at LOS B or C; therefore, further analysis is not required. Accordingly, the proposed project would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential traffic congestion that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality with regard to potential CO hotspots. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As discussed previously, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project are residences located approximately 5 feet from the proposed construction area. Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SCAQMD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


70-year exposure period will contract cancer, typically based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. The SCAQMD recommends a Hazard Index of 1 or more for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) non-carcinogenic effects.7 TACs that would potentially be emitted during construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would be diesel particulate matter. Diesel particulate matter emissions would be emitted from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. As described for the LST analysis, total PM10 emissions, which includes exhaust PM10 (representative of diesel particulate matter) and fugitive dust PM10, exposure would be minimal. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of the proposed construction activities would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. The construction period for the proposed project would be approximately 14 months, after which construction-related TAC emissions would cease. Due to this relatively short period of exposure and minimal particulate emissions on site, TACs generated during construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks.8 The project does not propose routine operational activities following completion of on-site construction activities that would generate TAC emissions. Operation of the proposed project would not result in any non-permitted direct emissions (e.g., those from a point source such as diesel generators) or result in an increase in diesel vehicles (i.e., delivery trucks) over existing baseline conditions. The project would not result in substantial TAC exposure to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. Health Impacts of Criteria Air Pollutants Construction of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds. The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 for the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, existing O3 levels in the SCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. Because the proposed project would not involve construction or operation activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (VOC or NOx) that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts. In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential ambient concentrations of NO2. Exposure to NO2 and NOx can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Project construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD NOx threshold, and existing ambient NO2 concentrations are below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, proposed project construction and operation is not expected to result in exceedances of the NO2 standards or contribute to associated health effects. CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. CO hotspots were discussed previously and determined to be a less-than-significant

7 Non-cancer adverse health risks are measured against a hazard index, which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental

exposure concentrations of the various non-carcinogens from the project to published reference exposure levels that can cause adverse health effects.

8 Based on coordination with the SCAQMD, a refined construction health risk assessment was determined to not be required, as

project construction would not exceed a duration of 5 years (Wong 2016).


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


impact. Thus, the proposed project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant. The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing (EPA 2016b). As with O3 and NOx, the proposed project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants. In summary, the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional concentrations of non-attainment pollutants, and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the receiving location, each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant. Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The project entails operation of a residential development and would not result in the creation of a land use that is commonly associated with odors. Therefore, project operations would result in an odor impact that is less than significant. 6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The certified EIR for the Pasadena General Plan (City of Pasadena 2015a) provides the following description of the existing biological resources in the City:

The vast majority of the City of Pasadena is developed with urban and suburban land uses and has limited sensitive biological resources. Pasadena has open space and other vacant land in


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


the north on the lower slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains; in the Arroyo Seco, such as Hahamongna Watershed Park in the northwest part of the City and Lower Arroyo Park; in the San Rafael Hills along the western City boundary; and in Eaton Wash in eastern Pasadena. The two northern extensions of the City into the San Gabriel Mountains are each bounded on three sides (east, north, and west) by the Angeles National Forest.

As shown in Figure 5.3-1 Vegetation Zones of the Pasadena General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a vegetated or open space area (City of Pasadena 2015a). Candidate, sensitive or special status species are more likely to be observed in the City’s vegetated or open space areas than the more developed urban areas of the City. The project is situated in an urbanized area and is currently developed with a surface parking lot and a single-story residential structure. Vegetation on site is limited to four camphor trees (street trees along the Madison Avenue frontage), one coast live oak tree, and sparse ornamental shrubs along the project site’s Madison Avenue frontage. The project would retain the existing healthy oak tree and one existing camphor tree but would remove three of the existing camphor trees, which are diseased. (The City would require the applicant to re-plant three trees of an oak species in the vacant sites left by the removed camphor trees.)

The existing vegetation on the site is sparse and does not constitute suitable habitat for special-status species. The single oak tree and four camphor trees are landscape in function and do not form a natural community or constitute a habitat area that would be considered suitable to support special-status species. As such, the project site is not expected to support any candidate, sensitive or special status species. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial, adverse effect on such species and no impact would occur.

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

As discussed above, the project site is not located within a vegetated or open space area, as shown in Figure 5.3-1 Vegetation Zones of the Pasadena General Plan EIR (City of Pasadena 2015a). There are no designated sensitive natural communities in the City. Natural habitat areas within the City’s boundaries are largely limited to the lower slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northeast and northwest portions of the City, the upper and lower portions of the Arroyo Seco, the City’s western hillside area, and Eaton Canyon. The project is not located near any of these natural habitat areas. Further, the project is located in a developed urban area. The only vegetation present on site is landscaping, consisting of sparse shrubs, one coast live oak tree, and four camphor trees. These existing trees do not constitute a sensitive natural community. Additionally, no riparian habitat has been identified on the project site or in the project vicinity (USFWS 2017). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as none exist on the site or in nearby areas. No impact would occur.

c. Have a substantial adverse effect of 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?

Drainage courses with definable bed and bank and their adjacent wetlands are “waters of the United States” and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE are lands that, during normal conditions, possess hydric soils, are dominated by wetland vegetation, and are inundated with water for a portion of the growing season. As discussed above, the project site is located in an urbanized area. No riparian


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


habitats, wetlands, or other water features have been identified on the project site or in the project vicinity (USFWS 2017). Further, the project site does not include any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils, and thus does not include USACE-jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur.

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?

As discussed above, the area proposed for development consists of an existing surface parking lot and an existing residential structure located within a developed, urbanized portion of the City. As described under Sections 6.a and 6.b above, the project site does not contain any natural communities or habitat areas that would be expected to support populations of native wildlife. While the project site contains one oak tree (a coast live oak) and four camphor trees, these trees are surrounded by development. As stated in Section 6.a, the single oak tree and four camphor trees are landscape in function and do not form a natural community or constitute a habitat area.

However, the landscaping on the site and adjacent to the site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for birds and raptors protected under Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The proposed project would involve removal of three of the existing camphor trees that are along the site’s Madison Avenue frontage. In the event that a bird is nesting in the trees at the time they are being removed, the process of removing the tree could adversely affect the bird(s) by harming, harassing, or killing bird(s) or their eggs, which is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities would also elevate noise levels and could cause disturbance to nesting or roosting of protected species on site or adjacent to the site. No specific season is identified for construction; therefore, construction could occur any time of year, including during the nesting season (i.e., between February 1–August 31). Thus, there is potential for construction activities to negatively affect breeding or reproduction of species on or adjacent to the project site. If active bird nests are present, a protective buffer would be established to ensure that they are not disturbed until fledglings have left the nest. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by avoiding disturbance of active bird nests would ensure that protected birds are not adverse ly affected during construction.

No operational impacts to nesting birds are anticipated to occur. The trees that would be removed in association with the project would be replaced with healthy trees that would be maintained by the project applicant, as required by the City. As such, during operation, the site would continue to provide nesting sites in an urban residential neighborhood, consistent with existing conditions.

Due to the existing site conditions and the developed nature of the site’s surroundings, the project site and surrounding area do not contain any natural or physical features that connect habitat areas, and upon required compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, impacts on the movement of native or resident species or on the use of native wildlife nursery sites resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The only local ordinance protecting biological resources in the City of Pasadena is Ordinance No. 6896 “City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance” (codified in Chapter 8.52 of the Pasadena Municipal Code). This ordinance was set forth with the goal of protecting landmark, native, and specimen trees so that the tree canopy cover in the City is preserved and expanded. There are five existing trees along the perimeter of the project site: four camphor trees are located along the site’s Madison Avenue frontage, and one coast live oak tree is located along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing residential structure, with the trunk partially within the property to the south. The camphor trees are public street trees. The project would retain the existing healthy oak tree and one existing camphor tree but would remove three of the existing camphor trees, which are diseased. The City would require the applicant to re-plant and maintain three trees of an oak species in the vacant sites left by the removed trees. Four of the five existing trees are protected by the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, as detailed in the table below:

Table 6-1

Trees On Site

# Genus & Species Common Name Diameter (in feet) Remain Move Replace Remove

1 cinnamomum camphora camphor tree 4.5 X




5 quercus agrifolia coast live oak 3.4 X

The existing camphor trees listed in the table above are considered public trees, which are protected under the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance. While the existing oak tree that is partially located on the project site is considered a species of native tree that is protected under the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, this tree is not of sufficient size to fall under the definition of “native tree” that is established in the ordinance. (A “native tree,” as defined in the ordinance, must have a trunk that is more than 8 inches in diameter at a height of 4.5 feet above natural grade. The coast live oak that is partially on the project site has a diameter of 3.4 feet, as measured at a height of 4.5 feet above the ground.) Additionally, the project would not involve removal of this oak tree. Because the existing camphor trees are protected street trees under the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, the applicant would be required to obtain approval to remove these trees from the City Manager, after recommendation is received from the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee. Further, as stated above, the City would require the applicant to plant and maintain three oak trees in the vacant sites left by the removed trees. As such, the existing diseased camphor trees would be replaced in-place with healthy trees that would be maintained by the applicant for three years. For these reasons and upon obtaining the required approval for tree removal, the project would not conflict with the City’s policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


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?

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Pasadena. Further, there are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the City. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

The existing single-story residential structure on the project site was constructed in 1948, meaning that it is of historic age. This building would be demolished as part of the proposed project. This building has been preliminarily reviewed by the City’s Design and Historic Preservation staff, who have determined that this structure is not a designated historic resource, nor does it appear eligible for such designation, as documented in Appendix B. Based on the style of architecture, condition of the building, and lack of evidence demonstrating an association with significant persons or events, the Design and Historic Preservation staff determined that the building does not qualify for designation as an individual local landmark pursuant to Section 17.62.040 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, Criteria for Designation of Historic Resources. As such, the City has determined that the existing structure on the project site does not have significant historic value. Demolition of this structure would not, therefore, constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined under CEQA. There are no other known buildings, structures, natural features, works of art, or similar objects on the site having a significant historic value to the City which are to be demolished, relocated, removed, or significantly altered by the project. For these reasons, no impact would occur.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

As described in the Pasadena General Plan EIR, there are five known archaeological sites in the City, as documented in the records maintained by the South Central Coastal Information Center: three are prehistoric sites, including a millingstone site and a trail, and two are historical archaeological sites—Teddy’s Camp and a trash deposit (City of Pasadena 2015a). These archaeological sites are not located on the project site. In addition, the project site does not contain undisturbed surficial soils. The project site has been previously disturbed by prior development. If archaeological resources once existed on the site, it is likely that previous grading, construction, and modern use of the site have either removed or destroyed them. A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on October 27, 2017, for the proposed project site and surrounding quarter-mile radius. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric, historic, and built environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation Site Records, technical reports, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included historical maps of the project area, the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Property Data File, and the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. See Appendix B for a results summary from the SCCIC. The SCCIC records indicate that seven


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


cultural resource investigations have been previously conducted within the 0.25-mile search radius of the project site. Of these, one study directly overlapped the project site. No cultural resources were identified within or in close proximity to the project site as a result of the study. The SCCIC records also indicate that 65 previously recorded cultural resources have been recorded within 0.25-mile of the project site. All 65 resources are historic buildings or districts, and none are within the boundaries of the project site. No archaeological resources have been identified within the project site as a result of the archival research. Although it is not expected that archaeological resources would be encountered during construction due to previous disturbance at the site, the project would require excavation for implementation of the proposed subterranean parking garage. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are discovered during the grading and excavation process, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4-1 of the City of Pasadena’s General Plan EIR, which states:

If cultural resources are discovered during construction of land development projects in Pasadena that may be eligible for listing in the California Register for Historic Resources, all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until the find is evaluated by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. If testing determines that significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; and provide a comprehensive final report including site record to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University Fullerton. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until Planning Department approves the report.

Compliance with this measure, as implemented through City’s General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would ensure that impacts to significant archaeological resources, if any are discovered during project construction, would be less than significant. No project-level mitigation measures are required.

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

The project site lies on the valley floor in an urbanized portion of the City of Pasadena. This portion of the City does not contain any unique geologic features and is not known or expected to contain paleontological resources. As shown in Figure 5.4-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of the Pasadena General Plan EIR, the project site is within an area of “No Sensitivity” for paleontological resources (City of Pasadena 2015a). Plate 2-1 of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the project area with Pleistocene alluvial fan gravel and sand (non-marine) derived from the San Gabriel Mountains. This portion of the City does not contain any unique geologic features and is not known or expected to contain paleontological resources. As discussed in the City’s General Plan EIR (City of Pasadena 2015), although Quaternary old alluvial deposits (such as those underlying the project area) in general have the potential to yield fossils, the paleontological sensitivity in these areas of the City is considered low due to their proximity to the mountains to the north. Since the older Quaternary alluvial sediments are close to the sediment source, the uppermost layers of these deposits are likely too coarse grained to preserve fossils. Therefore, the project is not expected to encounter a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. Impacts related to this topic are less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


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

There are no known human remains on the site. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. 8. ENERGY. Would the proposal:

a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?

To promote energy conservation, the City has adopted an amended California Green Building Standards Code (14.04.500). In conformance with the City’s building code the project would be designed to comply with the performance levels of an amended California Green Building Standards Code, which would reduce energy consumption compared to standard building practices. Because the project is a residential project, the project is required to comply with the applicable portions of the amended California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Requirements (14.04.504, Section 307.1)).

The proposed project would also be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Measures to meet these energy standards may include low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and hot water storage tank equipment, and lighting conservation features. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

The proposed project would utilize nonrenewable resources to construct the proposed residential project and subterranean parking garage and to operate the proposed project. Natural resources that would be utilized by the project include petroleum-based fuels for vehicles and equipment, operational building energy usage, and operational water consumption. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections. As supported by the discussion below, the proposed project would not create a high enough demand for energy to require development of new energy sources. Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Consumption Construction of the proposed project would result in a short-term consumption of petroleum-based fuels to power construction vehicles and equipment. During project operations, motor vehicle travel and building maintenance equipment would consume petroleum-based fuels. Fuel consumption of motor vehicles in California is regulated by both the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and the CARB’s Clean Car Standards. Additionally, consumption of gasoline generated by project


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


vehicle trips would be reduced by the project’s proximity to a variety of transit facilities. Specifically, the Metro Gold Line light rail Lake Station and bus stops for Pasadena Transit, Metro, Foothill Transit, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Commuter Express are located near the Lake Avenue / I-210 interchange, approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site. Additionally, there are Pasadena Transit stops situated closer to the project site, which could provide connections to the numerous transit facilities near Lake Avenue and the I-210 interchange. As further explained in Section 19 of this document, these facilities are within walking distance of the proposed project, which would help support the use of transit in place of motor vehicles. The proposed project would not use vehicle and equipment fuel in a wasteful or inefficient manner and impacts are less than significant. In addition, the amount of resources used is not anticipated to cause a significant reduction in available supplies.

Building Energy Use Estimated electricity and natural gas consumption from the project is based on the factors provided in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (See Appendix A). An increase in energy consumption would result from the proposed residential development. The project would result in the estimated consumption of 305,512 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year; 141,877 kWh per year from the apartment land use and 163,635 kWh per year from the parking garage. Regarding natural gas, the proposed project would result in the estimated consumption of 384,236 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year; all natural gas usage would be associated with the residential land use.

Energy-efficient project components may include low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, high-efficiency HVAC and hot water storage tank equipment, and lighting conservation features. The energy conservation measures must be identified on building plans. Prior to building permit issuance, building plans would be submitted to Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) and to the Building Official for review and approval. Installation of energy-saving features will be inspected by a Building Inspector prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, energy consumption by the proposed building addition would not be wasteful or inefficient and impacts are less than significant. The long-term impact from increased energy use by this project is not expected to be significant in relationship to the number of customers currently served by the electrical and gas utility companies. Supplies are available from existing mains, lines and substations in the area. The surrounding area is completely developed with urban uses; therefore, new infrastructure would not have to be constructed to accommodate the proposed project. The amount of resources consumed by the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact, and the existing service providers would be able to supply the necessary resources. Water As with energy consumption, the project’s estimated water demand is based on the factors provided in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (See Appendix A). This project would result in a water demand of approximately 3.72 million gallons per year; of which, 2.28 million gallons per year as a result of indoor water use and 1.44 million gallons per year as a result of outdoor water use. This annual water estimate equates to approximately 10,186 gallons of water per day for the residential development with 6,247 gallons per day attributed to indoor water use and 3,939 gallons per day attributed to outdoor water use. All water use is associated with the residential development because the parking garage is not anticipated to demand water. Installation of plumbing will be inspected by a Building Inspector prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Over the past several years, Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) has been impacted by several factors that have restricted local and regional water supply. PWP’s groundwater rights in the Raymond Basin have been curtailed in order to mitigate groundwater depletion experienced over the last half century. With respect to imported supplies, a decade-long drought has reduced the ability to replenish regional groundwater supplies; drought conditions in the American southwest have reduced deliveries of water from the Colorado River; and


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


legal and environmental issues have resulted in reduced water deliveries through the State Water Project. The City accounted for these conditions in its current Water Integrated Resources Plan (adopted January, 2011) and Urban Water Management Plan (adopted June, 2011). In April 2011, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) lifted allocation restrictions as a result of improvements in Southern California’s water reserves. Although restrictions were previously lifted, record drought conditions during 2013–2014 prompted the release of the January 2014 Drought Declaration with goals of reducing per capita water consumption by 20 percent. The Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 establishes thirteen permanent mandatory restrictions on wasteful water use activities. In addition, there are also statewide water demand reduction requirements such as the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (“20x2020”), and the current work being done by the California Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and other state agencies to implement the Governor’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Initiative Program. The City of Pasadena approved a Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan (CWCP) in 2009 that includes a variety of approaches and recommendations for achieving 10%, 20% and 30% reductions in water consumption. As a long-term goal, the CWCP presupposes an initial target of reducing per capita potable water consumption 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. The Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plan Ordinance per PMC Chapter 13.10 also became effective in 2009 and established 13 permanent mandatory restrictions on wasteful water use activities and four levels of Water Supply Shortages with increasingly restrictive measures to address water shortages.

The City of Pasadena is currently implementing a Level 1 Water Supply Shortage Plan requiring additional mandatory water restrictions for residents and businesses, including limiting watering days and requiring leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions to be fixed. Additional water use restrictions set forth in PMC Section 13.10.060 (Additional Water Shortage Measures) have also been implemented, including prohibition of turf irrigation within 48 hours following a measurable precipitation, prohibition of washing hard or paved surfaces using potable water, except to alleviate safety and/or sanitary hazards, and installation of water-efficient fixtures among multifamily properties. In addition, statewide water demand reduction requirements such as the 20x2020 Plan, and the current work being done by the California Department of Water Resources, the SWRCB, and other state agencies to implement the Governor’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Initiative Program, are being enacted.

As a result, to meet these water policy goals, the project would be required to comply with the Water Conservation Plan and the Water Shortage Procedure Ordinance and the City’s goal to meet the 20x2020 goals by submitting a water-conservation plan limiting the water consumption to 80% of its originally anticipated amount. With submission of this plan, the project would not have any individual or cumulative impacts on water supply. This plan is subject to review and approval by the City's Water and Power Department and the Building Division before the issuance of a building permit. The applicant’s irrigation and plumbing plans are also required to comply with the approved water-conservation plan and the city’s requirements for landscape irrigation. The project is also required to adhere to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which was adopted in 2010. This ordinance is a result of State Assembly Bill 1881 (SB1881) which mandates that all local jurisdictions follow specific regulations for the efficient use of water in the irrigation of landscapes. The project must adhere to all applicable provisions on this ordinance which are contained in Title 13 (Utilities and Services) of the Pasadena Municipal Code. The ordinance may require design features that include specific plant types, the use of recycled water for irrigation and/or water features etc. Adherence to the requirements would reduce the amount of water used in the project landscaping and would aid the project in complying with all related water reduction provisions. As such, impacts would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


9. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a. Expose 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.

According to the 2002 adopted Safety Element of the City of Pasadena’s General Plan, the San Andreas Fault is a “master” active fault and controls seismic hazard in Southern California. This fault is located approximately 21 miles north of Pasadena. The County of Los Angeles and the City of Pasadena are both affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Pasadena is in four USGS Quadrants. The Los Angeles and the Mt. Wilson quadrants were mapped for earthquake fault zones under the Alquist-Priolo Act in 1977. The Pasadena and Condor Peak USGS Quadrangles have not yet been mapped per the Alquist-Priolo Act. These Alquist-Priolo maps show only one Fault Zone in or adjacent to the City of Pasadena, the Raymond (Hill) Fault Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This fault is located primarily south of City limits, however, the southernmost portions of the City lie within the fault’s mapped Fault Zone. The 2002 Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the following three additional zones of potential fault rupture in the City:

The Eagle Rock Fault Hazard Management Zone, which traverses the southwestern portion of the City.

The Sierra Madre Fault Hazard Management Zone, which includes the Tujunga Fault, the North Sawpit Fault, and the South Branch of the San Gabriel Fault. This Fault Zone is primarily north of the City, and only the very northeast portion of the City and portions of the Upper Arroyo lie within the mapped fault zone.

A Possible Active Strand of the Sierra Madre Fault, which appears to join a continuation of the Sycamore Canyon Fault. This fault area traverses the northern portion of the City and is identified as a Fault Hazard Management Zone for Critical Facilities Only.

While the project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California, according to the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located on or adjacent to any of these potential fault rupture zones. The closest mapped fault zone is the Fault Hazard Management Zone for the Possible Active Strand of the Sierra Madre Fault, which is approximately one mile north of the project site (City of Pasadena 2002). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault, and impacts would be less than significant.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Since the City of Pasadena is within a larger area traversed by active fault systems, such as the San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood Faults, any major earthquake along these systems would cause seismic ground shaking in Pasadena. Much of the City is on sandy, stony, or gravelly loam formed on the alluvial fan adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains. This soil is more porous and loosely compacted than bedrock and thus subject to greater effects from seismic ground shaking.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


The National Seismic Zone maps, published by the International Code Council in the California Building Code (CBC), divide the United States into four major seismic zones numbered from 1 through 4. Zone 1 has the lowest earthquake danger, while Zone 4 has the highest earthquake danger. The City of Pasadena is in Seismic Zone 4 (California Seismic Safety Commission 2005). However, the risk of earthquake damage is minimized because new structures are required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code, California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 requirements, and other applicable codes. Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 standards. Compliance with these standards is anticipated to reduce the risk of building collapse and major injuries during a seismic event to the extent feasible. Additionally, structures are subject to inspection during construction, which would help ensure compliance with these engineering and safety standards. Upon conformance with required standards, impacts would be less than significant.

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?

Liquefaction typically occurs where the groundwater is less than 30 feet from the surface and the soils are predominately of poorly compacted sand. On the project site, groundwater has been estimated to be approximately 150 feet below the ground surface (EFI Global 2016). The most likely places for liquefaction in Pasadena are the streambed areas of the Arroyo Seco and Eaton Canyon Wash. The proposed project site is not located in or near these areas. (The project site is located approximately two miles east of the Arroyo Seco and approximately three miles west of the Eaton Canyon Wash.) As shown on Figure 1-3 in the Technical Background Report for the 2002 Safety Element of the General Plan, the project site is not within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone or Landslide Hazard Zone. (The Liquefaction Hazard Zones and the Landslide Hazard Zones shown in the Safety Element were developed considering the Liquefaction and Earthquake-Induced Landslide areas as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for the City.) Because the project is not located in an area that is expected to be subject to potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, no impacts would occur relative to ground failure.

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?

The project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and in an urbanized area of the City, making the possibility of landslides extremely remote. The project site is not within a Landslide Hazard Zone as shown in the 2002 Safety Element of the General Plan. The Landslide Hazard Zones shown in the Safety Element were developed considering the Earthquake-Induced Landslide areas as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for the City. The proposed project is not within an area that is expected to be subject to landslides and no impacts would result.

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


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


The natural water erosion potential of soils in Pasadena is low, unless these soils are disturbed during the wet season. Both the Ramona and Hanford soils associations, which underlay much of the City, have high permeability, low surface runoff, and slight erosion hazard due to the gravelly surface layer and low topographic relief away from the steeper foothill areas of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, grading and earthwork associated with project construction may temporarily expose soils on the project site to wind and/or water erosion. Existing regulations and best management practices for construction processes would be used to ensure that wind and/or water erosion is minimized to the extent feasible during construction. For example, fugitive dust caused by strong wind, excavation, and/or earth-moving operations during construction would be minimized through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits visual particulate matter from crossing property lines. Standard practices to control fugitive dust emissions include watering of active grading sites, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting, and covering soils in haul trucks with secured tarps. Additionally, the displacement of soil through cut and fill would be controlled through required compliance with standards for grading and excavation set forth in the 2016 California Building Code. Water erosion during construction would also be minimized by limiting construction to dry weather, covering exposed excavated dirt during periods of rain, and protecting excavated areas from flooding with temporary berms. Since the proposed project involves more than 250 cubic yards of export, the applicant would also be required to submit an erosion and sediment transport control plan as part of the project’s grading plan. The grading plan must be approved by the Building Official and the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. Long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, as the majority of the project site would be covered by the proposed multi-family residential structure. Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of an approved landscape and irrigation plan. This plan would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. For these reasons and upon compliance with applicable state and local regulations pertaining to erosion and sediment control, impacts would be less than significant.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

The City of Pasadena rests primarily on an alluvial plain. To the north the San Gabriel Mountains are relatively new in geological time. These mountains run generally east–west and have the San Andreas Fault on the north and the Sierra Madre Fault to the south. The action of these two faults in conjunction with the north–south compression of the San Andreas tectonic plate is pushing up the San Gabriel Mountains. This uplifting combined with erosion has helped form the alluvial plain. As shown on Plate 2-4 of the Technical Background Report to the 2002 General Plan Safety Element, the majority of the City lies on the flat portion of the alluvial fan, which is expected to be stable (City of Pasadena 2002). For these reasons, the proposed project is not located on known unstable soils or geologic units, and therefore would not likely cause on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Modern engineering practices and compliance with established building standards, including the California Building Code, would minimize adverse safety effects associated with unstable geologic units or soils to the extent feasible. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

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?


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


According to the 2002 Safety Element of the General Plan, the project site is underlain by alluvial material from the San Gabriel Mountains. This soil consists primarily of sand and gravel and is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential. Modern engineering practices and compliance with established building standards, including the California Building Code would reduce the likelihood that substantial risks to life or property related to soil expansion would occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

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?

The project would be required to connect to the existing sewer system. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts.

10. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:

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

on the environment?

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system, and many factors (natural and human) can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance. The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature, and it creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project contributes to this impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008). A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code, Section 38505(g), for purposes of administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) (14 CCR 15364.5). The three GHGs evaluated in this IS/MND are CO2, CH4, and N2O, which are the primary GHGs generated by land use projects. Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly.9 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E). Consistent with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1, this GHG emissions analysis assumed the GWP for CH4 is 25 (emissions of

9 Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the

substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2016).


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SCAQMD. In October 2008, the SCAQMD proposed recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects as presented in its Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008). This document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions. The draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document was not adopted or approved by the Governing Board. However, in December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 MT CO2E per-year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35, December 5, 2008). The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. From December 2008 to September 2010, the SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses (SCAQMD 2010):

Tier 1. Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2. Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG

reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3.

Tier 3. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for

individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO2E per-year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2E per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2E per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2E per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.

Tier 4. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance

standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MT CO2E per-service population for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2E per-service population for plan-level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.

Tier 5. Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to

reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


assessment, establish specific thresholds of significance, or mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance that are consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). To determine the project’s potential to generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, the project’s GHG emissions were compared to the quantitative screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year for all non-industrial projects. Per the SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions should be amortized over the operational life of the project, which is assumed to be 30 years (SCAQMD 2008b). Thus, this impact analysis compares estimated operational emissions plus amortized construction emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year. Construction Emissions Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on-road trucks, and worker vehicles. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the construction scenario described in Section 5(b) (within the air quality analysis). A detailed depiction of expected construction schedules (including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, truck trips, and worker vehicle trips) assumed for the purposes of emissions estimation is provided in Appendix A. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment; off-site sources include trucks and worker vehicles. Table 10-1 presents construction GHG emissions for the project from on-site and off-site emissions sources.

Table 10-1

Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions

Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

Metric Tons per Year

2018 215.64 0.04 0.00 216.66

2019 35.08 0.01 0.00 35.29

Total 250.72 0.05 0.00 251.95 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2E = carbon dioxide equivalent.

As shown in Table 10-1, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of would be approximately 217 MT CO2E in 2018 and 35 MT CO2E in 2019, for a total of 252 MT CO2E over the construction period. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 8.4 MT CO2E per year. As with project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the project would be short-term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. Because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of significance is discussed in the operational emissions analysis in the following text. Operational Emissions Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; landscape maintenance equipment operation; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions. GHG emission estimates were based on the mobile source, area source, and energy (natural gas) operational assumptions described in Section 5(b), within the air quality analysis. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with energy (electricity) consumption, solid waste, and water and wastewater.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


The estimated operational (year 2019) project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, and water usage and wastewater generation are shown in Table 10-2. While the first full year of operation is traditionally what is assumed for air quality analyses, because the project construction would be completed in March 2019, 2019 was conservatively assumed as the operational year instead of 2020.

Table 10-2

Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions

Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

metric tons per year

Area 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.61

Energy 251.12 0.01 0.00 251.59

Mobile 354.75 0.02 0.00 355.27

Solid waste 3.27 0.19 0.00 8.10

Water supply and wastewater 35.28 0.00 0.00 35.92

Total 645.01 0.22 0.00 651.49 Amortized Construction Emissions 8.40

Operation + Amortized Construction Total 659.89 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2E = carbon dioxide equivalent See Appendix A for detailed results. These emissions reflect operational year 2019. No mitigation measures were assumed.

As shown in Table 10-2, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions would be approximately 651 MT CO2E per year as a result of project operations only. Estimated annual project-generated operational emissions in 2019 (651 MT CO2E per year) plus amortized project construction emissions (8.40 MT CO2E per year) would be approximately 660 MT CO2E per year, which would not exceed the recommended SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year. Therefore, in relation to the generation of GHGs, the project’s impact would be less than significant.

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The City adopted a Green City Action Plan in 2006, which is a comprehensive environmental action plan that guides the City towards sustainability and which will accelerate the City’s environmental commitment. The Green City Action Plan contains a wide range of initiatives that form a strategy towards fulfilling the ambitions of the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords of 2005, which acknowledges the environmental challenges and opportunities facing urban areas across the globe. The Green City Action Plan, however, is not a qualified GHG reduction plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The City is in the process of preparing a Climate Action Plan to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of GHG reduction efforts and ultimately reduce the City's carbon footprint. The overall purpose of the Climate Action Plan is to present measures that will reduce local GHG emissions and align the City's reduction goals with statewide targets. At the time this analysis was prepared, the draft Climate Action Plan and the anticipated associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration has not been released for public review. Accordingly, at this time, there is currently no adopted local guidance that would be applicable to the project and no mandatory GHG plans, policies, or regulations or finalized agency guidelines would apply to implementation of the project.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


The CARB Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project-level evaluations.10 Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., LCFS), among others. SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2016 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The development of the project site would not conflict with implementation of the strategies identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS that would reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the project would support the goals of the 2016 RTP/SCS as the project site is within one-half mile of the Lake Avenue Gold Line light rail station, which would provide future project residents an alternative transit option to vehicle travel, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. The project would not impede the attainment of the GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 identified in Executive Order S-3-05 and Senate Bill 32. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Senate Bill 32 establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. While there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan states that the level of reduction is achievable in California (CARB 2014). CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Executive Order S-3-05. This is confirmed in the Second Update, which states (CARB 2017):

The Proposed Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while also identifying new, technologically feasibility and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Proposed Plan is developed to be consistent with requirements set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197.

The project would not interfere with implementation of any of the above-described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year (SCAQMD 2008). Because the project would not exceed the threshold, this analysis provides

10

The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009).


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


support for the conclusion that the project would not impede the state’s trajectory toward the above-described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regards to the long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. The project’s consistency would assist in meeting LACSD’s contribution to GHG emission reduction targets in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and EO S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the Assembly Bill 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet Senate Bill’s 32’s 40% reduction target by 2030 and Executive Order S-3-05’s 80% reduction target by 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. Based on the above considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. This impact would be less than significant. 11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

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

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could involve the use of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. However, the level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during construction is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials that would be used during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures during any routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law. As such, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous substances required for construction is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction would require excavation of soils on the project site. In the event that contaminated soils were to be present below the site, this process could require workers to transport and dispose of the contaminated soils. However, there is no evidence that the site has been used for underground storage of hazardous materials (EFI Global 2016). As such, it is unlikely that hazardous materials would be encountered during grading and excavation at the project site. In the unlikely event that contamination is encountered during grading and excavation for the project, workers would be required to adhere to existing state and federal requirements pertaining to safe handling and proper disposal of contaminated soils. Adherence to regulations for safe handling and proper disposal of contaminated soils would minimize the likelihood that significant hazards would occur to the public or to the environment in the unlikely event that such soils are encountered during construction. Construction would require demolition of the existing residential building on the project site. Due to the age of this building, there is the potential for hazardous building materials such as asbestos-containing material and lead to be present within the structure (EFI Global 2016). As such, demolition of this structure during construction could require removal, transportation, and disposal of potentially hazardous building materials. However, in the event that suspect asbestos-containing materials, lead-based materials, or other hazardous building materials are found during demolition, such materials would be tested and removed from the site in


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, such as SCAQMD Rule 1403 and state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Upon compliance with these applicable laws involving safe treatment and disposal of asbestos-containing material, lead-based material, or other hazardous building materials, the transport and disposal of these materials would not be expected to pose a significant risk to the public or environment. During operation, the proposed multi-family residential building would not use or store hazardous substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structure and landscaping. The project would be required to adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations for the use and storage of any hazardous substances. As such, upon compliance with applicable regulations, the use, disposal, and transport of small amounts of commonly used hazardous materials associated with project operation are not anticipated to result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

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?

As discussed under Section 11.a above, construction activities associated with the proposed project would utilize hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. In the unexpected event of upset or accident conditions during construction, such materials could be released into the environment. However, the level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials used during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law. As such, upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous substances used during construction are not anticipated. Further, as described under Section 11.a, construction would require excavation of soils on the project site. In the event that contaminated soils were to be present below the site, this process could cause the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, there is no evidence that the site has been used for underground storage of hazardous materials (EFI Global 2016). As such, it is unlikely that hazardous materials would be encountered during grading and excavation at the project site. In the unlikely event that soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during grading and excavation for the project, workers would be required to adhere to existing state and federal requirements pertaining to safe handling and proper disposal of contaminated soils. Adherence to regulations for safe handling and proper disposal of contaminated soils would minimize the likelihood of a significant risk to the public or environment due to the release of contaminated soils into the environment. Construction would require demolition of the existing residential building on the project site. Due to the age of the existing residential building on the project site, there is the potential for hazardous building materials such as asbestos-containing material and lead to be present within the structure (EFI Global 2016). As such, the proposed demolition of this structure during construction could result in the release of potentially hazardous building materials into the environment. However, in the event that suspect asbestos-containing materials, lead-based materials, or other hazardous building materials are found during demolition at the project site, such materials would be tested and removed from the site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, such as SCAQMD Rule 1403 and state and federal OSHA regulations. Upon compliance with these applicable laws involving safe treatment and disposal of asbestos-containing material, lead-based


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


material, or other hazardous building materials, construction activities at the project site would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment due to the release of potentially hazardous building materials into the environment. During operation, the proposed multi-family residential building would not use or store hazardous substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structure and landscaping. The project would be required to adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations for the use and storage of any hazardous substances. As such, upon compliance with applicable regulations, the small amounts of commonly used hazardous materials associated with project operation are not anticipated to result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment due to upset or accident conditions involving the release of such substances into the environment. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The project site is approximately one-quarter mile west of the Lake Avenue Church School, which is located at 393 North Lake Avenue (California Department of Education 2014). However, the proposed project operations do not involve hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials that would pose a potential health hazard. As stated above, the storage, transportation, use, and disposal of any project-related hazardous materials during construction and operation would comply with applicable standards administered by federal, state, and local agencies, such that hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be minimized to the extent feasible. Consequently, upon compliance with applicable safety regulations, the use and handling of the materials involved with project construction and operation would not pose a significant risk to nearby schools, and impacts would be less than significant.

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?

A database search for sites listed on various federal and state databases on the project site and within the project vicinity was obtained from EDR, Inc. during the Phase I Site Assessment conducted by EFI Global, Inc.11 Based on the database search, EFI Global determined that the site is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites, including the EnviroStor database (maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control) and the GeoTracker database (maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board) (EFI Global 2016). Furthermore, according to a review of historical land use information conducted by EFI Global, the project site was occupied by residences, landscaping, and vacant land from the 1920s through the 1970s. From the 1970s through present time, a portion of the property was used for parking. Residential land uses, landscaping, vacant land, and parking areas are not land uses that are typically associated with the storage or use of acutely hazardous materials. Based on the database search, the review of historical land use information, and a site reconnaissance, EFI Global determined that the site is not known or anticipated to have been contaminated with hazardous materials and that no hazardous material storage facilities are known to exist on site (EFI Global 2016). For these reasons, the project would not be located on a site that is included

11

The Phase I Site Assessment is available for review at City’s Planning Department as part of the project records (City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department, 175 Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101).


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not, therefore, result in any impacts associated with hazardous materials sites.

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?

The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the El Monte Airport, located approximately seven miles southeast of the project site (Caltrans 2017). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport and would have no associated impacts.

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

people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would have no associated impacts.

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

The City of Pasadena Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the City’s planned response to emergencies associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. It provides an overview of operational concepts, identifies components of the City’s emergency management organization within the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and describes the overall responsibilities of the federal, state, and county entities and the City for protecting life and property and ensuring the overall well-being of the population (City of Pasadena 2011). Further, the City maintains a SEMS/NIMS Emergency Response Plan, which addresses planned responses to emergency/disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. In case of a disaster, the Pasadena Fire Department is responsible for implementing the plan, and the Pasadena Police Department devises evacuation routes based on the specific circumstance of the emergency. The City has pre-planned evacuation routes for dam inundation areas associated with Devil's Gate Dam, Eaton Wash, and the Jones Reservoir (City of Pasadena 2012a). The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. As such, the proposed project would not obstruct any emergency evacuation or response activities. Construction staging would not substantially interfere with circulation along Madison Avenue or any other nearby roadways. While temporary and occasional lane closures may be required during construction, two-way traffic would still be maintained along Madison Avenue, allowing for emergency evacuation and response, if necessary. For these reasons, the proposed project would not be expected to interfere with any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Furthermore, to ensure compliance with zoning, building, and fire codes, the applicant would be required to submit appropriate plans for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. Adherence to these requirements would further ensure that


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


the project would not have a significant impact on emergency response and evacuation plans. As such, no impact would occur.

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?

As shown on Plate P-2 of the 2002 Safety Element, the project site is not in an area of moderate or very high fire hazard (City of Pasadena 2002). In addition, the project site is surrounded by urban development and is not adjacent to any wildlands. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and the project would have no associated impacts. 12. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

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

Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California’s Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The City is within the greater Los Angeles River watershed and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. The City of Pasadena is a co-permittee in the Los Angeles County MS4 permit, which is Order No. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES No. CAS004001), as amended. This permit establishes low impact development (LID) requirements for new development and redevelopment projects of certain sizes and types (City of Pasadena 2017b). The proposed project would not be subject to the City’s LID requirements. Due to the limited size of the project, it is not expected to substantially alter the quantity or quality of the stormwater generated by the City. The proposed project consists of redeveloping a 0.72-acre site currently occupied by a single-story residential structure and a surface parking lot with a multi-family residential building and an associated subterranean parking garage, which would cover the majority of the project site. This proposed use is not considered a point source generator of water pollutants; thus, no quantifiable water quality standards apply to the project. As an urban development, the proposed project would add typical, urban, nonpoint-source pollutants to storm water runoff. As discussed, these pollutants are permitted by the County-wide MS4 permit and would not exceed any receiving water limitations. The City of Pasadena has a Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.70) which sets forth a variety of regulations to reduce stormwater runoff and to prevent stormwater contamination. The proposed project would be subject to a number of these regulations during construction and operation. Specifically, Section 8.70.095 (“Construction sites requiring a building permit or a grading permit”) lists best management practices (BMPs) that are required for all construction sites. This section prohibits sediments and construction waste from leaving a site and sets forth requirements for the rainy reason, such as covers for soil piles and the same-day removal of any soils that are tracked off site. During operation, the project would be required to comply with the applicable regulations set forth in Section 8.70.090


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


(“Reduction of pollutants in stormwater”). Applicable regulations include prohibiting people from leaving objects or pollutants where they could enter the stormwater system; requiring property owners and tenants to maintain the sidewalk in front of their property free of dirt and litter; and, requiring private drains and catch basins to be cleaned prior to the rainy season. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

A project can result in a significant impact on groundwater supplies if it causes a demonstrable and sustained reduction of groundwater recharge capacity or changes the potable water levels such that it reduces the ability of a water utility to use the groundwater basin for public water supplies or storage of imported water, reduces the yields of adjacent wells or well fields, or adversely changes the rate or direction of groundwater flow. However, the proposed project would not install any groundwater wells and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area that could be intercepted by excavation or development of the project. On the project site, groundwater has been estimated to be approximately 150 feet below the ground surface (EFI Global 2016). Grading at the project site would consist of excavations up to 15 feet below the existing grade, which is well above the estimated groundwater level (Geotechnologies 2017). As such, construction of the project is unlikely to affect any groundwater that may be present beneath the site. For these reasons, the proposed project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies. The project would use the existing water supply system provided by the Pasadena Department of Water and Power (PWP). The source of some of this water supply consists of groundwater stored in the Raymond Basin. Because the proposed project would result in replacing 2 residential dwelling units with 35 residential dwelling units, it increase the amount of water used at the project site. However, the increase in water usage associated with the proposed project would be negligible in comparison to the overall water service provided by PWP and to the groundwater reserves that are used by PWP. Under normal operation, the project is anticipated to use approximately 10,200 to 12,580 gallons of water per day, which amounts to approximately 11 to 14 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Appendix A; City of Pasadena 2016)12. According to 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City had a water demand of 27,326 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2015. The project is expected to be operational in approximately 2019. In 2020, near the time of project operation, the total water demand for the City is anticipated to be 32,586 AFY. Supply for 2020 is projected to be 32,598 AFY (City of Pasadena 2016). The proposed project would cause an increase in water demand of 0.04% to 0.05% in the City relative to 2015 levels. This increase falls within both the demand and supply projections for 2020. As such, adequate sources can serve the proposed project. Moreover, the project would not increase groundwater withdrawal because PWP’s groundwater withdrawal is limited by an adjudication and managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board. Thus, PWP’s withdrawal generally does not does not fluctuate based on water demand. Over the past several years, PWP has been impacted by several factors that have restricted local and regional water supply. PWP’s groundwater withdrawal from the Raymond Basin have been curtailed in order to mitigate

12

According to CalEEMod water use data for typical multi-family residential buildings, the proposed project would have a water demand of 10,200 gallons per day. Based on water use targets set forth in the UWMP, the proposed project would have a water demand of 12,580 gallons per day. Both methods of calculating are presented here.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


groundwater depletion experienced over the last half century. With respect to imported supplies, a decade-long drought has reduced the ability to replenish regional groundwater supplies; drought conditions in the American southwest have reduced deliveries of water from the Colorado River; and legal and environmental issues have resulted in reduced water deliveries through the State Water Project to Southern California. Section 13.10.032 of the Pasadena Municipal Code establishes 13 permanent mandatory restrictions on wasteful water use activities. The proposed project would be required to comply with these restrictions. In addition, there are also statewide water demand reduction requirements such as the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (“20x2020”), as well as work being done by the California Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and other state agencies to implement the Governor’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Initiative Program. The applicant’s irrigation and plumbing plans are also required to comply with the City’s requirements for landscape irrigation. Additionally, because this project proposes new landscaping of 2,500 square feet or more, the project must adhere to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 13.22). This ordinance is a result of AB 1881, which mandates that all local jurisdictions follow specific regulations for the efficient use of water in the irrigation of landscapes. Under this ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare and submit a landscape documentation package that includes a water efficient landscape worksheet, a soil management report, a landscape design plan, an irrigation design plan, and a grading design plan to demonstrate the efficient use of water in the design of the project. Through compliance with these requirements, the project’s water use would be minimized to the extent practicable, thereby reducing potential indirect effects on groundwater supply due to increases in water demand. For the reasons described above, impacts would be less than significant.

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?

The project site is generally flat, with approximately three feet of elevation change across the site and with the highest elevations toward the northern portion of the site. Drainage across the site appears to be by sheetflow to the adjacent City streets (Geotechnologies 2017). The project site does not contain any discernable streams, rivers, or other drainage features. The drainage of surface water from the project would be controlled by building regulations and would be directed towards the City's existing streets, storm drains, and catch basins. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to submit a site drainage plan to the Building Division and the Public Works Department for review and approval. This required approval process ensures that the proposed drainage plan is appropriately designed and that the proposed runoff does not exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system. The proposed drainage of the site would not channel runoff on exposed soil, would not direct flows over unvegetated soils, and would not otherwise increase the erosion or siltation potential of the site or any downstream areas. Additionally, as discussed above under Section 12.a, the project is subject to the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance. To comply with these requirements, the project would implement BMPs, which would reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation, to the maximum extent practicable during construction. Implementation of the required BMPs and compliance with the building regulations described above would ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant erosion or siltation impacts due to changes to drainage patterns. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


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?

The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and a single-story residential structure. The project would not substantially change the site’s drainage patterns and would not alter a discernable drainage course resulting in flooding. The proposed project would be required to submit a drainage plan to the Building Division and the Public Works Department for review and approval. Compliance with the City’s drainage plan review and approval process would reduce the likelihood that the proposed project would lead to on-site or off-site flooding.

Since the project would not involve alteration of a discernable watercourse and post-development runoff discharge rates are required to not exceed predevelopment rates, the proposed project would not have the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase runoff such that flooding would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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?

As noted above, the project site is generally flat and is currently developed. Project implementation would result in similar drainage patterns as existing conditions, since the majority of the site would remain impervious. As such, the amount of stormwater runoff from the site is not expected to increase, and the project is, therefore, not expected to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to submit a drainage plan to the Building Division and the Public Works Department for review and approval. The City’s drainage plan review and approval process would ensure that the proposed project would not create a new source of runoff such that the capacity of the City’s stormwater drainage system would be exceeded. Similarly, as discussed above in Sections 12.a and 12.c, the project would generate only typical, non-point source, urban stormwater pollutants. These pollutants are covered by the County-wide MS4 permit, and the project would be required to implement BMPs to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. For these reasons, the proposed project would not create runoff that would exceed the capacity of the storm drain system and would not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

As discussed above, the proposed development would not be a point-source generator of water pollutants. The only long-term water pollutants expected to be generated on site are typical urban stormwater pollutants. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance would ensure these stormwater pollutants do not substantially degrade water quality. The project, however, has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. The County-wide MS4 permit requires


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


construction sites to have BMPs in place to reduce the potential for construction-induced water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater from entering the drainage system and preventing construction-induced contaminates from entering the drainage system. The MS4 identifies the following minimum requirements for construction sites in Los Angeles County:

Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate treatment control or structural BMP’s.

Construction-related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff.

Non-stormwater runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site.

Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs, such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering slopes that may be susceptible to erosion.

Complying with the MS4’s construction site requirements as well as the City’s the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or dam inundation area as shown in the City of Pasadena adopted Safety Element of the General Plan or other flood or inundation delineation map?

No portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As shown on FEMA FIRM panel 06037C1375F, the project site is located in Zone X (FEMA 2008). Zone X is located outside of the special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood (100-year floodplain), and no floodplain management regulations are required. In addition, according to the City’s Dam Failure Inundation Map (Plate P-2 of the adopted 2002 Safety Element of the City's General Plan) the project site is not located in a dam inundation area (City of Pasadena 2002). As such, no impacts would occur.

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

As discussed in Section 12.g, no portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. As shown on FEMA FIRM panel 06037C1375F, the project site is located in Zone X (FEMA 2008). Zone X is located outside of the special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood (100-year floodplain). Therefore, the proposed project would not place structures within the flow of the 100-year flood, and the project would have no impacts.

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?


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


No portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. The project site is located in Zone X, for which no floodplain management regulations are required. In addition, according to the City’s Dam Failure Inundation Map (Plate P-2 of the adopted 2002 Safety Element of the City's General Plan) the project is not located in a dam inundation area (City of Pasadena 2002). Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact from exposing people or structures to flooding risks, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The City is not located near enough to any inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by either a seiche or tsunami. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity. The project site would not be susceptible to mudflow due to its relatively flat geography and distance from hillside soils. For these reasons, no impacts would occur. 13. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a. Physically divide an existing community?

The proposed project would not physically divide an existing community, as the site is surrounded by similar development on all sides, and the project consists of an infill development within an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as a means of moving through the community or neighborhood, since it is currently developed with a residential structure and a parking lot and is generally surrounded on all sides by walls or fences. Development of a multi-family residential structure at the project site would not, therefore, create a physical division in a community. For these reasons, no impacts would occur.

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The primary land use planning documents that govern the project site are the City’s General Plan and the Pasadena Zoning Code. The project site’s General Plan land use designation is High Density Residential. The project site’s zoning designation is RM-48-HL-36 (Multi-Family Residential, 0-48 units/acre, 36-foot Height Limit Overlay.)

Consistent with both the General Plan and zoning land use designations, the proposed project would involve development of a multi-family residential building. The proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations for its land use and zoning designations, with the exception of its front yard setback. As described under Section 3.d, the project would require a minor variance for the front yard requirement. For the project site, the City’s Zoning Code would typically require a front yard setback of 60.5 feet; however, the proposed project would have a front yard of 20 feet. The required 60.5-foot front yard setback is in part calculated using the setback of the existing building on the project site. The existing single-story residential structure is situated towards the rear of the lot (i.e., near the western boundary of the project site.) As such, the required front yard setback for the project site is much greater than the front yard setbacks that are currently in place on other lots


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


in the project area. The proposed 20-foot front yard setback is generally consistent with the front yard setbacks along Madison Avenue for the lots to the north and south of the project site. The multi-family residential structures to the south of the project site are set back between 29 and 34 feet from Madison Avenue. The parking garage to the north of the project site is set back 10 feet from Madison Avenue. As such, while the proposed project would vary from the zoning code requirements relative to front yard setbacks, the proposed setback would be consistent with the existing surrounding conditions in the project area. Moreover, the project’s variation from the City’s front yard setback requirement would not cause the project to result in environmental impacts, as demonstrated throughout this document. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

As discussed in Section 6.f, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Thus, no impacts would occur related to conflicts with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. 14. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No active mining operations exist in the City of Pasadena. There are two areas in Pasadena that may contain mineral resources: Eaton Wash, which was formerly mined for sand and gravel, and Devils Gate Reservoir, which was formerly mined for cement concrete aggregate. The project is not near these areas. (The proposed project site is approximately three miles west of the Eaton Canyon Wash and three miles southeast of Devils Gate Reservoir.) Neither the project site nor surrounding areas are utilized for mineral production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resource with value to the region. As such, no impacts would occur.

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?

The City’s General Plan Land Use Element does not identify any mineral recovery sites within the City (City of Pasadena 2015b). No active mining operations exist in the City of Pasadena, and mining is not currently allowed within any of the City’s designated land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts from the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no impacts would occur.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


15. NOISE. Will the project result in:

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?

Noise measurements were conducted on the project site and in the project vicinity at the locations shown in Figure 6. The sound level meter was calibrated prior to measurements. Three (3) short-term (ST#) measurements were conducted with a Rion NL-52 sound level meter placed on a tripod with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above the ground. Ambient sound levels were generally dominated by highway noise. Table 15-1 presents the results of the short-term noise measurements.

Table 15-1

Short-Term Sound Level Measurements

Measurement Location Time Observed Noise Sources Leq1

ST1 10:43 am to 11:01 am Distant Traffic from Freeway, Birds, Wind/Tree Leaves 59

ST2 11:10 am to 11:25 am Distant Traffic from Freeway, Birds, Distant Aircraft, Wind/ Tree Leaves 55

ST3 11:30 am to 11:45 am Distant Traffic from Freeway, Birds, Wind/Tree Leaves, Distant Aircraft, 56

Notes: 1 Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Time-Average Sound Level) ** Temperature: 78° Fahrenheit, sunny, calm Eastward winds

Short-term measured noise levels were below 60 dBA. The measurement was dominated by relatively constant noise from the Freeway located south of the site. The project would not lead to a significant increase in ambient noise. The project would not involve installing a large stationary noise source, and the only long-term noise generated by the project would be typical urban environment noise. Furthermore, in Pasadena many urban environment noises, such as leaf-blowing and amplified sounds, are subject to restrictions by Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC). The applicable portion of the PMC states:

It is unlawful for any person to create, cause, make or continue to make or permit to be made or continued any noise or sound which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels (9.36.050 A.).

The project would generate short-term noise due to construction activities. However, project construction would adhere to City regulations governing hours of construction, noise levels generated by construction and mechanical equipment, and the allowed level of ambient noise (Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code). In accordance with these regulations, construction noise would be limited to normal working hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, in or within 500 feet of a residential area). A construction related traffic plan would also be required to ensure that truck routes for transportation of materials and equipment are established with consideration for sensitive uses in the neighborhood. A construction staging and traffic management plan for the construction phase would be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of any permits. Therefore, adhering to established City regulations would ensure that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of standards.

N M

AD

ISO

N A

VE

E M A P L E S T

E V I L L A S T

N O

AK

LA

ND

AV

E

210

ST-2

ST-1

ST-3

FIGURE 6Noise Measurement Locations

Madison Apartments Project

SOURCE: NAIP 2016, LA County 2017

Date:

10/2

0/201

7 -

Last

save

d by:

mwats

on -

Pat

h: Z:

\Pro

jects\

j1062

501\M

APDO

C\DO

CUME

NT\IS

_MND

\Nois

e\Fig

ure_

NOI_

1_No

ise_M

easu

reme

nt_L

ocat

ions.m

xd

0 10050Feet

Project SiteNoise MeasurementLocation


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Project residents would be exposed to the existing noise environment in the project area. According to Figure 9 of the City’s Noise Element (2002), the project site lies between the 70 and 65 dBA LDN noise contours. This level of noise is within the “Normally Acceptable” range for the proposed land use of multifamily residential, as shown in Figure 1 of the City’s Noise Element (2002). Consequently, noise exposure levels for proposed exterior living areas of the project would be expected to comply with the recommended maximum noise level of 70 dBA LDN. Exterior noise exposure impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation would not be required. However, with an exterior noise exposure level of up to 70 dBA LDN, interior noise levels could potentially exceed the State criterion of 45 dBA LDN. Consequently, an acoustical analysis would be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the project, to comply with the California Sound Transmission Standard that interior noise levels attributable to any exterior source shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. Said interior noise study is required to be submitted to the building division for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application review; building permit issuance is contingent upon satisfactory demonstration that interior noise levels would comply with the 45 dBA LDN criterion. As such, given that the project would comply with all noise requirements, project construction and operation would not expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

For demolition and construction, ground-borne vibrations greater than 0.5 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) are considered potentially significant, based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Manual (May 2006) construction vibration criterion for conventional structures. Operation of the proposed project would not include any heavy rotating equipment with the potential to generate groundborne vibration. Thus, significant ground-borne vibration is not expected from general operations of the project, and operational impacts would be less than significant. The main concern associated with ground-borne vibration is annoyance; however, in extreme cases, vibration can cause damage to buildings, particularly those that are old or otherwise fragile. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and heavy earth-moving equipment activities. The proposed project would include neither blasting nor pile driving, thus avoiding the most substantial sources for construction related vibration. Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures or affect activities that are not vibration-sensitive, although the vibrations may be felt by nearby persons in close proximity and result in annoyance (FTA 2006). The FTA employs a significance criterion of 0.5 inches per second PPV for standard construction buildings and reinforced masonry (brick or block) construction. Structures adjacent to the project site that could be affected by construction-related vibration include two-story residential apartment structures to the south that are located approximately 10 feet from the subject property line. These structures are classified as standard construction, for which the 0.5 inches per second PPV significance threshold would apply. According to Caltrans (2014), the highest measured vibration level during highway construction was 2.4 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from a pavement breaker. While pavement does exist on certain portions of the project site, a pavement breaker has not been included on the equipment list provided with the project application. Because pavement can be removed using a jackhammer and/or “lifting fork” extension for a front-end loader, a pavement breaker is not necessary or anticipated for use in pavement removal at the site.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


The project includes one level of below-grade parking, which would require excavation of the building foundation to a depth of 10 to 15 feet below grade. To stabilize the walls of the excavation, it is assumed that a soldier pile retaining wall would be constructed. This method involves drilling and insertion of steel I-beams before excavation begins and then as soil is excavated, steel panels are inserted between the steel beams to hold the wall of the excavation in place. According to Caltrans (2013), using cast-in-place or auger cast piles limits vibration to only the amount generated by drilling, which is negligible. Consequently, drilling to install the I-beams for the soldier pile retaining wall, even within 10 feet of the structure to the south of the project site, would not result in vibration levels that could cause building damage. Dudek evaluated the equipment with the highest level of vibration generation that would potentially be employed in the project construction. Table 15-2 shows a construction vibration impact summary for the project based on the FTA’s 2006 Noise and Vibration Manual data and methodology. The equipment is shown along with the reference data (PPVref) from the Manual. Calculations were conducted to assess the vibration PPV at the closest separation distance from the southern building (10 feet) for the specific piece of equipment and at 50 feet (approximately the distance between the closest construction and the existing commercial building to the west).

Table 15-2

Construction Vibration PPV

Equipment

Closest Distance Between Equipment & Southern Building

Reference PPV (in/s) for Equipment PPV (in/s) PPV (in/s)

(ft) at 25 ft at 10 ft at 50 ft

Loaded Trucks 10 0.076 0.30 0.027

Jackhammer 10 0.035 0.14 0.012

Large Dozer 10 0.089 0.35 0.031

Small Bulldozer 10 0.003 0.01 0.001

None of the anticipated vibration levels would exceed the 0.5 inches per second significance threshold at the closest off-site buildings to the south or west. Based on the above analysis, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

As discussed in Section 15.a, the project would not lead to a significant permanent increase in ambient noise. The project would not involve the installation of a major stationary noise source, and the only long-term noise generated by the project would be typical urban environment noise. Furthermore, in Pasadena many urban environment noises, such as leaf-blowing and amplified sounds, are subject to restrictions by Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code. Through compliance with the restrictions stipulated in Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant.

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


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


As discussed in Section 15.b., the project would generate short-term noise due to construction activities. However, the project would adhere to City regulations governing hours of construction and noise levels generated by construction and mechanical equipment. (Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code). In accordance with these regulations, construction noise would be limited to normal working hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, in or within 500 feet of a residential district). A construction related traffic plan would also be required to ensure that truck routes for transportation of materials and equipment are established with consideration for sensitive uses in the neighborhood. A construction staging and traffic management plan for the construction phase would be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of any permits. Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) regulates noise levels generated by construction and mechanical equipment. The regulations include a restriction on the hours that construction may occur, and a limit on the noise level that can be generated by construction equipment, where construction would occur within 500 feet of a residential district. In addition, PMC Section 9.36.080 states:

“It is unlawful for any person to operate any powered construction equipment if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dBA when measured within a radius of 100 feet from such equipment (9.36.080).”

In this case, construction of the proposed project would involve the use of heavy construction equipment within close proximity of residences, including those on adjacent parcels, and as a result, there would be a potential for adverse impacts in the event of non-compliance with the City’s noise regulations. Construction noise and vibration levels vary from hour-to-hour and day-to-day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Construction of the proposed project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction, distance between the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. In accordance with the PMC, Pasadena examines construction noise impacts at 100 feet in order to compare these noise levels to the 85 dBA limitation in the noise ordinance exemption. This comparison is used for the determination of significance. A construction-related noise analysis was performed using a model developed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) called the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008). Input variables for RCNM consist of the receiver / land use types, the equipment type (i.e., backhoe, crane, truck, etc.), the number of equipment pieces, the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (i.e., percentage of hours the equipment typically works per day), and the distance from the sensitive noise. RCNM has default duty cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty cycle values were utilized for this analysis. Model results are included in Appendix C of this IS/MND.

Construction – Equipment Data and Description Equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, thus producing noise levels less than the maximum level. The typical noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 15-3. The table includes all of the expected equipment for project construction.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Table 15-3

Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors

Equipment Description Impact Device? Acoustical Use Factor (%) Spec 721.560 Lmax @

50ft (dBA, slow) Actual Measured Lmax

@50ft (dBA, slow) All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 -- N/A --

Backhoe No 40 80 78

Compressor (air) No 40 80 78

Concrete Saw No 20 90 90

Crane No 16 85 81

Dozer No 40 85 82

Flat Bed Truck No 40 84 74

Front End Loader No 40 80 79

Jackhammer Yes 20 85 89

Pickup Truck No 40 55 75

Pneumatic Tools No 50 85 85

Pumps No 50 77 81

Scraper No 40 85 84

Shears (on backhoe) No 40 85 96

Tractor No 40 84 -- N/A --

Source: DOT 2006.

Table 15-4 shows the results from the RCNM analysis conducted for the project. R1 represents a receiver only 5 feet from the construction operations. This is intended to represent a worse case when construction operations are occurring near the site boundary. R2 represents the distance from the nearest residential receiver to the acoustic center of the project, approximately 40 feet from a typical receiver. Noise levels at 100 feet from the site are shown in the final column for comparison against the 100 foot threshold for construction noise in Pasadena.

Table 15-4

Construction Noise Summary of Results (dBA Leq)

Phase

Leq (dBA) R1 – Nearest Source-Receiver

Noise Level R2 – Typical Source-Receiver

Noise Level 100' Contour

Demolition 103 87 79

Grading and Excavation 97 82 74

Building Construction – Parking Garage 98 82 74

Building Construction – Residential (Above Garage)

94 81 73

Architectural Coating 94 76 68

Average noise levels from construction activities may disrupt activities in the vicinity since expected construction noise levels are well above the ambient noise levels in the area. However, restricting construction activities to the daytime period would avoid disruption of evening relaxation and overnight sleep periods. As shown in Table 15-3, measured concrete saw maximum sound levels are 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; with outdoor attenuation rates, this level would be reduced to 84 dBA at 100 feet. This piece of equipment has the highest noise levels shown in Table 15-3, which includes all of the equipment expected to be used during


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


project construction. Thus, all of the equipment for the project would be compliant with the Pasadena Construction Noise ordinance limit of 85 dBA at 100 feet. Furthermore, as shown in Table 15-4, no phase of work is expected to produce noise levels above 79 dBA at 100 feet. Some residential receptors are within a few feet of the project boundary well within 100 feet of construction activities. Since residential areas exist at heights above the existing barrier walls, no additional shielding reduction in noise is expected at some locations. Based on the construction equipment list, the equipment meets the Pasadena Construction noise requirement. With adherence to the limited construction hours, the project is expected to result in a less than significant short-term construction noise impact, based on the Pasadena noise criteria.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No airports or airport land-use plans are located in the City of Pasadena. The closest airports to the project site are the El Monte Airport, located approximately seven miles southeast of the project site (Caltrans 2017), and the Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly the Bob Hope Airport), which is located more than 10 miles from Pasadena in the City of Burbank. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive airport related noise and would have no associated impacts.

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

The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels. No associated impacts would occur. 16. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

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)?

The proposed project involves development of a multi-family residential building, which is consistent with the land use designation for the site of High Density Residential (See Section 13 of this document). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the growth anticipated and accommodated by the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the project is located in a developed urban area with an established roadway network and in-place infrastructure. Thus, development of the proposed project would not require extending or improving infrastructure in a manner that would facilitate off-site growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


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

The project involves the demolition of one residential unit within one single-story building and the construction of 35 housing units for a net gain of 34 housing units. As such, while the proposed project would displace housing, the amount of existing housing on the project site is minimal relative to the number of units that are being proposed for the site. As shown in the 2014–2021 Housing Element of the General Plan, the City has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,332 units for the 2014–2021 planning period (City of Pasadena 2014a). The proposed project is anticipated to be operational in 2019. As such, the project would contribute to the City’s ability to meet the RHNA for the current planning period, as it would replace 1 housing unit with 34 housing units. Furthermore, because the City anticipates growth of housing units between 2014–2021, the proposed project is within the housing forecast established in the City’s Housing Element. The housing gains that would result from the proposed project are also within the range of housing growth that has been forecast for the City by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as shown in SCAG’s Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix of the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In this document, SCAG reports that the City had approximately 58,900 households as of 2012 and that the number of households in the City is projected to increase to 62,400 households by 2040. As such, an additional 34 housing units in the City falls well within the anticipated increase in housing that SCAG has forecasted for the City (SCAG 2016). As such, while the project would result in the displacement of housing, the project would also result in a net gain of housing units, which is consistent with local and regional growth projections for the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

The project involves the demolition of one residential unit within one single-story building. The City has approximately 2.5 people per household; as such, the proposed project could potentially result in the displacement of approximately 2.5 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). However, the project would result in a net increase of 34 housing units. As such, the number of housing units that are lost during construction of the project would be replaced on site once the project is in operation. As described above under Section 16.b, future growth is anticipated for the City’s housing stock. It is therefore expected that the approximately 2.5 people who may be displaced by the project would be accommodated by the City’s housing stock and/or the housing stock in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, both of which support housing options for a diverse range of incomes. For these reasons, while the proposed project would involve the displacement of a small number of people (approximately 2.5), this displacement would not require or result in construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. 17. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


a. Fire Protection?

The project site is located in an urbanized area and is within an area of the City that is mapped as a “low fire hazard zone” (City of Pasadena 2002). The nearest fire station to the project site is Pasadena Fire Department Station No. 33, located at 515 North Lake Avenue, approximately 0.5 roadway miles northeast of the project site. The proposed project would involve development of a 35-unit multi-family residential structure, which would replace the 1-unit residential structure and surface parking lot that are currently on the project site. As such, the proposed project could increase the demand on the Pasadena Fire Department, due to the net gain in residential units at the project site and the resulting increase in residents. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional Fire Department facilities. As described in Section 16 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not contribute to substantial population growth and would be consistent with existing, adopted plans for housing growth in the City. As such, the project would not increase the population of the City to the extent that new or expanded fire protection facilities would be needed. Furthermore, the project would be required to incorporate safety and security features, including fire sprinklers, alarm systems, and adequate access for emergency vehicles. Compliance with these requirements would potentially lessen the demand for fire protection services at the project site, as compliance with these requirements can prevent fires from spreading and would help facilitate early responses and access to the site of the fire. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require new or altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

b. Libraries?

The City operates its own library system. The system includes the Central Library along with nine branch library facilities located throughout the City. The Central Library is the nearest library to the project site, located at 285 East Walnut Street, approximately 0.6 roadway miles southwest of the project site. The City as a whole is well served by its Library System. As described in Section 16 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not contribute to substantial population growth and would be consistent with existing, adopted plans for housing growth in the City. As such, the minor population increase attributable to the proposed project is not expected to place a significant burden on the City’s library system such that new or altered facilities are required. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

c. Parks?

The City has approximately 29 parks encompassing approximately 373 acres and nearly 260 acres of open space for a total of 633 acres of parkland and open space. The project is located approximately 0.4 roadway miles northeast of the nearest park, which is Villa Parke. The City collects park impact fees for residential and nonresidential projects per Ordinance No. 6252 and uses the funds for park maintenance and improvement programs. The park mitigation fee is $21,651.13 per residential unit (City of Pasadena 2014b).

While the proposed project would result in a net increase of 34 housing units, this increase would not induce population growth to the extent that new or altered park facilities would be required. Further, the payment of fees would ensure that the minor, incremental increase in demand for park facilities that may be caused by the project is addressed through the provision of funds for park improvements that have been planned by the City. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


d. Police Protection?

The proposed project would be served by the Pasadena Police Department. The City is divided into five community service areas for police protection (West, Northwest, Central, East, and Midtown). The project site is located in Community Service Area 2 – Northwest (City of Pasadena 2013). Based on the Pasadena Police Department’s published crime reports for 2016, there were a total of 4,181 citywide service calls, with 967 service calls (23%) occurring in Community Service Area 2 – Northwest (Pasadena Police Department 2016). Of these service calls, calls pertaining to theft were the most prevalent, comprising 37% of citywide service calls and 24% of service calls in Community Service Area 2 – Northwest.

The nearest police station, located at 207 North Garfield Avenue, is approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project would involve development of a 35-unit multi-family residential structure, which would replace the 1-unit residential structure and surface parking lot that are currently on the project site. As such, the proposed project could increase demand on the Pasadena Police Department, due to the net gain in residential units at the project site and the resulting increase in residents at the project site. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional Police Department facilities. As described in Section 16 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not contribute to substantial population growth and would be consistent with existing, adopted plans for housing growth in the City. As such, the project would not increase the population of the City to an extent that new or expanded police protection services would be needed. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

e. Schools?

The Pasadena Unified School District serves prekindergarten through twelfth grade students residing in Pasadena. The proposed project would involve the construction of a 35-unit multi-family residential structure and would result in a net increase in 34 residential units at the project site. The project site is within the attendance boundaries of the following Pasadena Unified School District schools: Madison Elementary School (515 Ashtabula Street), Washington Middle School (1505 North Marengo Avenue), and Muir High School (1905 North Lincoln Avenue) (PUSD 2017). The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a population increase that generates an increase in enrollment large enough to cause new schools to be constructed. The proposed project would involve a net increase of 34 residential units in the City. The state has a Student Yield Factor for Unified School Districts, which is 0.7 students per dwelling unit (Office of Public School Construction 2009). Using this generation factor, the proposed project is anticipated to result in approximately 24 new students. While the proposed project would increase the number of students, it would not do so to the extent that new school facilities would be required, due to the minor potential increase in students at the schools that serve that project site. Furthermore, a fee is collected by the City's Building Official for PUSD on each residential unit that is constructed. As stated in California Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact fees is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. For these reasons, impacts related to the need for new school facilities as a result of implementing the proposed project would be less than significant.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


f. Other public facilities?

While the proposed project would result in a net increase of 34 housing units, this increase would not induce population growth to the extent that new or altered public facilities would be required. While minor, incremental increases in additional maintenance of public facilities may result, no new or expanded facilities would be required. Further, the project would be required to provide impact fees, increased property taxes, and development fees. This additional revenue would help address any minor, incremental maintenance needs that may be attributable to the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 18. 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?

The project is located 0.4 miles from the nearest park, Villa Parke. The proposed project is expected to generate 88 residents, for a net increase of 85.5 residents (according to U.S. Census Bureau data, the City has approximately 2.5 people per household (U.S. Census Bureau 2015)). Thus, the project would likely result in a minor, incremental increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks. However, in accordance with Ordinance #6252, the City collects a park impact fee for each residential unit constructed. These fees are used to fund land acquisition and capital improvements. While the proposed project would result in a net increase of 34 housing units, this increase would not induce population growth to the extent that substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities would occur. Payment of the fees described above would ensure that the minor, incremental increase in demand for park facilities that may be caused by the project is addressed through the provision of funds for park improvements that have been planned by the City. For these reasons, impacts from the proposed project related to physical deterioration of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

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?

The proposed project includes the development of private recreational facilities consisting of a main garden area, front yard, and private gardens for some of the residential units. However, the scope of these facilities is minor and would not impose adverse physical effects on the environment. These facilities are considered part of the project and their potential environmental impacts are analyzed as such in this report. The proposed project does not involve, and would not require, the construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities, as described in Section 17 of this Initial Study. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve the development of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. 19. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

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?


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


On November 3, 2014, the City of Pasadena City Council adopted a resolution to replace the City’s transportation performance measures with five new Transportation Performance Measures and new thresholds of significance to determine transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA. The new performance measures and CEQA thresholds are consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and Senate Bill 743 and include vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips (VT) per capita, proximity and quality of bicycle network, proximity and quality of transit network, and pedestrian accessibility. The new measures support the City’s vision of creating a community where people can circulate without cars, which relies upon an integrated multimodal transportation system that provides choices and accessibility for everyone in the City.

The City established Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice & Guidelines to implement the transportation performance measures and CEQA thresholds. These guidelines identify separate approaches for three levels of projects—exempt projects, Category 1: Below Communitywide Significance, and Category 2: Communitywide Significance. Per the guidelines, consideration of the City’s CEQA thresholds is only required for projects of community-wide significance (Category 2), which are those involving 50 or more residential units and/or 50,000 square feet or more of nonresidential use. Projects of a scale less than these criteria are determined to have only less than significant impacts pursuant to CEQA.

As the project proposes 35 residential units, the proposed project is not a project of community-wide significance. Therefore, no project-level analysis of CEQA impacts is required and impacts are determined to be less than significant.

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?

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2010. According to the CMP, only those projects that meet the following criteria require a CMP traffic impact analysis:

All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic).

Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction,

during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours.

If the project meets either or both of these criteria, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥.0.02), causing Level of Service (LOS) F (V/C > 1.00); if the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02). If the project does not meet either of these criteria, impacts on CMP facilities are considered less than significant. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual rates (ITE 2012), it is estimated that the project would generate 233 daily trips, including 18 a.m. peak hour trips and 22 p.m. peak hour trips (City of


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Pasadena 2017a).13 As such, the proposed project would not add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours to any intersection or freeway, including CMP monitoring locations. No further analysis of CMP intersections or freeway mainline segments is required per the Los Angeles County CMP guidelines, indicating that the project trip generation falls below the thresholds established in the CMP. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts at CMP monitoring locations. Impacts would be less than significant.

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?

The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns.

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

The proposed project involves development of multi-family housing within a residential neighborhood that primarily consists of existing multi-family housing. The proposed project would not involve permanent changes to sidewalks or to roadways. However, the proposed project would introduce a new ingress/egress, where there currently is none. This ingress/egress would be used by the residents of the proposed structure. Without adequate site distances, the new driveway could pose a hazard to pedestrians walking along the sidewalk in front of the driveway. However, a number of conditions of approval would be imposed on the project that would minimize safety hazards to the extent feasible. These conditions of approval include specifications for the width of the driveway and driveway apron, installation of devices near the driveway to alert pedestrians and outgoing vehicles of potential conflict, and prohibitions against obstructing views along both sides of the driveway. These conditions of approval would allow for adequate vehicular sight distance and would minimize safety hazards for pedestrians crossing the driveway. As such, impacts involving hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use would be less than significant.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

The ingress and egress for the site have been evaluated by the City’s Department of Transportation and found to be adequate for emergency access or access to nearby uses. Further, the project does not involve the elimination of a through-route or the narrowing of a roadway. While temporary and occasional lane closures may be required during construction, two-way traffic would still be maintained along Madison Avenue, allowing for emergency access, as necessary. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the project area. All proposed accesses and drive lanes would be subject to the Fire Department’s access standards. The project must also comply with all Building, Fire, and Safety Codes. Project plans would be subject to review and approval by the Public Works and the Transportation

13

Trip Generation Manual Land Use Code 220, Apartment, factors of 6.65 daily trips per dwelling unit; 0.51 a.m. peak hour trips per dwelling unit; and 0.62 p.m. peak hour trips per dwelling unit.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Departments and the Building Division and Fire Department. Upon compliance with City standards for emergency access, impacts would be less than significant.

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Per the regulations provided in SB 743, for residential, mixed-use residential, and employment center projects on infill sites in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), parking impacts cannot be considered significant. A TPA is defined as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. Section 21064.3 of the PRC defines a “major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The proposed project is an infill residential development. The project is proposed on an infill site that has been previously developed and all surrounding parcels are developed with urban uses. The project site is located within one-half mile of the Lake Avenue Station of the LA Metro Gold Line. Therefore, the proposed project is within a TPA and parking impacts cannot be considered significant under SB 743. The following discussion regarding parking is provided for informational purposes only. Due to the increased intensity of land use, the project would increase the demand for parking at the site. However, the project design is in compliance with the number of parking and loading spaces required by the Zoning Code. According to the Zoning Code, the project requires between 56 and 65 vehicle parking spaces and 6 or more bicycle parking spaces. The project would contain 65 vehicle parking spaces and 6+ bicycle spaces. Therefore, the project is in compliance with City requirements for parking and, therefore, would not be expected to have inadequate parking. Moreover, pursuant to CEQA Section 21099(d) the proposed project would result in no impact on parking.

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?

The City has set forth policies for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in its General Plan. One of the eight guiding principles of the General Plan is that “Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars.” More specific policies regarding non-vehicular transportation modes are provided in the Mobility Element of the General Plan. Objective 2 of the Mobility Element is to “Encourage walking, biking, transit and other alternatives to motor vehicles.” This objective is supported by policies including: “Continue to strengthen the marketing and promotion of non-auto transportation to residents, employees and visitors,” “Ensure that secure and convenient bicycle parking is available at destinations,” and “Provide convenient, safe and accessible transit stops” (City of Pasadena 2015c).

The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s policies to encourage walking, biking, and transit. In fact, the proposed project may support some of these policies, as it would involve construction of residential uses in proximity to a variety of transit facilities, which would allow for and encourage residents of the proposed multi-family building to use transit facilities. Specifically, the Metro Gold Line light rail Lake Station and bus stops for Pasadena Transit, Metro, Foothill Transit, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Commuter Express are located near the Lake Avenue / I-210 interchange, approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site. Additionally, there are Pasadena Transit stops situated closer to the project site, which could provide connections to the numerous transit facilities near Lake Avenue and the I-210 interchange. Pasadena Transit Route 40 has stops at the northwest and southeast corners of the Madison Avenue/Villa Street intersection (approximately 400 feet north of the project site), a stop at the southeast corner of the North Los


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Robles Avenue/Villa Street intersection (approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the project site), and a stop at the southeast corner of the North Los Robles Avenue/Maple Street intersection (approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the project site). Metro routes 687/686 also have stops at the southeast corners of the North Los Robles Avenue/Villa Street intersection and the North Los Robles Avenue/Maple Street intersection (City of Pasadena 2017a). As such, a variety of transit facilities would be accessible for residents of the proposed project. The General Plan Mobility Element states that 0.25–0.5 miles can be comfortably covered by a pedestrian in about a 5- to 15-minute walk. (This range of distances is defined as a “walkingshed” and is also used to define areas that are considered “walkable”) (City of Pasadena 2015c). Accordingly, the transit facilities identified above are all considered to be within a walkable distance from the project site. As such, the location of the proposed project within walkable distance of a variety of transit facilities would help support the use of transit in place of motor vehicles.

Regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the proposed project is located in a residential neighborhood that generally has sidewalks and streetlights, both of which support pedestrian safety and accessibility. East Maple Street, a two-lane roadway that extends east–west approximately 250 feet south of the project site, has a an existing bicycle lane. Additionally, the General Plan Mobility Element depicts a number of future proposed bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. El Molino Avenue, a north–south roadway that is located one block (approximately 500 feet) east of the project site, is shown as a proposed roadway for a future bicycle boulevard. Villa Street, an east–west roadway that is located one-half block (approximately 400 feet) north of the project site, is also shown as a proposed roadway for a future bicycle boulevard (City of Pasadena 2015c). These future potential bicycle lanes are also identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Action Plan (City of Pasadena 2015d). As such, additional bicycle facilities may be available to residents of the proposed project in the future. The existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project area would support and encourage residents of the project site to walk or bicycle to nearby destinations, including transit facilities. Additionally, the project would provide a bicycle room within the subterranean parking garage and would also provide for pedestrian circulation walkways within the project site. These features of the project would further facilitate residents’ use of nearby bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

As described above, the proposed project would help support use of alternative transportation modes by situating residences within walking distance of transit facilities and near existing and proposed bicycle facilities. The proposed project would not otherwise conflict or obstruct implementation of the City’s policies, plans, and programs for non-vehicular transportation. Further, the proposed project would not interfere with, obstruct, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of non-vehicular transportation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

20. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of

historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

The proposed project is subject to compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs) as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 as part of the CEQA process and requires the City to notify any groups (who have requested notification) of the proposed project who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. One tribe (the Gabrieleno


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation) requested formal notification of all projects within the City. Accordingly, the City notified the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation of the proposed project under AB 52 on September 6, 2017, to provide an opportunity to consult on TCRs and other matters of concern. A notification letter was directed to Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Andrew Salas stated that the project site lies in the ancestral tribal territory of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. However, he did not identify any specific tribal cultural resources within the project area. (Because AB 52 is a government-to-government process, all records of correspondence related to AB 52 notification are on file with the City.) As described under Section 7 of this document, a records search was conducted at the SCCIC for the project site. No tribal cultural resources were identified on the project site as a result of the records search. In a Sacred Lands File results letter dated October 10, 2017, the NAHC stated that the Sacred Lands File search was completed with negative results. Furthermore, no tribal cultural resources were identified as a result of the AB 52 notification process, as described above. Therefore, no listed or eligible tribal cultural resources appear to be present on the project site. However, it is possible that intact and previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels and could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. In the event that such deposits are previously unknown tribal cultural resources, significant effects may occur to that resource, if the resource is disturbed, destroyed, or otherwise improperly treated. As such, mitigation measure MM-TCR-1 is provided in the event that resources are uncovered during construction. Mitigation measure MM-TCR-1 requires a qualified Native American monitor meeting the satisfaction of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to be present during grading and excavation activities at the project site. Mitigation measure MM-TCR-1 further requires the proper handling and treatment of any significant resources, should they be discovered on site. Upon incorporation of MM-TCR-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

MM-TCR-1. Retain a Native American Monitor During grading and excavation, a monitor meeting the satisfaction of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation shall be present. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4-1 in the Pasadena General Plan EIR, if Native American artifacts are found, all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until the find is evaluated by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. If testing determines that significance criteria are met, then the Project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; and provide a comprehensive final report, including site record to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Department approves the report. Subsequently, the find shall be turned over to the tribe of the resource’s origin. In addition, any cultural resources found shall be treated in accordance with regulatory requirements. Grading and excavation may continue around the isolated area of the find so long as the activities do not impede or jeopardize the protection and preservation of any cultural resources as determined by the Registered Professional Archaeologist. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,

to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

There are no resources at the project site that have been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. However, as described in Section 20(a)(i), there is the potential that previously undiscovered cultural resources could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. In the event that such resources are determined to be significant under Public


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


Resources Code Section 5024.1, the project could result in significant impacts to such resources, if the resource is disturbed, destroyed, or otherwise improperly treated. As such, mitigation measure MM-TCR-1 has been set forth to ensure that any finds that are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project are properly handled and treated. Upon incorporation of MM-TCR-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. 21. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

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

The project is expected to generate approximately 6,250 to 6,630 gallons per day of wastewater in the form of domestic sewage (Appendix A; LACSD 2018)14. The City is within the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) 16. All sewage from the project would be conveyed to existing City sewer lines and facilities and then to LACSD trunk sewers for conveyance and treatment. The proposed project would be subject to an LACSD sewer connection fee when connected to a sewer line. Wastewater discharge from the project site would be regulated by applicable standards and requirements that are imposed and enforced by the City’s Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. Domestic sewage typically meets wastewater treatment requirements because wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage. The project would not involve the release of unique or unusual sewage into the wastewater treatment system. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB and impacts would be less than significant.

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?

The City’s Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, maintains the local sewer system. Flows from the local system are currently carried to the trunk sewers operated by the LACSD. Because the proposed project would result in an intensification of land uses on the site by replacing a one-unit residential structure and surface parking lot with a 35-unit multi-family residential structure, the project would increase the demand for water and wastewater service. The proposed project would generate approximately 6,250 to 6,630 gallons of wastewater per day and would have a water demand of 10,200 gallons per day to 12,580 gallons per day (Appendix A; City of Pasadena 2016)15. Water supply at the project site is provided by Pasadena Water and Power (PWP). Sewage from the project would be conveyed to existing City sewer lines and facilities and then to LACSD trunk sewers for conveyance and treatment. Wastewater is currently treated at the Whittier Narrows Reclamation Plant, San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, and Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. Because LACSD treats the City’s wastewater, the proposed project would be subject to a sewer connection fee when the project is connected to a sewer line. The proposed project would also be required to pay fees to connect to the existing water mains available to serve the site. The proposed increase to water/wastewater service demand resulting from the project would be negligible in

14

According to CalEEMod wastewater generation data for typical multi -family residential buildings, the proposed project would generate approximately 6,250 gallons per day of wastewater. According to the LACSD’s wastewater generation factors, the proposed project would generate approximately 6,630 gallons per day of wastewater. Both methods of calculating are presented here.

15 According to CalEEMod water use data for typical multi-family residential buildings, the proposed project would have a water

demand of approximately 10,200 gallons per day. Based on water use targets set forth in the UWMP, the proposed project would have a water demand of approximately 12,580 gallons per day. Both methods of calculating are presented here.


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service purveyors. Additionally, there are no existing deficiencies in the potable water facilities or in wastewater collection and treatment facilities serving Pasadena that would be exacerbated by the proposed project. The only water and wastewater improvements required for the project are on-site unit connections to the existing systems, which are subject to connection fees and have been evaluated for potential environmental impacts in this Initial Study. Furthermore, the City has numerous regulations in place that are applicable to the proposed project and that have been adopted to reduce water demands and wastewater generation. For example, in conformance with the California Green Building Program, the City has adopted an amended California Green Building Standards Code (Section 14.04.500 of the Municipal Code) for all new construction. Compliance with the Green Building Standards would reduce water use and wastewater generation from the project. The proposed project would also be subject to the City’s Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plans Ordinance (Chapter 13.10 of the Municipal Code), which imposes mandatory water conservation measures during Level 1 (least restrictive) through Level 4 (most restrictive) water supply shortages. Compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.22 of the Municipal Code) and the Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code) would further reduce water demands and any corresponding requirements for new water facilities. In summary, as existing wastewater and water facilities are available to serve the proposed project and no new wastewater or water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required for project implementation, impacts would be less than significant.

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The proposed project site is completely disturbed and primarily consists of impervious surfaces. The site is currently developed with a paved surface parking lot and a single-story residential structure. The project is located in a developed urban area where storm drainage is provided by existing streets, storm drains, flood control channels, and catch basins. Project implementation would result in similar drainage patterns as existing conditions, because the majority of the site would remain impervious and the project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. As discussed in Section 12, the proposed project would involve only minor changes in the site’s drainage patterns and would not involve altering any drainage courses or flood control channels. As discussed in Section 12.d, the project applicant would be required to submit and implement an on-site drainage plan that meets the approval of the City’s Building Official and Public Works Department. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in any off-site stormwater drainage improvements, and impacts would be less than significant.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The proposed project would generate demand for 10,200 to 12,580 gallons of water per day and would represent an increase in water use at the project site, as it would replace an existing 1-unit residential structure with a 35-unit residential structure. The project site is served by PWP. Water demand in the City is met through a combination of local groundwater, surface supplies, and imported purchased water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. According to the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City had a water demand of 27,326 AFY. The


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


project is expected to be operational in approximately 2019 and is expected to have a water demand of approximately 11 AFY. In 2020, near the time of project operation, the total water demand for the City is anticipated to be 32,586 AFY. Supply for 2020 is projected to be 32,598 AFY (City of Pasadena 2016). The proposed project would cause an increase in water demand of 0.04% to 0.05% in the City relative to 2015 demand levels. This increase falls within both the demand and supply projections for 2020. As such, adequate sources can serve the proposed project. In addition, there are numerous programs and policies in place at the local and state level that would help reduce the water demand of the project and that are helping to address water supply concerns on a larger scale. For example, the UWMP establishes target demands for the City in gallons per capita per day. The City’s 2015 water demand of 27,326 AFY is equivalent to 148 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The water demand of 148 GPCD in 2015 falls below the interim target demand that the City set for 2015, which was 190 GPCD. It is also below the City’s 2020 target demand, which is 169 GPCD. With implementation of a combination of recycled water projects and additional water conservation measures, PWP is expected to continue achieving its GPCD reduction targets (City of Pasadena 2016). The 2015 UWMP also includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2040. Based on the analysis, the City would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario, single dry-year supply and demand scenario, and multiple dry-year supply and demand scenarios through 2040 with planned water conservation and water supplies. The 2015 UWMP also considers other potential PWP water supply options (additional water conservation measures and stormwater capture methods) that have been identified in the 2011 Water Integrated Resources Plan, which could be implemented in future years on an as-needed basis. Thus, the UWMP accounts for increased demand as growth in the City occurs (City of Pasadena 2016). Over the past several years, PWP has been impacted by several factors that have restricted local and regional water supply. PWP’s groundwater pumping from the Raymond Basin have been curtailed in order to mitigate groundwater depletion experienced over the last half century. With respect to imported supplies, a decade-long drought has reduced the ability to replenish regional groundwater supplies; drought conditions in the American southwest have reduced deliveries of water from the Colorado River, and legal and environmental issues have resulted in reduced water deliveries through the State Water Project. The City accounted for these conditions in the 2011 Water Integrated Resources Plan and 2015 UWMP. As of 2011, MWD lifted allocation restrictions as a result of improvements in Southern California’s water reserves. However, record drought conditions during 2013–2014 prompted the release of the January 2014 Drought Declaration with goals of reducing per capita water consumption by 20%. Further, on May 5, 2015, the SWRCB adopted a Mandatory Water Conservation Regulation that established a requirement for PWP to reduce overall customer water use by 28% from calendar year 2013 levels. With Executive Order B-40-17 in April 2017, Governor Brown lifted the drought declaration and Mandatory Water Conservation Regulation for most of California (including Los Angeles County) and at the same time required the SWRCB to develop permanent prohibitions on wasteful water use. Chapter 13.10 of the City’s Municipal Code, Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plans Ordinance, establishes 13 permanent mandatory restrictions on wasteful water use activities and four levels of water supply shortages with increasingly restrictive measures to address water shortages. Additional water-use restrictions set forth in Section 13.10.060 of the Municipal Code, Additional Water Shortage Measures, have also been implemented, including prohibition of turf irrigation within 48 hours following a measurable precipitation, prohibition of washing hard or paved surfaces using potable water, except to alleviate safety and/or sanitary hazards, and installation of water-efficient fixtures among multifamily properties. There are also statewide water demand reduction requirements such as the 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan, as well as the current work being done by the California Department of Water Resources, the SWRCB, and other state agencies to implement the Governor’s 20X2020 Water Conservation Initiative Program. In summary, although the project would result in an increase in water demand due to the net increase in residential units at the site, the UWMP demonstrates that adequate supply is available to serve the City


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


through the long-range year of 2040. In addition, water conservation measures required by the City and state would further reduce water demand associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be adequately served by available water supplies from existing entitlements and resources and would not require new or expanded entitlements. Thus, upon compliance with existing City requirements, impacts relative to water supplies would be less than significant.

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?

As discussed in Section 20.b of this Initial Study, the proposed project consists of a new multi-family residential building, and would increase the demand for wastewater service at the project site relative to existing conditions. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 6,250 gallons of wastewater per day (Appendix A). This estimated increase to wastewater service demand is negligible in comparison to the wastewater that is generated in the existing service area of the LACSD.16 Wastewater from the City is currently treated at the LACSD’s Whittier Narrows Reclamation Plant, San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, and Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. The design capacities of LACSD’s facilities are based on regional growth forecasts adopted by SCAG. Expansion of LACSD’s facilities must be sized and their service phased in a manner that is consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast. Development of the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the site. Because SCAG growth projections are based in part on growth identified in local General Plans, growth associated with development of the project site based on its General Plan land use designation has been anticipated by the growth forecasts. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the LACSD’s sewer connection fee when the project is connected to a sewer line, which would help ensure adequate operation and maintenance of the wastewater management system. The proposed project would also be subject to a Sewer Facility Charge as specified in Chapter 4.53 of the City’s Municipal Code. Impacts related to the wastewater treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plants that serve the project site would be less than significant.

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

The proposed project would replace the existing 1-unit residential structure on the project site with a 35-unit residential structure. As such, the proposed project would represent a minor increase in solid waste generation in the City. Specifically, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 90 pounds of solid waste per day (Appendix A). Solid waste would be collected by a private hauler and transported primarily to the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which is estimated to be in operation until 2030. The Scholl Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 3,400 tons and a total remaining capacity of 9,900,000 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2017). Because there is adequate remaining capacity to accommodate the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on landfill capacity. Further, the project is located in a developed urban area and within the City's refuse collection area. As such, the project would not result in the need for new or substantially altered systems of solid waste collection and disposal. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

16

The LACSD operates ten water reclamation plants and one ocean discharge facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant), which treat approximately 510 million gallons per day (LACSD 2017).


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

In 1992, the City adopted the "Source Reduction and Recycling Element" to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. This act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through Section 8.61 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, which establishes the City’s “Solid Waste Collection Franchise System.” As described in Section 8.61.175, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 75% for construction and demolition debris and 60% for other solid waste on a monthly and annual basis. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise’s recycling system and would therefore meet local and state solid waste diversion regulations. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Section 8.62 of the Municipal Code), which includes preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan for new structures over 1,000 square feet. As such, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste, and no impacts would occur. 22. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). No program EIR, tiering, or other process was used for analysis of the proposed project’s environmental effects. 23. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, implementation of the mitigation measures from the City’s General Plan would reduce the potential impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant levels, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels. No significant impacts would occur for biological or historic resources; refer to Sections 6 and 7.a, respectively. As such, the proposed project would not potentially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.

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?)


Impact

Significant



Impact

No Impact


As detailed in the above discussions, the proposed project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. In all cases, impacts associated with the project would be limited to the project site or are of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts. For these reasons, the incremental effects of the proposed project would not be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects, and the project’s cumulative impacts would be below a level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

As detailed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project does not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects to human beings, such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, or transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.


ACRONYMS LIST

AB Assembly Bill AFY acre-feet per year AQMP Air Quality Management Plan CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CG General Commercial CH4 methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CL Limited Commercial CMP Congestion Management Program CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CWCP Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan CY cubic yards EAF Environmental Assessment Form EIR environmental impact report EO executive order EOP Emergency Operations Plan FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas GPCD gallons per capita per day GWP global warming potential HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LDN day-night average sound level LID low impact development LOS level of service LST localized significance threshold MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MT metric tons MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NF3 nitrogen trifluoride NIMS National Incident Management System NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment


OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PM Particulate Matter PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PMC Pasadena Municipal Code PPV peak particle velocity PRC California Public Resources Code PUSD Pasadena Unified School District PWP Pasadena Water and Power RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RS Residential Single-Family RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Boards SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SO2 sulfur dioxide SRA Source-Receptor Area SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminants TPA Transit Priority Areas USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C vehicle-to-congestion VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound VT vehicle trips


INITIAL STUDY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS California Department of Education. 2014. Earth Layer – California Schools. 2014. Accessed October 4, 2017.

http://services.gis.ca.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Society/CaliforniaSchools/MapServer. California Health and Safety Code 38505. Greenhouse Gas Definitions. Amended September 4, 2015. California Seismic Safety Commission. 2005. Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety. July 1, 2005.

Accessed October 13, 2017. http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf. CalRecycle. 2017. “Facility/Site Summary Details: Scholl Canyon Landfill (19-AA-0012)” and “Solid Waste

Facility Permit.” Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/19-AA-0012/Detail/.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating

and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.

City of Pasadena. 2002. General Plan Safety Element. City of Pasadena. 2011. Emergency Operations Plan. City of Pasadena. 2012a. SEMS/NIMS Emergency Response Plan. City of Pasadena. 2012b. General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. City of Pasadena. 2013. Community Service Area 2 Map. City of Pasadena. 2014a. Housing Element, 2014–2021. City of Pasadena. 2014b. Resolution No. 9375. Adopted September 22, 2014. City of Pasadena. 2015a. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. City of Pasadena. 2015b. General Plan Land Use Element. City of Pasadena. 2015c. General Plan Mobility Element. City of Pasadena. 2015d. Bicycle Transportation Action Plan. City of Pasadena. 2016. Pasadena Water and Power 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Pasadena. 2017a. Transportation Impact Analysis – Outside of CEQA Analysis. 417 Madison Avenue. City of Pasadena. 2017b. “Low Impact Development (LID).” Code Compliance Webpage. Accessed October

11, 2017. http://cityofpasadena.net/Planning/LID/. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibrations.

Report No. TAV-02-01-R9201. California Department of Transportation; Environmental Program; Environmental Engineering; Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. February 20, 2002. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TRANSPORTATION%20RELATED%20 EARTHBORNE%20VIBRATIONS.pdf.


California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Last updated September 7, 2011. Accessed September 25, 2017. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ 16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.

Caltrans. 2017. California Aviation Facilities. Web Map Application. 2017. Accessed October 6, 2017.

https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 966ebca3d4044e84bb352b98c5a62a35.

CARB. 2016b. “Area Designation Maps/State and National.” Last updated May 5, 2016.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. “Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97.” Sacramento, California: CNRA. December 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_ of_Reasons.pdf.

EFI Global, Inc. (Engineering, Fire Investigations, Environmental Specialty, and Consulting Services). 2016.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report: 417-419 North Madison Avenue Pasadena, California 91101. Prepared for Gemstone Partners, LLC. April 1, 2016.

EPA. 2016. “Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard –

Round 3.” July 22, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/areadesign.pdf. EPA. 2016b. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)” Last updated July 1, 2016.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm.

EPA. 2017a. “EPA Green Book.” Last updated September 30, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/green-book. EPA. 2017b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015 EPA 430-P-17-001. Washington,

D.C.: EPA. April 15, 2017. Accessed July 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06037C1375F Panel

1375 of 2350. Effective date September 26, 2008. Accessed October 16, 2017. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit

Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. May 2006. Geotechnologies, Inc. 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation: Proposed Apartment Building 417 North

Madison Avenue, Pasadena, California. Prepared for Gemstone Partners, LLC. July 13, 2017. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-

Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

LACSD (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County). 2017. “Wastewater Facilities.” Webpage. Accessed

October 16, 2017. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/default.asp. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk

Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Accessed February 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.


Office of Public School Construction. 2009. State of California Enrollment Certification/Projection – School Facility Program. Revised May 2009. Accessed October 10, 2017. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/Forms/SAB_50-01.pdf.

Pasadena Police Department. 2016. Preliminary Monthly Statistical Reports December 2016. PUSD (Pasadena Unified School District). 2017. “School Site Locator.” Accessed October 10, 2017.

http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtcode=19475. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2016. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy - Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix. Adopted April 7, 2016. Accessed October 9, 2017. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SCAQMD. 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air

Pollution. August 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/ Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June 2003; revised July 2008; Appendix

C “Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables” revised October 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15.

September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2015. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Originally published in CEQA Air Quality

Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised March 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2

SCAG. 2016. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted April 7,

2016. Accessed March 2017. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. SCAQMD. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 16, 2017. Accessed October 2017.

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “City of Pasadena.” U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. Webpage. Persons per

household, 2011–2015. Accessed October 9, 2017. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/pasadenacitycalifornia/PST045216.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2017. Federal Highway Administration, America’s Byways/Arroyo

Seco Historic Parkway - Route 110. Accessed September 26, 2017. www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ byways/10246.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper,

Search by Address. Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Wong, J. 2016. “SCAQMD Construction HRA Recommendations” Email from J. Wong (South Coast Air Quality

Management District) to J. Reed (Dudek). December 28, 2016.

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Project Characteristics - See 1.0 Project Characteristics.

Land Use - See 1.1 Land Usage.

Construction Phase - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Off-road Equipment - Demolition - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Off-road Equipment - Grading & Excavation - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Off-road Equipment - BC - Parking Garage - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Off-road Equipment - BC - Residential - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Enclosed Parking with Elevator 65.00 Space 0.00 27,924.00 0

Apartments Mid Rise 35.00 Dwelling Unit 0.72 42,000.00 100

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

12

Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company Pasadena Water & Power

2019Operational Year

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

1664.14 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

417 North Madison Avenue Residential ProjectLos Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/17/2017 3:37 PMPage 1 of 26

417 North Madison Avenue Residential Project - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating - See 3.0 Construction Detail. Default equipment assumptions.

Trips and VMT - See 3.0 Construction Detail. Demolition: 10 haul truck trips associated with existing residence. Additional 102 trips associated with asphalt export.

On-road Fugitive Dust - Default CalEEMod values.

Demolition - See 3.0 Construction Detail. 2,303 SF building to be demolished.

Grading - See 3.0 Construction Detail.

Architectural Coating - Default CalEEMod values.

Vehicle Trips - Default CalEEMod values. The project's Transportaton Impact Analysis - Outside of CEQA Analysis daily trip generation rate is consistent with the default CalEEMod weekday trip rate.

Woodstoves - No fireplaces.

Consumer Products - Default CalEEMod values.

Area Coating - Default CalEEMod values.

Landscape Equipment - Default CalEEMod values.

Energy Use - Default CalEEMod values.

Water And Wastewater - 100% Aerobic. All other values reflect default CalEEMod values.

Solid Waste - Default CalEEMod values.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water Exposed Area, Frequency: 2 times per day.

Waste Mitigation - No mitigation applied.

Vehicle Emission Factors - Default CalEEMod emission factors for 2019.



Road Dust - Default CalEEMod values.

Mobile Commute Mitigation - No mitigation applied.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - No mitigation applied.

Area Mitigation - No mitigation applied.

Energy Mitigation - No mitigation applied.

Water Mitigation - No mitigation applied.



Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 20.00




tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00

tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 0.00

tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberGas 29.75 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 3.50 35.00

tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.75 0.00

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 60.00

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 11,660.00

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 26,000.00 27,924.00


tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.59 0.00


tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00




tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 10.00 112.00

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 8.00 4.00



tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 37.00 26.00




2.0 Emissions Summary


tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00


tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00


tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00


tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.75 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.75 0.00

tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00

tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00



2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year lb/day lb/day

2018 1.2421 19.0144 9.9190 0.0398 2.3504 0.7152 2.8265 0.3752 0.6581 0.8148 0.0000 4,221.4058

4,221.4058

0.5397 0.0000 4,234.8972

2019 14.8978 12.6645 10.5402 0.0187 0.2748 0.7421 1.0168 0.0740 0.6932 0.7673 0.0000 1,854.5655

1,854.5655

0.4036 0.0000 1,864.6570

Maximum 14.8978 19.0144 10.5402 0.0398 2.3504 0.7421 2.8265 0.3752 0.6932 0.8148 0.0000 4,221.4058

4,221.4058

0.5397 0.0000 4,234.8972

Unmitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year lb/day lb/day

2018 1.2421 19.0144 9.9190 0.0398 1.4574 0.7152 1.9334 0.2779 0.6581 0.7176 0.0000 4,221.4058

4,221.4058

0.5397 0.0000 4,234.8972

2019 14.8978 12.6645 10.5402 0.0187 0.2748 0.7421 1.0168 0.0740 0.6932 0.7673 0.0000 1,854.5655

1,854.5655

0.4036 0.0000 1,864.6570

Maximum 14.8978 19.0144 10.5402 0.0398 1.4574 0.7421 1.9334 0.2779 0.6932 0.7673 0.0000 4,221.4058

4,221.4058

0.5397 0.0000 4,234.8972

Mitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.02 0.00 23.24 21.64 0.00 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



2.2 Overall Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category lb/day lb/day

Area 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Energy 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mobile 0.5209 2.5579 6.9980 0.0214 1.6914 0.0254 1.7168 0.4527 0.0239 0.4766 2,167.8347

2,167.8347

0.1294 2,171.0684

Total 1.5373 2.6885 9.9478 0.0221 1.6914 0.0492 1.7406 0.4527 0.0476 0.5004 0.0000 2,296.8955

2,296.8955

0.1369 2.2700e-003

2,300.9938

Unmitigated Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Energy 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mobile 0.5209 2.5579 6.9980 0.0214 1.6914 0.0254 1.7168 0.4527 0.0239 0.4766 2,167.8347

2,167.8347

0.1294 2,171.0684

Total 1.5373 2.6885 9.9478 0.0221 1.6914 0.0492 1.7406 0.4527 0.0476 0.5004 0.0000 2,296.8955

2,296.8955

0.1369 2.2700e-003

2,300.9938

Mitigated Operational



3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Demolition Demolition 2/1/2018 2/14/2018 5 10

2 Grading & Excavation Grading 2/15/2018 4/11/2018 5 40

3 Building Construction - Parking Garage

Building Construction 4/12/2018 6/6/2018 5 40

4 Building Construction - Residential


5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/1/2019 3/28/2019 5 20

OffRoad Equipment


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential Indoor: 85,050; Residential Outdoor: 28,350; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,675 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0



3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40

Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Grading & Excavation Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73

Grading & Excavation Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Grading & Excavation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40

Grading & Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Building Construction - Parking Garage Cranes 0 4.00 231 0.29

Building Construction - Parking Garage Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20

Building Construction - Parking Garage Pumps 1 8.00 84 0.74

Building Construction - Parking Garage Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Building Construction - Residential Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29

Building Construction - Residential Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20

Building Construction - Residential Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 112.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading & Excavation 3 8.00 0.00 1,458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction - Parking Garage

3 26.00 4.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction - Residential


Architectural Coating 1 8.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT



3.2 Demolition - 2018


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.2267 0.0000 0.2267 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.6228 0.6228 0.5943 0.5943 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.2267 0.6228 0.8495 0.0343 0.5943 0.6286 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.1140 3.6679 0.8009 8.9300e-003

0.1958 0.0140 0.2098 0.0537 0.0134 0.0671 964.2787 964.2787 0.0702 966.0324

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0612 0.0462 0.4973 1.1900e-003

0.1118 1.0000e-003

0.1128 0.0296 9.2000e-004

0.0306 118.0576 118.0576 4.4400e-003

118.1687

Total 0.1751 3.7141 1.2982 0.0101 0.3076 0.0150 0.3226 0.0833 0.0143 0.0977 1,082.3363

1,082.3363

0.0746 1,084.2011

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Water Exposed Area





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.1020 0.0000 0.1020 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.6228 0.6228 0.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.1020 0.6228 0.7248 0.0155 0.5943 0.6097 0.0000 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Mitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.1140 3.6679 0.8009 8.9300e-003

0.1958 0.0140 0.2098 0.0537 0.0134 0.0671 964.2787 964.2787 0.0702 966.0324

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0612 0.0462 0.4973 1.1900e-003

0.1118 1.0000e-003

0.1128 0.0296 9.2000e-004

0.0306 118.0576 118.0576 4.4400e-003

118.1687

Total 0.1751 3.7141 1.2982 0.0101 0.3076 0.0150 0.3226 0.0833 0.0143 0.0977 1,082.3363

1,082.3363

0.0746 1,084.2011

Mitigated Construction Off-Site



3.3 Grading & Excavation - 2018


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 1.6237 0.0000 1.6237 0.1768 0.0000 0.1768 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.4296 0.4296 0.3952 0.3952 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443

Total 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

1.6237 0.4296 2.0533 0.1768 0.3952 0.5720 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.3709 11.9370 2.6066 0.0291 0.6373 0.0457 0.6829 0.1747 0.0437 0.2184 3,138.2107

3,138.2107

0.2283 3,143.9180

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0489 0.0369 0.3978 9.5000e-004

0.0894 8.0000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.4000e-004

0.0245 94.4461 94.4461 3.5500e-003

94.5349

Total 0.4199 11.9739 3.0044 0.0300 0.7267 0.0465 0.7732 0.1984 0.0444 0.2428 3,232.6568

3,232.6568

0.2318 3,238.4529






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.7307 0.0000 0.7307 0.0795 0.0000 0.0795 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.4296 0.4296 0.3952 0.3952 0.0000 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443

Total 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.7307 0.4296 1.1603 0.0795 0.3952 0.4748 0.0000 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.3709 11.9370 2.6066 0.0291 0.6373 0.0457 0.6829 0.1747 0.0437 0.2184 3,138.2107

3,138.2107

0.2283 3,143.9180

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0489 0.0369 0.3978 9.5000e-004

0.0894 8.0000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.4000e-004

0.0245 94.4461 94.4461 3.5500e-003

94.5349

Total 0.4199 11.9739 3.0044 0.0300 0.7267 0.0465 0.7732 0.1984 0.0444 0.2428 3,232.6568

3,232.6568

0.2318 3,238.4529




3.4 Building Construction - Parking Garage - 2018


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336

Total 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0192 0.4913 0.1473 1.0300e-003

0.0256 3.5100e-003

0.0291 7.3700e-003

3.3600e-003

0.0107 109.6599 109.6599 7.9100e-003

109.8578

Worker 0.1590 0.1200 1.2929 3.0900e-003

0.2906 2.5900e-003

0.2932 0.0771 2.3900e-003

0.0795 306.9498 306.9498 0.0116 307.2385

Total 0.1782 0.6114 1.4402 4.1200e-003

0.3162 6.1000e-003

0.3223 0.0844 5.7500e-003

0.0902 416.6097 416.6097 0.0195 417.0963






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 0.0000 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336

Total 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 0.0000 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0192 0.4913 0.1473 1.0300e-003

0.0256 3.5100e-003

0.0291 7.3700e-003

3.3600e-003

0.0107 109.6599 109.6599 7.9100e-003

109.8578

Worker 0.1590 0.1200 1.2929 3.0900e-003

0.2906 2.5900e-003

0.2932 0.0771 2.3900e-003

0.0795 306.9498 306.9498 0.0116 307.2385

Total 0.1782 0.6114 1.4402 4.1200e-003

0.3162 6.1000e-003

0.3223 0.0844 5.7500e-003

0.0902 416.6097 416.6097 0.0195 417.0963




3.5 Building Construction - Residential - 2018


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555

Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0288 0.7370 0.2210 1.5400e-003

0.0384 5.2600e-003

0.0437 0.0111 5.0400e-003

0.0161 164.4899 164.4899 0.0119 164.7866

Worker 0.0734 0.0554 0.5967 1.4200e-003

0.1341 1.2000e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.1000e-003

0.0367 141.6691 141.6691 5.3300e-003

141.8024

Total 0.1021 0.7924 0.8177 2.9600e-003

0.1725 6.4600e-003

0.1790 0.0466 6.1400e-003

0.0528 306.1590 306.1590 0.0172 306.5890






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555

Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0288 0.7370 0.2210 1.5400e-003

0.0384 5.2600e-003

0.0437 0.0111 5.0400e-003

0.0161 164.4899 164.4899 0.0119 164.7866

Worker 0.0734 0.0554 0.5967 1.4200e-003

0.1341 1.2000e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.1000e-003

0.0367 141.6691 141.6691 5.3300e-003

141.8024

Total 0.1021 0.7924 0.8177 2.9600e-003

0.1725 6.4600e-003

0.1790 0.0466 6.1400e-003

0.0528 306.1590 306.1590 0.0172 306.5890






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892

Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0260 0.6953 0.2031 1.5300e-003

0.0384 4.5000e-003

0.0429 0.0111 4.3000e-003

0.0154 162.7663 162.7663 0.0114 163.0521

Worker 0.0665 0.0488 0.5310 1.3800e-003

0.1341 1.1600e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.0700e-003

0.0366 137.0557 137.0557 4.7100e-003

137.1736

Total 0.0925 0.7441 0.7341 2.9100e-003

0.1725 5.6600e-003

0.1782 0.0466 5.3700e-003

0.0520 299.8220 299.8220 0.0161 300.2257






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892

Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0260 0.6953 0.2031 1.5300e-003

0.0384 4.5000e-003

0.0429 0.0111 4.3000e-003

0.0154 162.7663 162.7663 0.0114 163.0521

Worker 0.0665 0.0488 0.5310 1.3800e-003

0.1341 1.1600e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.0700e-003

0.0366 137.0557 137.0557 4.7100e-003

137.1736

Total 0.0925 0.7441 0.7341 2.9100e-003

0.1725 5.6600e-003

0.1782 0.0466 5.3700e-003

0.0520 299.8220 299.8220 0.0161 300.2257




3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 13.5284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423

Total 13.7949 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.6700e-003

0.2318 0.0677 5.1000e-004

0.0128 1.5000e-003

0.0143 3.6900e-003

1.4300e-003

5.1200e-003

54.2554 54.2554 3.8100e-003

54.3507

Worker 0.0443 0.0325 0.3540 9.2000e-004

0.0894 7.7000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.1000e-004

0.0244 91.3705 91.3705 3.1400e-003

91.4491

Total 0.0530 0.2643 0.4217 1.4300e-003

0.1022 2.2700e-003

0.1045 0.0274 2.1400e-003

0.0296 145.6259 145.6259 6.9500e-003

145.7998




4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 13.5284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423

Total 13.7949 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.6700e-003

0.2318 0.0677 5.1000e-004

0.0128 1.5000e-003

0.0143 3.6900e-003

1.4300e-003

5.1200e-003

54.2554 54.2554 3.8100e-003

54.3507

Worker 0.0443 0.0325 0.3540 9.2000e-004

0.0894 7.7000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.1000e-004

0.0244 91.3705 91.3705 3.1400e-003

91.4491

Total 0.0530 0.2643 0.4217 1.4300e-003

0.1022 2.2700e-003

0.1045 0.0274 2.1400e-003

0.0296 145.6259 145.6259 6.9500e-003

145.7998





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.5209 2.5579 6.9980 0.0214 1.6914 0.0254 1.7168 0.4527 0.0239 0.4766 2,167.8347

2,167.8347

0.1294 2,171.0684

Unmitigated 0.5209 2.5579 6.9980 0.0214 1.6914 0.0254 1.7168 0.4527 0.0239 0.4766 2,167.8347

2,167.8347

0.1294 2,171.0684

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Apartments Mid Rise 232.75 223.65 205.10 777,402 777,402

Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 232.75 223.65 205.10 777,402 777,402

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3

Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix



5.0 Energy Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

Apartments Mid Rise 0.548007 0.045751 0.200309 0.124119 0.017133 0.006025 0.018861 0.028423 0.002391 0.002469 0.004915 0.000672 0.000925

Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.548007 0.045751 0.200309 0.124119 0.017133 0.006025 0.018861 0.028423 0.002391 0.002469 0.004915 0.000672 0.000925

Historical Energy Use: N



6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Apartments Mid Rise

1052.7 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Enclosed Parking with Elevator

0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Apartments Mid Rise

1.0527 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mitigated




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Unmitigated 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

6.2 Area by SubCategory


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural Coating

0.0741 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.8415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0895 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

5.3421

Total 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Unmitigated



8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




0.0741 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.8415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0895 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

5.3421

Total 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment



11.0 Vegetation

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number











1.1 Land Usage





Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

12









417 North Madison Avenue Residential ProjectLos Angeles-South Coast County, Summer


417 North Madison Avenue Residential Project - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer







































































2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year lb/day lb/day

2018 1.2307 18.8495 10.0170 0.0404 2.3504 0.7151 2.8256 0.3752 0.6581 0.8140 0.0000 4,280.6593

4,280.6593

0.5313 0.0000 4,293.9415

2019 14.8856 12.6554 10.5945 0.0189 0.2748 0.7420 1.0167 0.0740 0.6931 0.7672 0.0000 1,874.7599

1,874.7599

0.4032 0.0000 1,884.8395

Maximum 14.8856 18.8495 10.5945 0.0404 2.3504 0.7420 2.8256 0.3752 0.6931 0.8140 0.0000 4,280.6593

4,280.6593

0.5313 0.0000 4,293.9415



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year lb/day lb/day

2018 1.2307 18.8495 10.0170 0.0404 1.4574 0.7151 1.9326 0.2779 0.6581 0.7168 0.0000 4,280.6593

4,280.6593

0.5313 0.0000 4,293.9415

2019 14.8856 12.6554 10.5945 0.0189 0.2748 0.7420 1.0167 0.0740 0.6931 0.7672 0.0000 1,874.7599

1,874.7599

0.4032 0.0000 1,884.8395

Maximum 14.8856 18.8495 10.5945 0.0404 1.4574 0.7420 1.9326 0.2779 0.6931 0.7672 0.0000 4,280.6593

4,280.6593

0.5313 0.0000 4,293.9415



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.02 0.00 23.24 21.64 0.00 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Energy 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mobile 0.5342 2.4828 7.3578 0.0225 1.6914 0.0253 1.7167 0.4527 0.0237 0.4765 2,279.1704

2,279.1704

0.1302 2,282.4248

Total 1.5507 2.6135 10.3076 0.0232 1.6914 0.0490 1.7404 0.4527 0.0475 0.5002 0.0000 2,408.2312

2,408.2312

0.1377 2.2700e-003

2,412.3502



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Energy 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mobile 0.5342 2.4828 7.3578 0.0225 1.6914 0.0253 1.7167 0.4527 0.0237 0.4765 2,279.1704

2,279.1704

0.1302 2,282.4248

Total 1.5507 2.6135 10.3076 0.0232 1.6914 0.0490 1.7404 0.4527 0.0475 0.5002 0.0000 2,408.2312

2,408.2312

0.1377 2.2700e-003

2,412.3502





Construction Phase

Phase Number










OffRoad Equipment


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Acres of Paving: 0




















Trips and VMT


Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length















Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.2267 0.0000 0.2267 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.6228 0.6228 0.5943 0.5943 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.2267 0.6228 0.8495 0.0343 0.5943 0.6286 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.1112 3.6183 0.7487 9.0800e-003

0.1958 0.0138 0.2096 0.0537 0.0132 0.0668 980.6883 980.6883 0.0675 982.3761

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0553 0.0417 0.5401 1.2600e-003

0.1118 1.0000e-003

0.1128 0.0296 9.2000e-004

0.0306 125.3690 125.3690 4.7000e-003

125.4865

Total 0.1664 3.6600 1.2888 0.0103 0.3076 0.0148 0.3224 0.0833 0.0141 0.0974 1,106.0573

1,106.0573

0.0722 1,107.8627


Water Exposed Area





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.1020 0.0000 0.1020 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.6228 0.6228 0.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857

Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.1020 0.6228 0.7248 0.0155 0.5943 0.6097 0.0000 1,169.3502

1,169.3502

0.2254 1,174.9857



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.1112 3.6183 0.7487 9.0800e-003

0.1958 0.0138 0.2096 0.0537 0.0132 0.0668 980.6883 980.6883 0.0675 982.3761

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0553 0.0417 0.5401 1.2600e-003

0.1118 1.0000e-003

0.1128 0.0296 9.2000e-004

0.0306 125.3690 125.3690 4.7000e-003

125.4865

Total 0.1664 3.6600 1.2888 0.0103 0.3076 0.0148 0.3224 0.0833 0.0141 0.0974 1,106.0573

1,106.0573

0.0722 1,107.8627






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 1.6237 0.0000 1.6237 0.1768 0.0000 0.1768 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.4296 0.4296 0.3952 0.3952 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443

Total 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

1.6237 0.4296 2.0533 0.1768 0.3952 0.5720 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.3618 11.7757 2.4366 0.0295 0.6373 0.0448 0.6821 0.1747 0.0429 0.2175 3,191.6151

3,191.6151

0.2197 3,197.1080

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0442 0.0334 0.4321 1.0100e-003

0.0894 8.0000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.4000e-004

0.0245 100.2952 100.2952 3.7600e-003

100.3892

Total 0.4060 11.8090 2.8686 0.0306 0.7267 0.0456 0.7723 0.1984 0.0436 0.2420 3,291.9103

3,291.9103

0.2235 3,297.4972






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.7307 0.0000 0.7307 0.0795 0.0000 0.0795 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.4296 0.4296 0.3952 0.3952 0.0000 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443

Total 0.6883 7.0405 6.7807 9.8300e-003

0.7307 0.4296 1.1603 0.0795 0.3952 0.4748 0.0000 988.7490 988.7490 0.3078 996.4443



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.3618 11.7757 2.4366 0.0295 0.6373 0.0448 0.6821 0.1747 0.0429 0.2175 3,191.6151

3,191.6151

0.2197 3,197.1080

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0442 0.0334 0.4321 1.0100e-003

0.0894 8.0000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.4000e-004

0.0245 100.2952 100.2952 3.7600e-003

100.3892

Total 0.4060 11.8090 2.8686 0.0306 0.7267 0.0456 0.7723 0.1984 0.0436 0.2420 3,291.9103

3,291.9103

0.2235 3,297.4972






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336

Total 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0184 0.4902 0.1340 1.0600e-003

0.0256 3.4500e-003

0.0291 7.3700e-003

3.3000e-003

0.0107 112.6718 112.6718 7.4200e-003

112.8572

Worker 0.1436 0.1084 1.4042 3.2800e-003

0.2906 2.5900e-003

0.2932 0.0771 2.3900e-003

0.0795 325.9594 325.9594 0.0122 326.2650

Total 0.1620 0.5986 1.5382 4.3400e-003

0.3162 6.0400e-003

0.3223 0.0844 5.6900e-003

0.0901 438.6311 438.6311 0.0197 439.1222






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 0.0000 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336

Total 1.0639 9.4342 8.4787 0.0128 0.6489 0.6489 0.6191 0.6191 0.0000 1,248.5865

1,248.5865

0.2419 1,254.6336



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0184 0.4902 0.1340 1.0600e-003

0.0256 3.4500e-003

0.0291 7.3700e-003

3.3000e-003

0.0107 112.6718 112.6718 7.4200e-003

112.8572

Worker 0.1436 0.1084 1.4042 3.2800e-003

0.2906 2.5900e-003

0.2932 0.0771 2.3900e-003

0.0795 325.9594 325.9594 0.0122 326.2650

Total 0.1620 0.5986 1.5382 4.3400e-003

0.3162 6.0400e-003

0.3223 0.0844 5.6900e-003

0.0901 438.6311 438.6311 0.0197 439.1222






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555

Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0276 0.7354 0.2011 1.5900e-003

0.0384 5.1800e-003

0.0436 0.0111 4.9600e-003

0.0160 169.0077 169.0077 0.0111 169.2859

Worker 0.0663 0.0500 0.6481 1.5100e-003

0.1341 1.2000e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.1000e-003

0.0367 150.4428 150.4428 5.6400e-003

150.5839

Total 0.0939 0.7854 0.8492 3.1000e-003

0.1725 6.3800e-003

0.1789 0.0466 6.0600e-003

0.0527 319.4504 319.4504 0.0168 319.8697






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555

Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.0114 0.7087 0.7087 0.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.5323

1,146.5323

0.3569 1,155.4555



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0276 0.7354 0.2011 1.5900e-003

0.0384 5.1800e-003

0.0436 0.0111 4.9600e-003

0.0160 169.0077 169.0077 0.0111 169.2859

Worker 0.0663 0.0500 0.6481 1.5100e-003

0.1341 1.2000e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.1000e-003

0.0367 150.4428 150.4428 5.6400e-003

150.5839

Total 0.0939 0.7854 0.8492 3.1000e-003

0.1725 6.3800e-003

0.1789 0.0466 6.0600e-003

0.0527 319.4504 319.4504 0.0168 319.8697






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892

Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0249 0.6944 0.1843 1.5700e-003

0.0384 4.4300e-003

0.0428 0.0111 4.2300e-003

0.0153 167.2888 167.2888 0.0107 167.5568

Worker 0.0600 0.0441 0.5786 1.4600e-003

0.1341 1.1600e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.0700e-003

0.0366 145.5544 145.5544 5.0000e-003

145.6793

Total 0.0849 0.7384 0.7629 3.0300e-003

0.1725 5.5900e-003

0.1781 0.0466 5.3000e-003

0.0519 312.8431 312.8431 0.0157 313.2361






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892

Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.0114 0.6054 0.6054 0.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.6696

1,127.6696

0.3568 1,136.5892



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0249 0.6944 0.1843 1.5700e-003

0.0384 4.4300e-003

0.0428 0.0111 4.2300e-003

0.0153 167.2888 167.2888 0.0107 167.5568

Worker 0.0600 0.0441 0.5786 1.4600e-003

0.1341 1.1600e-003

0.1353 0.0356 1.0700e-003

0.0366 145.5544 145.5544 5.0000e-003

145.6793

Total 0.0849 0.7384 0.7629 3.0300e-003

0.1725 5.5900e-003

0.1781 0.0466 5.3000e-003

0.0519 312.8431 312.8431 0.0157 313.2361






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 13.5284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423

Total 13.7949 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.3100e-003

0.2315 0.0614 5.2000e-004

0.0128 1.4800e-003

0.0143 3.6900e-003

1.4100e-003

5.1000e-003

55.7629 55.7629 3.5700e-003

55.8523

Worker 0.0400 0.0294 0.3857 9.7000e-004

0.0894 7.7000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.1000e-004

0.0244 97.0362 97.0362 3.3300e-003

97.1196

Total 0.0483 0.2608 0.4472 1.4900e-003

0.1022 2.2500e-003

0.1045 0.0274 2.1200e-003

0.0295 152.7992 152.7992 6.9000e-003

152.9718







Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 13.5284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423

Total 13.7949 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-003

0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.3100e-003

0.2315 0.0614 5.2000e-004

0.0128 1.4800e-003

0.0143 3.6900e-003

1.4100e-003

5.1000e-003

55.7629 55.7629 3.5700e-003

55.8523

Worker 0.0400 0.0294 0.3857 9.7000e-004

0.0894 7.7000e-004

0.0902 0.0237 7.1000e-004

0.0244 97.0362 97.0362 3.3300e-003

97.1196

Total 0.0483 0.2608 0.4472 1.4900e-003

0.1022 2.2500e-003

0.1045 0.0274 2.1200e-003

0.0295 152.7992 152.7992 6.9000e-003

152.9718





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.5342 2.4828 7.3578 0.0225 1.6914 0.0253 1.7167 0.4527 0.0237 0.4765 2,279.1704

2,279.1704

0.1302 2,282.4248

Unmitigated 0.5342 2.4828 7.3578 0.0225 1.6914 0.0253 1.7167 0.4527 0.0237 0.4765 2,279.1704

2,279.1704

0.1302 2,282.4248








Total 232.75 223.65 205.10 777,402 777,402





4.4 Fleet Mix



5.0 Energy Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833


0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833









6.0 Area Detail


NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Apartments Mid Rise

1052.7 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Apartments Mid Rise

1.0527 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0114 0.0970 0.0413 6.2000e-004

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

7.8400e-003

123.8473 123.8473 2.3700e-003

2.2700e-003

124.5833

Mitigated




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Unmitigated 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




0.0741 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.8415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0895 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

5.3421

Total 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Unmitigated





7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




0.0741 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.8415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0895 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

5.3421

Total 1.0051 0.0337 2.9086 1.5000e-004

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0000 5.2136 5.2136 5.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3421

Mitigated






11.0 Vegetation



Boilers














1.1 Land Usage





Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

12









417 North Madison Avenue Residential ProjectLos Angeles-South Coast County, Annual


417 North Madison Avenue Residential Project - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual







































































2.1 Overall Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2018 0.1399 1.5284 1.0727 2.3200e-003

0.0681 0.0787 0.1468 0.0131 0.0730 0.0861 0.0000 215.6405 215.6405 0.0409 0.0000 216.6628

2019 0.1635 0.2750 0.2215 3.9000e-004

5.0700e-003

0.0160 0.0210 1.3700e-003

0.0148 0.0162 0.0000 35.0828 35.0828 8.3900e-003

0.0000 35.2926

Maximum 0.1635 1.5284 1.0727 2.3200e-003

0.0681 0.0787 0.1468 0.0131 0.0730 0.0861 0.0000 215.6405 215.6405 0.0409 0.0000 216.6628



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2018 0.1399 1.5284 1.0727 2.3200e-003

0.0496 0.0787 0.1284 0.0110 0.0730 0.0841 0.0000 215.6403 215.6403 0.0409 0.0000 216.6627

2019 0.1635 0.2750 0.2215 3.9000e-004

5.0700e-003

0.0160 0.0210 1.3700e-003

0.0148 0.0162 0.0000 35.0828 35.0828 8.3900e-003

0.0000 35.2925

Maximum 0.1635 1.5284 1.0727 2.3200e-003

0.0496 0.0787 0.1284 0.0110 0.0730 0.0841 0.0000 215.6403 215.6403 0.0409 0.0000 216.6627



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.26 0.00 11.01 14.13 0.00 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Energy 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 251.1171 251.1171 4.4100e-003

1.2100e-003

251.5872

Mobile 0.0905 0.4637 1.2626 3.8500e-003

0.2951 4.5000e-003

0.2996 0.0791 4.2300e-003

0.0833 0.0000 354.7487 354.7487 0.0208 0.0000 355.2693

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2682 0.0000 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8068 34.4699 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

Total 0.2709 0.4857 1.6337 3.9800e-003

0.2951 7.9200e-003

0.3030 0.0791 7.6500e-003

0.0868 4.0750 640.9270 645.0019 0.2223 3.0900e-003

651.4801


Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

2 12-20-2017 3-19-2018 0.3091 0.3091

3 3-20-2018 6-19-2018 0.4501 0.4501

4 6-20-2018 9-19-2018 0.4270 0.4270

5 9-20-2018 12-19-2018 0.4228 0.4228

6 12-20-2018 3-19-2019 0.4378 0.4378

7 3-20-2019 6-19-2019 0.0513 0.0513

Highest 0.4501 0.4501





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Energy 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 251.1171 251.1171 4.4100e-003

1.2100e-003

251.5872

Mobile 0.0905 0.4637 1.2626 3.8500e-003

0.2951 4.5000e-003

0.2996 0.0791 4.2300e-003

0.0833 0.0000 354.7487 354.7487 0.0208 0.0000 355.2693

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2682 0.0000 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8068 34.4699 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

Total 0.2709 0.4857 1.6337 3.9800e-003

0.2951 7.9200e-003

0.3030 0.0791 7.6500e-003

0.0868 4.0750 640.9270 645.0019 0.2223 3.0900e-003

651.4801



Construction Phase


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Phase Number










OffRoad Equipment




Acres of Paving: 0




















Trips and VMT


Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length















Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 1.1300e-003

0.0000 1.1300e-003

1.7000e-004

0.0000 1.7000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 5.3200e-003

0.0472 0.0389 6.0000e-005

3.1100e-003

3.1100e-003

2.9700e-003

2.9700e-003

0.0000 5.3041 5.3041 1.0200e-003

0.0000 5.3297

Total 5.3200e-003

0.0472 0.0389 6.0000e-005

1.1300e-003

3.1100e-003

4.2400e-003

1.7000e-004

2.9700e-003

3.1400e-003

0.0000 5.3041 5.3041 1.0200e-003

0.0000 5.3297



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 5.6000e-004

0.0187 3.8600e-003

5.0000e-005

9.6000e-004

7.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

2.6000e-004

7.0000e-005

3.3000e-004

0.0000 4.4171 4.4171 3.1000e-004

0.0000 4.4249

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.8000e-004

2.4000e-004

2.5500e-003

1.0000e-005

5.5000e-004

0.0000 5.5000e-004

1.5000e-004

0.0000 1.5000e-004

0.0000 0.5444 0.5444 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5449

Total 8.4000e-004

0.0189 6.4100e-003

6.0000e-005

1.5100e-003

7.0000e-005

1.5800e-003

4.1000e-004

7.0000e-005

4.8000e-004

0.0000 4.9615 4.9615 3.3000e-004

0.0000 4.9698


Water Exposed Area





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 5.1000e-004

0.0000 5.1000e-004

8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


0.0472 0.0389 6.0000e-005

3.1100e-003

3.1100e-003

2.9700e-003

2.9700e-003

0.0000 5.3041 5.3041 1.0200e-003

0.0000 5.3296

Total 5.3200e-003

0.0472 0.0389 6.0000e-005

5.1000e-004

3.1100e-003

3.6200e-003

8.0000e-005

2.9700e-003

3.0500e-003

0.0000 5.3041 5.3041 1.0200e-003

0.0000 5.3296



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 5.6000e-004

0.0187 3.8600e-003

5.0000e-005

9.6000e-004

7.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

2.6000e-004

7.0000e-005

3.3000e-004

0.0000 4.4171 4.4171 3.1000e-004

0.0000 4.4249

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.8000e-004

2.4000e-004

2.5500e-003

1.0000e-005

5.5000e-004

0.0000 5.5000e-004

1.5000e-004

0.0000 1.5000e-004

0.0000 0.5444 0.5444 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5449

Total 8.4000e-004

0.0189 6.4100e-003

6.0000e-005

1.5100e-003

7.0000e-005

1.5800e-003

4.1000e-004

7.0000e-005

4.8000e-004

0.0000 4.9615 4.9615 3.3000e-004

0.0000 4.9698






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.0325 0.0000 0.0325 3.5400e-003

0.0000 3.5400e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0138 0.1408 0.1356 2.0000e-004

8.5900e-003

8.5900e-003

7.9000e-003

7.9000e-003

0.0000 17.9396 17.9396 5.5800e-003

0.0000 18.0792

Total 0.0138 0.1408 0.1356 2.0000e-004

0.0325 8.5900e-003

0.0411 3.5400e-003

7.9000e-003

0.0114 0.0000 17.9396 17.9396 5.5800e-003

0.0000 18.0792



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 7.3100e-003

0.2435 0.0502 5.9000e-004

0.0125 9.0000e-004

0.0134 3.4400e-003

8.6000e-004

4.3000e-003

0.0000 57.5007 57.5007 4.0600e-003

0.0000 57.6021

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 8.9000e-004

7.6000e-004

8.1600e-003

2.0000e-005

1.7500e-003

2.0000e-005

1.7700e-003

4.7000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.8000e-004

0.0000 1.7421 1.7421 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.7437

Total 8.2000e-003

0.2442 0.0584 6.1000e-004

0.0143 9.2000e-004

0.0152 3.9100e-003

8.7000e-004

4.7800e-003

0.0000 59.2428 59.2428 4.1300e-003

0.0000 59.3458






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.0146 0.0000 0.0146 1.5900e-003

0.0000 1.5900e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0138 0.1408 0.1356 2.0000e-004

8.5900e-003

8.5900e-003

7.9000e-003

7.9000e-003

0.0000 17.9395 17.9395 5.5800e-003

0.0000 18.0792

Total 0.0138 0.1408 0.1356 2.0000e-004

0.0146 8.5900e-003

0.0232 1.5900e-003

7.9000e-003

9.4900e-003

0.0000 17.9395 17.9395 5.5800e-003

0.0000 18.0792



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 7.3100e-003

0.2435 0.0502 5.9000e-004

0.0125 9.0000e-004

0.0134 3.4400e-003

8.6000e-004

4.3000e-003

0.0000 57.5007 57.5007 4.0600e-003

0.0000 57.6021

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 8.9000e-004

7.6000e-004

8.1600e-003

2.0000e-005

1.7500e-003

2.0000e-005

1.7700e-003

4.7000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.8000e-004

0.0000 1.7421 1.7421 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.7437

Total 8.2000e-003

0.2442 0.0584 6.1000e-004

0.0143 9.2000e-004

0.0152 3.9100e-003

8.7000e-004

4.7800e-003

0.0000 59.2428 59.2428 4.1300e-003

0.0000 59.3458






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0213 0.1887 0.1696 2.6000e-004

0.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 22.6540 22.6540 4.3900e-003

0.0000 22.7637

Total 0.0213 0.1887 0.1696 2.6000e-004

0.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 22.6540 22.6540 4.3900e-003

0.0000 22.7637



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 3.7000e-004

0.0100 2.8200e-003

2.0000e-005

5.0000e-004

7.0000e-005

5.7000e-004

1.5000e-004

7.0000e-005

2.1000e-004

0.0000 2.0213 2.0213 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.0248

Worker 2.8800e-003

2.4600e-003

0.0265 6.0000e-005

5.7000e-003

5.0000e-005

5.7500e-003

1.5100e-003

5.0000e-005

1.5600e-003

0.0000 5.6617 5.6617 2.1000e-004

0.0000 5.6671

Total 3.2500e-003

0.0125 0.0293 8.0000e-005

6.2000e-003

1.2000e-004

6.3200e-003

1.6600e-003

1.2000e-004

1.7700e-003

0.0000 7.6831 7.6831 3.5000e-004

0.0000 7.6919






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0213 0.1887 0.1696 2.6000e-004

0.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 22.6540 22.6540 4.3900e-003

0.0000 22.7637

Total 0.0213 0.1887 0.1696 2.6000e-004

0.0130 0.0130 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 22.6540 22.6540 4.3900e-003

0.0000 22.7637



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 3.7000e-004

0.0100 2.8200e-003

2.0000e-005

5.0000e-004

7.0000e-005

5.7000e-004

1.5000e-004

7.0000e-005

2.1000e-004

0.0000 2.0213 2.0213 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.0248

Worker 2.8800e-003

2.4600e-003

0.0265 6.0000e-005

5.7000e-003

5.0000e-005

5.7500e-003

1.5100e-003

5.0000e-005

1.5600e-003

0.0000 5.6617 5.6617 2.1000e-004

0.0000 5.6671

Total 3.2500e-003

0.0125 0.0293 8.0000e-005

6.2000e-003

1.2000e-004

6.3200e-003

1.6600e-003

1.2000e-004

1.7700e-003

0.0000 7.6831 7.6831 3.5000e-004

0.0000 7.6919






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0803 0.8163 0.5736 8.4000e-004

0.0524 0.0524 0.0483 0.0483 0.0000 76.9686 76.9686 0.0240 0.0000 77.5677

Total 0.0803 0.8163 0.5736 8.4000e-004

0.0524 0.0524 0.0483 0.0483 0.0000 76.9686 76.9686 0.0240 0.0000 77.5677



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 2.0800e-003

0.0556 0.0156 1.2000e-004

2.8000e-003

3.9000e-004

3.1800e-003

8.1000e-004

3.7000e-004

1.1800e-003

0.0000 11.2184 11.2184 7.7000e-004

0.0000 11.2376

Worker 4.9200e-003

4.2100e-003

0.0453 1.1000e-004

9.7300e-003

9.0000e-005

9.8200e-003

2.5800e-003

8.0000e-005

2.6700e-003

0.0000 9.6685 9.6685 3.6000e-004

0.0000 9.6776

Total 7.0000e-003

0.0598 0.0609 2.3000e-004

0.0125 4.8000e-004

0.0130 3.3900e-003

4.5000e-004

3.8500e-003

0.0000 20.8869 20.8869 1.1300e-003

0.0000 20.9152






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0803 0.8163 0.5736 8.4000e-004

0.0524 0.0524 0.0483 0.0483 0.0000 76.9685 76.9685 0.0240 0.0000 77.5676

Total 0.0803 0.8163 0.5736 8.4000e-004

0.0524 0.0524 0.0483 0.0483 0.0000 76.9685 76.9685 0.0240 0.0000 77.5676



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 2.0800e-003

0.0556 0.0156 1.2000e-004

2.8000e-003

3.9000e-004

3.1800e-003

8.1000e-004

3.7000e-004

1.1800e-003

0.0000 11.2184 11.2184 7.7000e-004

0.0000 11.2376

Worker 4.9200e-003

4.2100e-003

0.0453 1.1000e-004

9.7300e-003

9.0000e-005

9.8200e-003

2.5800e-003

8.0000e-005

2.6700e-003

0.0000 9.6685 9.6685 3.6000e-004

0.0000 9.6776

Total 7.0000e-003

0.0598 0.0609 2.3000e-004

0.0125 4.8000e-004

0.0130 3.3900e-003

4.5000e-004

3.8500e-003

0.0000 20.8869 20.8869 1.1300e-003

0.0000 20.9152






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0230 0.2357 0.1810 2.7000e-004

0.0145 0.0145 0.0134 0.0134 0.0000 24.5521 24.5521 7.7700e-003

0.0000 24.7463

Total 0.0230 0.2357 0.1810 2.7000e-004

0.0145 0.0145 0.0134 0.0134 0.0000 24.5521 24.5521 7.7700e-003

0.0000 24.7463



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 6.1000e-004

0.0170 4.6500e-003

4.0000e-005

9.1000e-004

1.1000e-004

1.0100e-003

2.6000e-004

1.0000e-004

3.6000e-004

0.0000 3.6009 3.6009 2.4000e-004

0.0000 3.6069

Worker 1.4400e-003

1.2000e-003

0.0131 3.0000e-005

3.1600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.1800e-003

8.4000e-004

3.0000e-005

8.6000e-004

0.0000 3.0337 3.0337 1.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0363

Total 2.0500e-003

0.0182 0.0177 7.0000e-005

4.0700e-003

1.4000e-004

4.1900e-003

1.1000e-003

1.3000e-004

1.2200e-003

0.0000 6.6346 6.6346 3.4000e-004

0.0000 6.6432






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0230 0.2357 0.1810 2.7000e-004

0.0145 0.0145 0.0134 0.0134 0.0000 24.5521 24.5521 7.7700e-003

0.0000 24.7463

Total 0.0230 0.2357 0.1810 2.7000e-004

0.0145 0.0145 0.0134 0.0134 0.0000 24.5521 24.5521 7.7700e-003

0.0000 24.7463



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 6.1000e-004

0.0170 4.6500e-003

4.0000e-005

9.1000e-004

1.1000e-004

1.0100e-003

2.6000e-004

1.0000e-004

3.6000e-004

0.0000 3.6009 3.6009 2.4000e-004

0.0000 3.6069

Worker 1.4400e-003

1.2000e-003

0.0131 3.0000e-005

3.1600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.1800e-003

8.4000e-004

3.0000e-005

8.6000e-004

0.0000 3.0337 3.0337 1.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0363

Total 2.0500e-003

0.0182 0.0177 7.0000e-005

4.0700e-003

1.4000e-004

4.1900e-003

1.1000e-003

1.3000e-004

1.2200e-003

0.0000 6.6346 6.6346 3.4000e-004

0.0000 6.6432






Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 0.1353 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e-005

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.5587

Total 0.1379 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e-005

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.5587



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.0000e-005

2.3600e-003

6.5000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.4000e-004

4.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

5.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5001 0.5001 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5010

Worker 4.0000e-004

3.3000e-004

3.6300e-003

1.0000e-005

8.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

8.8000e-004

2.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

2.4000e-004

0.0000 0.8427 0.8427 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.8434

Total 4.8000e-004

2.6900e-003

4.2800e-003

2.0000e-005

1.0100e-003

2.0000e-005

1.0200e-003

2.7000e-004

2.0000e-005

2.9000e-004

0.0000 1.3428 1.3428 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.3444







Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 0.1353 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e-005

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.5586

Total 0.1379 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e-005

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

1.2900e-003

0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e-004

0.0000 2.5586



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 8.0000e-005

2.3600e-003

6.5000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.4000e-004

4.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

5.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5001 0.5001 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.5010

Worker 4.0000e-004

3.3000e-004

3.6300e-003

1.0000e-005

8.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

8.8000e-004

2.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

2.4000e-004

0.0000 0.8427 0.8427 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.8434

Total 4.8000e-004

2.6900e-003

4.2800e-003

2.0000e-005

1.0100e-003

2.0000e-005

1.0200e-003

2.7000e-004

2.0000e-005

2.9000e-004

0.0000 1.3428 1.3428 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.3444





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.0905 0.4637 1.2626 3.8500e-003

0.2951 4.5000e-003

0.2996 0.0791 4.2300e-003

0.0833 0.0000 354.7487 354.7487 0.0208 0.0000 355.2693

Unmitigated 0.0905 0.4637 1.2626 3.8500e-003

0.2951 4.5000e-003

0.2996 0.0791 4.2300e-003

0.0833 0.0000 354.7487 354.7487 0.0208 0.0000 355.2693








Total 232.75 223.65 205.10 777,402 777,402





4.4 Fleet Mix



5.0 Energy Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Electricity Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 230.6128 230.6128 4.0200e-003

8.3000e-004

230.9611

Electricity Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 230.6128 230.6128 4.0200e-003

8.3000e-004

230.9611


2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262


2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262









NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

384236 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

384236 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.0700e-003

0.0177 7.5300e-003

1.1000e-004

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

1.4300e-003

0.0000 20.5043 20.5043 3.9000e-004

3.8000e-004

20.6262

Mitigated




6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

141877 107.0946 1.8700e-003

3.9000e-004

107.2564


163635 123.5182 2.1500e-003

4.5000e-004

123.7047

Total 230.6128 4.0200e-003

8.4000e-004

230.9611

Unmitigated

Electricity Use


Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

141877 107.0946 1.8700e-003

3.9000e-004

107.2564


163635 123.5182 2.1500e-003

4.5000e-004

123.7047

Total 230.6128 4.0200e-003

8.4000e-004

230.9611

Mitigated




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Unmitigated 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.1536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0112 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Total 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Unmitigated




7.0 Water Detail



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.1536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0112 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Total 0.1783 4.2100e-003

0.3636 2.0000e-005

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

1.9900e-003

0.0000 0.5912 0.5912 5.8000e-004

0.0000 0.6058

Mitigated




Category MT/yr

Mitigated 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

Unmitigated 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

2.28039 / 1.43764

35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211


0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

Unmitigated




7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

2.28039 / 1.43764

35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211


0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 35.2767 3.3800e-003

1.8800e-003

35.9211

Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail


MT/yr

Mitigated 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Unmitigated 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Category/Year



8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

16.1 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Unmitigated

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr

Apartments Mid Rise

16.1 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 3.2682 0.1931 0.0000 8.0967

Mitigated





11.0 Vegetation




Boilers






APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES

MEMORANDUM - City of Pasadena

DATE: September 12, 2017 TO: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner FROM: Amanda Landry, Planner RE: PLN2016-00008, Design and Historic Preservation PPR Comments

The building at 417 N Madison was constructed in 1948 in the California Ranch style. The Design and Historic Preservation section provided a PPR response to Current Planning staff on 6/23/16 which noted that the existing building at 417 North Madison Avenue was not designated as a historic resource and does not appear to be eligible for such designation. This determination was made after a review of City records for the property, including building permits, observation of the condition of the structure and an analysis of available historic resource studies, including the 2007 Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report. Based on the style of architecture, condition of the building and lack of evidence demonstrating an association with significant persons or events, staff determined that the building does not qualify for designation as an individual local landmark pursuant to PMC Section 17.62.040, Criteria for Designation of Historic Resources.

South Central Coastal Information CenterCalifornia State University, FullertonDepartment of Anthropology MH-426800 North State College Boulevard

Fullerton, CA 92834-6846657.278.5395 / FAX 657.278.5542

[email protected] Historical Resources Information System

Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties_____________________________________________________________________________

10/27/2017 Records Search File No.: 18195.4249 Elizabeth Denniston Dudek 38 North Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Re: Record Search Results for City of Pasadena – 417 N. Madison Ave (10625) The South Central Coastal Information Center received your records search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Pasadena, CA USGS 7.5’ quadrangle. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ¼-mile radius: As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: custom GIS maps shape files hand-drawn maps

Resources within project area: 0 None Resources within ¼-mile radius: SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST Resources listed in the OHP Historic Properties Directory within project area: 1

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY STATUS CODES – resource locations from the OHP HPD may or may not be plotted on the custom GIS map or provided as a shape file

Resources listed in the OHP Historic Properties Directory within ¼-mile radius: 250

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY STATUS CODES – resource locations from the OHP HPD may or may not be plotted on the custom GIS map or provided as a shape file

Resources listed in the Historic Properties Directory that lack specific locational information: 15

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY STATUS CODES - These properties may or may not be in your project area or in the search radius.

Reports within project area: 1 LA-07569 Reports within ¼-mile radius: 5 SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST

Resource Database Printout (list): enclosed not requested nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): enclosed not requested nothing listed Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet): enclosed not requested nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): enclosed not requested nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): enclosed not requested nothing listed Report Digital Database (spreadsheet): enclosed not requested nothing listed

Resource Record Copies: enclosed not requested nothing listed Report Copies: enclosed not requested nothing listed OHP Historic Properties Directory: enclosed not requested nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: enclosed not requested nothing listed Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments enclosed not requested nothing listed Historical Maps: enclosed not requested nothing listed Ethnographic Information: not available at SCCIC Historical Literature: not available at SCCIC GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: not available at SCCIC Caltrans Bridge Survey: not available at SCCIC; please go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Shipwreck Inventory: not available at SCCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.aspSoil Survey Maps: (see below) not available at SCCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above. The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice. Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System, Isabela Kott GIS Technician/Staff Researcher

Isabela KottDigitally signed by Isabela Kott Date: 2017.10.30 16:39:30 -07'00'

Enclosures:

(X) Custom Maps – 3 pages

(X) Resource Database Printout (list) – 5 pages

(X) Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet) – 65 lines

(X) Report Database Printout (list) – 1 page

(X) Report Digital Database (spreadsheet) – 6 lines

(X) Resource Record Copies – (all) 374 pages

(X) Report Copies – (project area only) 52 pages

(X) OHP Historic Properties Directory – 22 pages

(X) National Register Status Codes – 1 page

(X) Historical Maps – 2 pages

(X) Invoice #18195.4249

MEMORANDUM

To: Nicole Cobleigh, Project Manager, Dudek

From: Elizabeth Denniston, Archaeologist, Dudek

Subject: Records Search Results Summary – 417 N. Madison Avenue

Date: March 5, 2018

Attachment(s): None

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS SUMMARY

Previous Technical Studies

The SCCIC records indicate that seven cultural resource investigations have been conducted

within the 0.25-mile search radius of the project site (see Table 1). Of these, only one study

directly overlapped the project site (LA-07569). No cultural resources were identified within or

in close proximity to the current project site as a result of the study.

Table 1

Previous Cultural Resource Investigations within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site

SCCIC Report Number Title Author Year

Proximity to APE

LA-03497 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Project

Anonymous 1994 Outside

LA-03498 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Project


LA-03498A Evaluation of Change in Noise Impacts, Proposed Blue Line Wayside Horn System

Saurenman, Hugh

Outside

LA-04386

Cultural Resources Overview Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Interstate Commerce Commission Abandonment Exemption Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Project


LA-04909 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Nextlink Fiber Optic Project, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California

Atchley, Sara M. 2000 Outside

LA-07569 Final Report Northwest Survey Revision Project - Phase II Historic Resources Inventory

Unknown 1994 Overlapping

LA-12097 North Lake Specific Plan Area Historic Architectural Resources Inventory Report and Context Statement

Unknown 1995 Outside

Memorandum


2 March 2018

Previous Recorded Cultural Resources

The SCCIC records indicate that 65 resources have been recorded within 0.25-mile of the project site

(Table 2). Of these 65, one has been listed on the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP)

and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) as multiple properties, one appears

eligible for NRHP and CRHR as contributor to a district, one is a contributor to a district that is

eligible for local listing, four are listed on the NRHP and CRHR as individual properties, six were

identified during survey and have not been evaluated, 20 have been determined ineligible for local

listing, and 32 appear eligible to the NRHP and CRHR as a contributor to a district. All 65 resources

are historic buildings or districts and none are located within the project area.

Table 2

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site

Primary Number (P-19) Trinomial

Resource Description Recorded By/Year

OHP Property Number

NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Status

Proximity to Project Site

179727 -- Samuel Bundy House

1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects)

30418 3D (Appears eligible for NRHP as contributor to a district)

Outside

179728 -- Leah A. Bundy House



Outside

179729 -- Reverend L. N. Dahlsten House



Outside

179732 -- J.R. Veach House

1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C. Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc)


Outside

179735 -- D.D. Knettles House



Outside

179746 -- 557 N Madison Ave



Outside




Outside

Memorandum


3 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number



179748 -- 575-577 N Madison Ave



Outside




Outside

179756 -- 527 N Madison Ave OHP Property Number

1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects) 1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C


Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside

179762 -- 616-620 N Madison Ave



Outside

179767 -- Edgar A. Rice House



Outside

Memorandum


4 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number



179768 -- 535 N Oakland Ave


30459 7R (Identified during survey - not evaluated)

Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside

179775 -- 540 N Oakland Ave OHP Property Number

1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C. Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc) 1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C.


Outside




Outside




Outside

179794 -- Bowen Court; Other - Garden Village

1980 (M. Zimny, Pasadena Heritage)

30485 1S (Listed in NRHP and CRHR as individual property)

Outside

179796 -- Lacey, Friend, House

Unknown 30487 1S (Listed in NRHP and CRHR as individual property)

Outside

179808 -- Crew House 1994 (J L Ostashay & J C Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects)

30499 6L (Determined ineligible for local listing)

Outside

Memorandum


5 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number



179809 -- 555 N El Molino Ave



Outside




Outside




Outside

179812 -- 577-581 N El Molino Ave



Outside




Outside




Outside

179833 -- 741 Santa Barbara St



Outside

180196 -- Reinway Court 1977 (Joan Perry, Pasadena Cultural Heritage Program)


Outside

180571 -- Gartz Court; Other - Gloria Court

Unknown 31278 1S (Listed in NRHP and CRHR as individual property)

Outside

180579 -- Theodore Parker Luken House; Other - Roger E Kislingbury

1983 (C. Graunke, Pasadena Heritage)

31286 1S (Listed in NRHP and CRHR as individual property)

Outside

188121 -- 500-600 Block Oakland, Madison & El Molina Aves

Unknown 139913 3S (Appears eligible for NRHP as individual property)

Outside

Memorandum


6 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number






Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside



OHP No. 139974

3D (Appears eligible for NRHP as contributor to a district)

Outside




Outside

190154 -- Santa Barbara Street District


139977 5D2 (Contributor to district that is eligible for local listing)

Outside

190155 -- 702 Earlham St 1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C. Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc)


Outside

190156 -- 708 Earlham St 1994 (Janet L. Ostashay, James C. Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc)


Outside




Outside

Memorandum


7 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number






Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside




Outside

190166 -- 570-576 N El Molino Ave



Outside




Outside




Outside

190169 -- 693-695 Santa Barbara St



Outside

Memorandum


8 March 2018

Table 2




OHP Property Number



190170 -- 709-711 Santa Barbara St



Outside




Outside




Outside

190216 -- C.A. Knoch House

1995 (Mary Stoddard, Judy Wright, AEGIS)


Outside

190217 -- D.B. Martin House

1995 (Mary Stoddard, Judy Wright, AEGIS)


Outside

190680 -- Bungalow Courts of Pasadena

1981 (Richard J. Sicha, Pasadena Heritage)

-- 1D (Listed in NRHP and CRHR as multiple properties)

Outside

APPENDIX C NOISE MODELING DATA

Report date: 10/24/2017 Case Description: Demolition *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.Description # of Devices Impact Device Usage(%) Actual Lmax (dBA) Calculated Lmax* (dBA) Calculated Leq (dBA)

Receptor Distance: 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ftConcrete Saw 1 No 20 89.6 109.6 91.5 83.6 102.6 84.5 76.6Dozer 1 No 40 81.7 95.6 83.6 75.6 91.7 79.6 71.7Backhoe 2 No 40 77.6 85.5 79.5 71.5 81.5 75.5 67.6

Total 109.6 91.5 83.6 103 86.5 78.5Report date: 10/24/2017 Case Description: Grading & Excavation *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.Description # of Devices Impact Device Usage(%) Actual Lmax (dBA) Calculated Lmax* (dBA) Calculated Leq (dBA)

Receptor Distance: 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ftExcavator 1 No 40 80.7 100.7 82.6 74.7 96.7 78.7 70.7Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 91.5 79.5 71.5 87.6 75.5 67.6Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 85.5 79.5 71.5 81.5 75.5 67.6

Total 100.7 82.6 74.7 97.3 81.6 73.7Report date: 10/24/2017 Case Description: Parking Garage Construction *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.Description # of Devices Impact Device Usage(%) Actual Lmax (dBA) Calculated Lmax* (dBA) Calculated Leq (dBA)

Receptor Distance: 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ftPumps 1 No 50 80.9 100.9 82.9 74.9 97.9 79.9 71.9Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 91.5 79.5 71.5 87.6 75.5 67.6Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 85.5 79.5 71.5 81.5 75.5 67.6

Total 100.9 82.9 74.9 98.4 82.3 74.3Report date: 10/24/2017 Case Description: Residential Building Construction *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.Description # of Devices Impact Device Usage(%) Actual Lmax (dBA) Calculated Lmax* (dBA) Calculated Leq (dBA)

Receptor Distance: 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ftCrane 1 No 16 80.6 100.6 82.5 74.5 92.6 74.5 66.6Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 91.5 79.5 71.5 87.6 75.5 67.6Backhoe 1 No 40 77.6 85.5 79.5 71.5 81.5 75.5 67.6Man Lift 1 No 20 74.7 79.1 76.6 68.7 72.1 69.6 61.7Man Lift 1 No 20 74.7 79.1 76.6 68.7 72.1 69.6 61.7

Total 100.6 82.5 74.5 94.1 80.7 72.8Report date: 10/24/2017 Case Description: Architectural Coating *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.Description # of Devices Impact Device Usage(%) Actual Lmax (dBA) Calculated Lmax* (dBA) Calculated Leq (dBA)

Receptor Distance: 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 5‐20 ft 40 ft 100 ftCompressor (air) 1 No 40 77.7 97.7 79.6 71.6 93.7 75.6 67.7

Total 97.7 79.6 71.6 93.7 75.6 67.7

Documents

CITY OF PASADENA · General Plan Designation: Per the City’s General Plan, ... Ingress/egress to the site is currently provided via a ... Agoura Hills Hidden Hills Arcadia Pasadena