HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-1 Staff Report - Senior Housing ProjectSCHEDULED ITEM/PUBLIC HEARING
D-1
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: DON PENMAN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
FROM: KURT CHRISTIANSEN, FAICP, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2018
SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-2016-01), FIRST READING FOR ZONE CHANGE (Z-2016-01), MINOR
USE PERMIT (MUP-2016-12), DESIGN REVIEW (DR-2016-23), VARIANCE
(V-2017-07), AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRACT APPLICATION TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIXTY (60) SENIOR HOUSING
APARTMENTS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM NG2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO DE
EDGEWOOD DISTRICT, AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM NG2 LOW TO DE
EDGEWOOD DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED PROJECT
INCLUDES A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR THE SENIOR APARTMENTS AND
A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. LASTLY, THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SEEKING DENSITY BONUS AND ONE
CONCESSION PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 69515 THROUGH
69518. SIX UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT 360, 410, AND 416 E. GLADSTONRE STREET.
APPLICANT: 360 GLADSTONE LLC – CHAPLON MU
___________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
On January 16, 2018, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted to continue
this item, requesting additional public input, security measures, a second elevator, and additional
parking. Staff and the applicant have revised the site plan to include the requests by the City Council.
APPROVED
CITY COUNCIL
3/5/2018
Proposed Senior Housing Apartments
March 5, 2018
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1)Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2)Adopt the following Resolutions:
1.Resolution No. 2018-C17, Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.Resolution No. 2018-C18, General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2016-01;
3.Resolution No. 2018-C19, Affordable Housing Agreement;
4.Resolution No. 2018-C20, Design Review No. DR-2016-23;
5.Resolution No. 2018-C21, Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2016-12;
6.Resolution No. 2018-C22, Variance No. V-2017-07;
3)Introduce for first reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No.
2018-01; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-2016-01 AND REVISING THE
CITY’S ZONING MAP (FIGURE 1 OF CHAPTER 88 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL
CODE) TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL
DISCUSSION:
On January 16, 2018, the City Council requested that public meetings be held to gather additional
public comment on the proposed project. As a result, Staff conducted two public meetings. The
meeting schedule was sent to all property owners located within 300 feet of the site and all the
addresses provided at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 15, 2017. The first meeting
was held on February 7, 2018 at the Senior Center. Attendees of the meeting asked questions
regarding utilities, price of the units, and number of affordable units, security, and amenities. Staff
and the Developer answer all questions from the meeting. The second meeting was held on February
26, 2018 at the Library Auditorium. No member from the public attended the meeting.
Based on the comments from the City Council and the community, the applicant has revised their
site plan to include two additional parking stalls. The applicant originally proposed 38 parking stalls
and the Planning Commission requested 10 additional stalls. The applicant increased the number of
parking stalls from 48 to 50 parking stalls.
The applicant has agreed to provide a second elevator, perimeter fence, a security plan, and a parking
management plan. Conditions of approvals were amended to include a parking management plan, a
second elevator, and a security plan.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment (GPA-2016-01), Minor Use Permit (MUP-2016-12), Design
Review (DR-2016-23), Variance (V-2017-07), and the Affordable Housing Agreement required for
the project based on the findings of facts presented and based on the beneficial fiscal impact to the
City.
Proposed Senior Housing Apartments
March 5, 2018
Page 2
Staff also recommends that the City Council introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading
of Ordinance No. 2018-01 approving Zone Change (Z-2016-01).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
Edson Ibañez Kurt Christiansen, FAICP
Assistant Planner Economic and Community Development
Director
Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved:
Louie F. Lacasella Don Penman
Senior Management Analyst Interim City Manager
Attachments:
1)Aerial Map
2) Zoning Map
3)NOA and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) Colored Elevations – Rendering
5)Site Plan
6) Resolution No. 2018-C17 for MND
7) Resolution No. 2018-C18 for GPA-2016-01
8) Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement
9)Resolution No. 2018-C19 for Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus
Housing Agreement.
10) Resolution No. 2018-C20 for DR-2016-23
11) Resolution No. 2018-C21 for MUP-2017-12
12) Resolution No. 2018-C22 for V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction)
13) Conditions of Approval
14) Parking Analysis
15)Revised Landscape Plan
16) Ordinance No. 2018-01 for Z-2016-01
17)Public Meeting Comments and Sign-in Sheet
18) Staff Report to City Council on 1/16/18
8621-022-001 & 002City of AzusaGladstonePark
Russell St.
Roland St.
Celeste St.
Gladstone St.Pasadena Ave.Donna Beth Ave.Orkney St.
8621-022-001
8621-022-002´
1 inch = 200 feet
Path: C:\ArcGIS_Misc Projects 5\Edson I\360 416 Gladstone\Exhibit A.mxd Date: 10/18/2017
J.Prado
360 - 416 E. Gladstone St.
Exhibit A
8621-022-001 & 002City of AzusaGladstonePark
Russell St.
Roland St.
Celeste St.
Gladstone St.Pasadena Ave.Donna Beth Ave.Orkney St.City of Azusa8621-022-001
8621-022-002´
1 inch = 200 feet
Path: C:\ArcGIS_Misc Projects 5\Edson I\360 416 Gladstone\Exhibit B.mxd Date: 10/18/2017
J.Prado
360 - 416 E. Gladstone St.
Exhibit B
LOW - Low Density Residential
MED - Medium Density Residential
MOD - Moderate Density Residential
CSA - Corridor South Azusa Avenue
DE - Edgewood
REC - Recreation
INS - Institutional / School
DRAFT | OCTOBER 2017
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency: Prepared by:
Morse Planning Group
Draft Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Azusa
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
Contact: Mr. Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner
Phone: 626.812.5289
PREPARED BY:
Morse Planning Group
Contact: Ms. Collette L. Morse, AICP
October 2, 2017
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Title of Project: Gladstone Senior Villas
Project Location: The project site is located south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and east
of Azusa Boulevard in the southern portion of the City of Azusa
at 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street.
Project Proponent: Mr. Chaplon Mu
360 Gladstone LLC
910 Las Rosas Drive
West Covina, CA 91791
Brief Description of Project: The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-
family dwelling units and construct 60 senior apartment units on
the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed
project are provided in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics.
The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee
agencies that would be necessary include:
City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment
from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood
District
City of Azusa approval of Zone Change from NG2 Low
to DE Edgewood District
City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit for the
senior citizen apartment use
City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per
Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
City of Azusa approval of concessions per Government
Code Sections 69515 through 69518
• 36-foot building height/3 stories
City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing
Agreement
City of Azusa approval of Variance to reduce parking
and private open space requirements
City of Azusa approval of Design Review
City of Azusa issuance of Grading Permit
City of Azusa issuance of Building and Safety Permits
Los Angeles County Fire Department approval of
proposed site improvements
Azusa Light and Power water and sewer connection
permit
Cortese List: The proposed project is not on a site located on the Cortese list.
Project Impacts: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the
environmental impacts from the project would be less than
significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been included for Aesthetics; Air
Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards & Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; and Public Services.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Table of Contents | i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1. Statutory Authority and Requirements ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3. Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.4. Consultation .................................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.5. Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................................... 1-3
2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3. Existing Zoning and General Plan ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.4. Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.5. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................ 2-4
3.0 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................. 3-2
3.3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.4. Lead Agency Determination ....................................................................................................... 3-4
4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 4-5
4.3. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-21
4.5. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 4-27
4.6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4-41
4.7. Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 4-49
4.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 4-53
4.9. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 4-59
4.10. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4-69
4.11. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4-75
4.12. Noise .... ....................................................................................................................................... 4-77
4.13. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 4-89
4.14. Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 4-93
4.15. Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 4-97
4.16. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................ 4-99
4.17. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 4-105
4.18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................... 4-113
4.19. References .................................................................................................................................. 4-115
4.20. Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................. 4-115
5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................. 5-1
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Table of Contents | ii
Appendices
Provided on enclosed CD
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
B Arborist Report
C Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report
D Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
E Hydraulic & Hydrology Calculation
F Noise Impact Analysis
G Trip Generation Analysis
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2-6
Exhibit 2-2 Local Vicinity ................................................................................................................................ 2-7
Exhibit 2-3 Existing Site Topographic Map .................................................................................................. 2-8
Exhibit 2-4 Site Plan – Ground Floor ............................................................................................................. 2-9
Exhibit 2-5 Site Plan – Second Floor ............................................................................................................. 2-10
Exhibit 2-6 Site Plan – Third Floor ............................................................................................................... 2-11
Exhibit 2-7 North and East Building Elevations ........................................................................................ 2-12
Exhibit 2-8 South and West Building Elevations ....................................................................................... 2-13
Exhibit 2-9 Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................................... 2-14
Exhibit 4-1 Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................................................................................... 4-68
List of Tables
Table 4.3-1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary ........................................................................................... 4-11
Table 4.3-2 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet................................................................................... 4-12
Table 4.3-3 Project Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 4-12
Table 4.3-4 Project Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 4-14
Table 4.3-5 LST and Project Emissions ........................................................................................................ 4-18
Table 4.4-1 Condition of On-Site Trees ........................................................................................................ 4-25
Table 4.7-1 Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. 4-51
Table 4.7-2 Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................. 4-51
Table 4.9-1 Hydrology Calculations ............................................................................................................ 4-61
Table 4.9-2 Existing and Proposed Pervious and Impervious Site Conditions ..................................... 4-63
Table 4.10-1 Consistency with Development Standards ............................................................................. 4-72
Table 4.12-3 Typical Construction Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 4-82
Table 4.16-1 Proposed Project weekday Trip Generation ......................................................................... 4-101
Table 4.17-1 Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation .......................................................... 4-107
Table 4.17-2 Proposed Project Estimated Water Demand ........................................................................ 4-109
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Introduction | 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Gladstone Senior Villas Project (herein referenced as the “project” or the “proposed project”)
involves the removal of three existing single-family dwelling units and the development of 60 senior
apartment units on a 1.23-acre site. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City
of Azusa has determined that the proposed project is subject to the statutes and regulations of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
1.1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
This environmental document has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public
Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR],
Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of
CEQA, as adopted by the City of Azusa.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15051 and 15367, the City of Azusa (City) is
identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under CEQA Sections 21000-21177 and
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an
Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If,
as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative
environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds no evidence that the project, either as
proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause
a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would
not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration. Such
determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (CEQA Section 21080(c)).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with
CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for
subsequent discretionary actions relevant to the project. The resulting documentation is not,
however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates
any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals
would be required.
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period.
During this review, agency and public comments on the document relative to environmental issues
should be addressed to the City of Azusa. Following review of any comments received, the City of
Azusa will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include
them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City Council.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Introduction | 1-2
1.2. PURPOSE
The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1. Identify potentially significant environmental impacts;
2. Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an EIR or a negative declaration;
3. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before
an EIR is required to be prepared;
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project;
5. Document the factual basis of the finding in a negative declaration that a project would
not have a significant environmental effect;
6. Eliminate needless EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project; and
8. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on the effects
determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial
Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
A description of the project, including the location of the project
Identification of the environmental setting
Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there
is some evidence to support the entries
Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any
Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls
The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial
Study
1.3. RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency require subsequent oversight, approvals, or
permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Such other agencies are referred to as
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies are respectively defined as follows:
“Responsible Agency” means a public agency, which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for
which [a] Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the
purposes of CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead
Agency, which have discretionary approval power over the project. (Section 15381)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Introduction | 1-3
“Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by
a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include;
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The State Lands Commission; The State Department
of Parks and Recreation and The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural
Land and Water Reserves System. (Section 15386)
For this project, the City of Azusa is the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility of
processing and approving the project.
Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other entities that may use this Initial Study in their decision-
making process or for informational purposes include, but may not be limited to, the following:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Azusa Police Department
1.4. CONSULTATION
As soon as the Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project,
the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee
Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the
recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be
prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead
Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary
findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation
with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing
guidelines.
1.5. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study have been cited in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages “incorporation by reference” as a means of reducing
redundancy and length of environmental reports.
The following documents are available for public review at the City of Azusa Economic and
Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard,
Azusa, California, 91702. The documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study.
Information contained within these documents has been utilized for this Initial Study.
City of Azusa
City of Azusa General Plan (Azusa General Plan), April 2004.
The Azusa General Plan is comprised of six chapters, as follows:
Vision and Values
Foundation and Framework
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Introduction | 1-4
The Built Environment
Economy and Community
Natural Environment
General Plan Team
The Azusa General Plan was utilized throughout this document as the fundamental planning
document governing development at the project site. Background information and policy
information from the Azusa General Plan is cited throughout this document.
City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Azusa General Plan EIR), April 2004.
The City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Azusa General Plan EIR), April 2004,
identifies existing conditions within the City of Azusa, including infrastructure capacities and
environmental indicators. The Azusa General Plan EIR assesses potential environmental impacts
associated with implementation of the Azusa General Plan. The issues addressed in the EIR are
population and housing; aesthetics; air quality; hazards; hydrology and water quality; public
services; noise; parks and recreation; transportation and traffic; utilities and service systems;
and land use and planning.
The Azusa General Plan EIR was utilized throughout this document for existing conditions and
environmental impacts in Azusa and the project area.
City of Azusa Municipal Code and Development Code
The City of Azusa Municipal Code (Municipal Code) consists of all the regulatory, penal, and
administrative ordinances of the City of Azusa. It is the method the City uses to implement
control of land uses, in accordance with Azusa General Plan goals and policies. The City of
Azusa Development Code (Municipal Code Chapter 88) identifies land uses permitted and
prohibited according to the zoning category of particular parcels.
City of Azusa Zoning Map, March 25, 2005.
The Zoning Map was used to identify the zoning of the project area, including the project site.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
Regionally, the project site is located in the City of Azusa. The City is located in the eastern portion of
the San Gabriel Valley along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and approximately 25 miles
east of Los Angeles. The City of Azusa is bordered by the Cities of Irwindale and Covina to the south,
the City of Glendora to the east, and the City of Duarte to the west. Refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional
Location.
Locally, the project site is located on the south side of East Gladstone Street between North Donna
Beth Avenue to the west and South Pasadena Avenue to the east within the City of Azusa, County of
Los Angeles. The addresses associated with the project site are 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone
Street. Refer to Exhibit 2-1, Local Vicinity.
2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 EXISTING LAND USES
The approximate 1.23-acre (53,579 square feet) project site is comprised of two parcels (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 8621-022-001 and 8621-022-002), and is currently occupied by three single-family
detached residences with chain link fencing and ornamental landscaping and trees. Access to the
three residences is from East Gladstone Street with secondary access from East Orkney Street. Refer
to Exhibit 2-3, Existing Site Topographic Map.
2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is surrounded by the following uses:
North: East Gladstone Street is immediately adjacent to the project site. The Edgewood Shopping
Center (commercial use) is located to the north across East Gladstone Street.
East: The Howard Garden Apartment complex with 145 units (multi-family residential use) is
located directly east of the project site at 500-550 East Gladstone Street. The complex
includes both one- and two-story buildings. The one-story buildings front onto East
Gladstone Street with the two-story buildings located to the south of the one-story
buildings.
South: East Orkney Road is immediately adjacent to the project site. Single-family detached
homes (single-family residential use) are located to the south across East Orkney Road on
North Conwell Avenue and North Duxford Avenue.
The Murray Elementary School is located southeast of the project site. The school is
immediately south of the Howard Garden Apartments, and east of single-family homes
located on North Duxford Avenue.
West: Single-family detached homes (single-family residential use) are located immediately to
the east and are located on East Orkney Road, North Conwell Avenue, and North Donna
Beth Avenue. Immediately west of North Donna Beth Avenue at 300 East Gladstone
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-2
Street is the Villa Azusa Senior Apartment complex with 147 units (multi-family
residential use).
2.3. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
General Plan
The Azusa General Plan (General Plan) Figure CD-3, Regulating Plan, and Figure CD-4, Land Use
Diagram, designate the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods Low Density Residential. The project
site is located within Neighborhood 19 per General Plan Figure CD-5, Neighborhood Map. General
Plan Table CD-2, Land Use Plan Classification, identifies single-family residential as the typical
principal use within the Low Density Residential category with a maximum density of 0 to 8
dwelling units per net acre.
Zoning
The Zoning Map designates the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2
Low (NG-2 Low Density Residential). Azusa Development Code Table 2-1 defines the allowed land
uses and permit requirements for neighborhood zones.
Zoning for Surrounding Uses
Zoning designations for surrounding uses within Azusa and Los Angeles County are noted below.
North: DE (Edgewood District) and Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low
(NG-2 Low Density Residential)
East: Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG-2 Low Density Residential)
and Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Moderate (NG-2 Moderate
Density Residential)
South: Unincorporated property within Los Angeles County designated as A-1-6000 (Light
Agriculture, 6,000 Square Foot Lot)
West: Unincorporated property within Los Angeles County designated as A-1-6000 (Light
Agriculture, 6,000 Square Foot Lot), and DE (Edgewood District)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-3
2.4. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project applicant, 360 Gladstone LLC, is proposing to remove the three existing residences on-
site and construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre (53,578 square foot) site.
The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom
units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first floor and 21 units each
on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated as low-income units. The building
will include a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security office, and storage
areas. Refer to Exhibit 2-4, Site Plan – Ground Floor; Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6, which show the site
plan for the second and third floors; and Exhibit 2-7 and Exhibit 2-8, which illustrate the building
elevations from all directions.
The building height is three stories/36 feet. The Floor Area Ratio is 0.92 and the Lot Coverage is 31
percent.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE
Edgewood District, and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. The proposed
General Plan and Zoning designations allow a maximum density of 27 dwelling units per acre;
however, the Housing Element allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre for senior housing. In
addition, the proposed project includes a Minor Use Permit for the senior apartments. Senior
apartments are subject to Municipal Code Section 88.42.200 requirements and standards for senior
citizen apartments, which permit a density of 40 dwelling units per gross acre. Lastly, the proposed
project is seeking density bonuses and concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through
69518. The combination of the requested approvals, noted above in this paragraph, provide the
opportunity for the Applicant to propose 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site, resulting in a
density of 48.8 dwelling units per acre.
Open Space
The proposed project includes a community garden totaling 9,826 square feet in the central portion of
site surrounded by the building on the east, north, and west. The community garden will be
landscaped with two fountains and seating areas. Landscaping is proposed around the project
perimeter and throughout the parking area.
In addition, each unit will include a private balcony that averages approximately 35 square feet, and
totals approximately 2,100 square feet for the 60 units.
Landscaping and Fencing
The existing on-site landscaping and 23 trees, including the three native Coast Live Oak trees, would
be removed. A minimum of 69 replacement trees, of which at least nine would be a California oak
species, would be installed. A 21-foot 6-inch (21’-6”) landscaped area will be provided on the
northern boundary adjacent to East Gladstone Street, and a 15-foot (15’) landscaped area will be
provided on the western and southern boundaries. Refer to Exhibit 2-9, Landscape Plan.
A new six-foot-high wrought iron fence will be constructed on the southern boundary, with existing
six-foot-high concrete masonry walls to remain in place on the western and eastern boundaries.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-4
Access
A singular ingress and egress access will be provided in the northeastern portion of the site to East
Gladstone Street. A secondary emergency access gate will be provided in the southeastern portion of
the site to East Orkney Street.
Parking
A total of 37 parking spaces will be provided. This includes 31 resident and employee spaces
(assumes 0.5 spaces per unit) and six guest spaces (assumes 1 space for every 10 units). Two of the 37
spaces will be for handicapped parking. Parking will be provided on the eastern portion of the site.
Infrastructure
The project applicant will install water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure to serve the proposed
on-site uses. Water and sewer service for each proposed building will connect with existing City of
Azusa water and sewer mains. The site will drain to the southwest to a proposed 18-inch by 18-inch
on-site catch basin that will connect to a new off-site 28-inch by 4-inch parkway drain in East Orkney
Street.
2.4.2 PROJECT PHASING
The proposed project would be constructed in a single phase. The construction period is anticipated
to begin in late 2017 and be completed by the end of 2018 for a total eight to 12 months.
2.5. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City of Azusa (lead agency under CEQA) will use this IS/MND in making decisions with regard
to the approval of the Gladstone Senior Villas Project and the subsequent construction and
development of the project.
Various permits, approvals, and actions by the City of Azusa, Los Angeles County, and other
agencies may be required in order to execute and implement the proposed project. The
implementation of the proposed improvements would require the issuance of permits from various
public agencies. The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would
be necessary include:
The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-family dwelling units and construct
60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed project are
provided in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-5
The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would be necessary
include:
City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to
DE Edgewood District
City of Azusa approval of Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District
City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use
City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through
69518
City of Azusa approval of concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
• 36-foot building height/3 stories
City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing Agreement
City of Azusa approval of Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements
City of Azusa approval of Design Review
City of Azusa issuance of Grading Permit
City of Azusa issuance of Building and Safety Permits
Los Angeles County Fire Department approval of proposed site improvements
Azusa Light and Power water and sewer connection permit
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-6
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location
Project Site
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-7
Exhibit 2-2 Local Vicinity
Source: Google™ Earth (2017)
Project Site
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-8
Exhibit 2-3 Existing Site Topographic Map
Source: Apple Engineering Group (August 2016)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-9
Exhibit 2-4 Site Plan – Ground Floor
Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)
East Gladstone Street
East Orkney Street
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-10
Exhibit 2-5 Site Plan – Second Floor
Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)
East Gladstone Street
East Orkney Street
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-11
Exhibit 2-6 Site Plan – Third Floor
Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)
East Gladstone Street
East Orkney Street
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-12
Exhibit 2-7 North and East Building Elevations
Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-13
Exhibit 2-8 South and West Building Elevations
Source: Simon Lee & Associates Architecture (October 2016)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Project Description | 2-14
Exhibit 2-9 Landscape Plan
Source: Two Trees Design, Inc. (August 2017)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Initial Study Checklist | 3-1
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Gladstone Senior Villas Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Azusa
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 92701
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner, 626.812.5289
4. Project Location: The project site is located south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and east of Azusa Boulevard in the southern
portion of the City of Azusa at 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mr. Chaplon Mu
360 Gladstone LLC
910 Las Rosas Drive
West Covina, CA 91791
6. General Plan Designation: Southeast Neighborhoods Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG-2) Low Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project: The project applicant proposes to demolish three existing single-family dwelling units and
construct 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Additional details regarding the proposed project are provided
in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The uses surrounding the project site include single-story apartments to the east,
single-family residences to the south and west, and a strip commercial shopping center to the north, north of East
Gladstone Street. For additional details refer to Section 2.2.2, Surrounding Land Uses.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement).
Refer to Section 2.5, Permits and Approvals.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Letters as
required by both SB 18 and AB 52 were mailed to the respective Tribes in Azusa on June 19, 2017. One tribe, Gabrielino
Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation, requested consultation under SB 18 on July 10, 2017. The City participated in a SB
18 and AB 52 consultation with the Kizh Nation on August 23, 2017. No other tribes requested consultation.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Initial Study Checklist | 3-2
3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by
the Initial Study Checklist questions in Section 4.1 through Section 4.18.
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The
issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Initial Study Checklist | 3-3
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended
by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Azusa (City) in its environmental review process. For
the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a
determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze
the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an
answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis
considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each
question, there are four possible responses:
No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered
to be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have
the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the
environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or
operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures would be required, so
that impacts may be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Initial Study Checklist | 3-4
3.4. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in Section 4.0 have been added. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless
mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature:
Title: Director of Economic and Community Development
Printed Name: Kurt Christiansen, FAICP
Agency: City of Azusa
Date: October 2, 2017
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following sections include a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial
Study Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. At the beginning of each section is a
“Sources Cited,” which identifies the sources utilized in that particular section.
4.1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Sources Cited in Section 4.1
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, Chapter 3: The Built Environment and Chapter 5: Natural
Environment, April 2004
City of Azusa, Municipal Code Section 46-409
City of Azusa, Municipal Code Section 88.31.030
A. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON A SCENIC
VISTA?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is in located within a developed residential and commercial area within the
City of Azusa, approximately 3.5 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains and south of I-210.
Single-family uses are located to the immediate west and south of the project site, multi-family
uses are located to the east, and commercial uses are located to the north. The project site is not
located within or in proximity to a scenic vista. Nor would the proposed project result in scenic
view obstructions given the built-out nature of the surrounding urban area. Building heights
for adjacent single-family homes are approximately 15 to 20 feet, and 20 to 30 feet for the multi-
family residential complex. The building heights for the adjacent commercial uses are
approximately 30 to 35 feet. The proposed project includes a three-story building with a
building height of 36 feet. As the height of the proposed buildings would be consistent with
height of surrounding uses, scenic view obstructions of the San Gabriel Mountains or other
scenic resources would not occur. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this
regard.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-2
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND HISTORIC
BUILDINGS WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY?
NO IMPACT
There are no designated State scenic highways located within the vicinity of the project site or
within the City of Azusa. However, Azusa Avenue (State Highway 39) north of I-210, is eligible
to become a State scenic highway, but has not been officially designated. As the project site is
located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the I-210 and Azusa Avenue intersection, the
proposed project would not be located in the viewshed of this segment of State Highway 39.
Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE THE EXISTING VISUAL
CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Construction of the proposed project may create temporary aesthetic nuisances associated with
construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic may
temporarily impact views across the site. These short-term impacts would cease upon project
completion, and therefore are considered less than significant.
The project site and its surroundings are urbanized with single-and multi-family residential
and commercial uses. The project site currently contains three residences. Demolition of the
existing on-site buildings and structures and construction of a new 60-unit senior apartment
complex consistent with surrounding uses is not anticipated to result in significant negative
impacts.
West and south of the project site are single-family homes in the Los Angeles County A-1-6000
(Light Agriculture, 6,000 square foot lot) zone, and east of the site are multi-family uses in the
NG2 Low and NG2 Moderate. The A-1-6000 zone allows building heights up to 45 feet and the
NG2 Low and Moderate zones allow building heights up to 35 feet with up to two and one-half
stories. Commercial uses in the Edgewood District (DE) zone are located north of the project
site; this zone also allows building heights up to 35 feet or three stories for single use buildings.
The project site includes a rezone from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District, which allows
building heights up to 35 feet and three stories. The proposed project includes a three-story
building with a building height of 36 feet and would be seeking approval of a concession per
Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518 for the height exceeding the Municipal Code
standard by 1 foot.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-3
Building heights for adjacent single-family homes are approximately 15 to 20 feet, and 15 to 30
feet for the multi-family residential complex. The building heights for the adjacent commercial
uses are approximately 30 to 35 feet.
The single-family homes located to the immediate west and south are all single-story with
heights of approximately 15 to 20 feet. The multi-family residential complex located to the
immediate east includes both single- and two-story buildings with heights ranging between 15
and 30 feet. In comparison to the adjacent single-family homes, the proposed project would be
approximately 16 to 21 feet taller. In comparison to adjacent multi-family residential complex,
the proposed project would be approximately 6 feet taller for the two-story buildings and 21
feet taller for the single-story buildings. In comparison to the adjacent commercial uses, the
proposed project would be approximately 1 foot taller than the commercial buildings.
Thus, the proposed senior apartment use would be compatible with the heights and character
of the existing single-family residential uses located to the west and south, multi-family uses to
the east, and commercial uses located north of the project site.
The existing 6-foot masonry block wall on the western, and eastern boundaries would be
protected in place, and a 6-foot wrought iron fence would be constructed on the southern
boundary. These existing and proposed walls and fences would continue to separate on-site
residential and adjacent residential uses and limit views across the site.
Implementation of the proposed project would alter views onto the site; however, the change in
visual character would not be significant given that the site and surrounding area is presently
developed, and no degradation would occur. No additional impacts to the visual character of
the site or the surrounding area are anticipated given the built-out nature of the surrounding
area. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL LIGHT OR
GLARE WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT DAY OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS IN THE
AREA?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities are anticipated to occur during the day hours; however, security
lighting would potentially result in short-term light and glare impacts associated with
construction activities. No schools or hospitals are located adjacent to the project site. However,
single-family residential uses are immediately adjacent to the site on the west and south and
north of East Gladstone Street to the northeast, and multi-family residential uses to the
immediate east and southeast. The adjacent residential uses are considered light-sensitive since
occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to
disturbance by bright light sources. Implementation of the recommended mitigation
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-4
(Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2) involving opaque screening surrounding the site and
shielding of construction-related lighting would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The project site and its surroundings are urbanized with single-family and multi-family
residential uses and commercial uses.
The proposed project would demolish the three existing on-site residences and construct a 60-
unit senior apartment complex on the project site. The area surrounding the project site is
currently urbanized and contains various forms of on- and off-site lighting typical of residential
and commercial development.
Potential new sources of light and glare that may result from the proposed project’s
implementation include parking area lighting, interior lighting, exterior safety lighting, and
vehicle headlights. The 60-unit senior apartment complex may increase the amount of light and
glare, but this would be consistent with other multi- and single-family residential development
in the City.
Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to Municipal Code Section 88.31.030,
Outdoor Lighting, which establishes lighting standards to ensure that light trespass (spill light),
light pollution, and glare have a negligible impact on surrounding properties, particularly
residential uses. Compliance with the Municipal Code requirements would reduce potential
operational light and glare impacts from proposed structures to less than significant; refer to
Mitigation Measure AES-3.
MITIGATION MEASURES
AES-1 Construction equipment staging areas shall use appropriate screening (i.e., temporary
fencing with opaque material) to buffer views of construction equipment and
material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on Final Development
Plans and Grading Plans.
AES-2 All construction-related lighting shall include shielding in order to direct lighting
down and away from nearby residential uses and consist of the minimal wattage
necessary to provide safety at the construction site. A construction safety lighting plan
shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Building Division for review and approval
concurrent with Grading Permit application.
AES-3 A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Economic and Community
Development Department for review and approval prior to approval of Final
Development Plans and Grading Plans to ensure compliance with applicable City of
Azusa codes and provisions pertaining to light and glare.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-5
4.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Sources Cited in Section 4.2
City of Azusa, Azusa Zoning Map
State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation,
California Important Farmland Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html, Los
Angeles County, accessed June 26, 2017
Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2012, California Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Map
Published January 2015
A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONVERT PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE FARMLAND, OR
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE (FARMLAND), AS SHOWN ON THE
MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING
PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL
USE?
NO IMPACT
The project site is developed with three single-family residential units. There are no agricultural
uses on the site. The surrounding uses include residential development to the west, south, and
east and a commercial center to the north. There are no agricultural uses adjacent to or within
the immediate vicinity of the project site.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-6
The project site does not contain any land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the California Important Farmland Finder
and Los Angeles County Important Farmland Maps published by the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program. Thus, project implementation would not result in the conversion of important
farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL
USE, OR A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT?
NO IMPACT
The project site does not include any land under a Williamson contract. The project site is
currently zoned NG2 Low Density Residential, and the project proposes to change the zoning
to DE Edgewood District. Both designations allow for community gardens or plant nurseries
with a use permit. Given that the site is currently not in agricultural use, the demolition of three
single-family residences and the construction of 60 senior apartment units uses would not
conflict with the existing or proposed zoning. No impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR, OR CAUSE
REZONING OF, FOREST LAND (AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 12220(G)), TIMBERLAND (AS DEFINED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 4526), OR TIMBERLAND ZONED TIMBERLAND PRODUCTION (AS
DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51104(G))?
NO IMPACT
Forestry operations do not occur on or within the vicinity of the project site. Also, the project
site does not support any trees that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation,
and other public benefits. Project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest
land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impacts would occur in this
regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-7
D. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF FOREST LAND OR CONVERSION
OF FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USE?
NO IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.2.C.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT INVOLVE OTHER CHANGES IN THE EXISTING
ENVIRONMENT, WHICH, DUE TO THEIR LOCATION OR NATURE, COULD RESULT
IN CONVERSION OF FARMLAND, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE OR CONVERSION
OF FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USE?
NO IMPACT
The project site does not contain any forest land, but a small portion of the site is zoned for
agriculture. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes to the
environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or forest
land to a non-forest use. Thus, there would be no potential for the conversion of these resources
and no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-8
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-9
4.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Sources Cited in Section 4.3
Giroux and Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses, Gladstone Senior Villas Project,
Azusa, California, June 23, 2017 (Air Quality/GHG Study) – included in its entirety as
Appendix A
A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that projects be analysed for
consistency with an AQMP. For a project to be consistent with the 2016 AQMP adopted by the
SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily
threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been
included in the AQMP projection. However, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented
and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be
deemed consistent with an AQMP. An AQMP uses the assumptions and forecast projections of
local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the
2016 AQMP is based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the
General Plan are found to be consistent with the AQMP.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential
to DE Edgewood District and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. As
discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed
project implements the 2014-2021 Housing Element goal of providing both senior housing and
six low-income units. In addition, and as explained in Section 4.10, the proposed project is
consistent with the growth forecasts in the Azusa General Plan. Therefore, the emissions
associated with the proposed project are already accounted for in the 2016 AQMP, and do not
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-10
exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction or operation. Thus, no impacts would
occur in this regard.
The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet
State and Federal air quality standards. The proposed project’s long-term influence would also
be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies, and is therefore considered
consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur relative to
obstructing implementation of air quality plans.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT VIOLATE ANY AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY VIOLATION?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is located in the City of Azusa in the County of Los Angeles and within the
South Coast Air Basin (Basin). To the west of the Basin is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and
east of the Basin are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, while the
southern limit of the Basin is the San Diego County line. The Basin consists of Orange County,
all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San
Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The
air quality in the Basin is impacted by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions,
location, season, and time of day.
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near
the project area. For evaluation purposes, the SCAQMD has divided the basin into 36 Source
Receptor Areas (SRA) within the Basin operating monitoring stations in most of the areas.
These SRAs are designated to provide a general representation of the local meteorological,
terrain, and air quality conditions within the particular geographical area. The project site is
within SRA 9, East San Gabriel Valley 1 Station in Azusa. This station monitors O3, CO, PM10,
PM2.5 and NO2 pollutant levels. The pollutant levels from SRA 9 were used to comprise a
“background” for the project location.
Table 4.3-1, Air Quality Monitoring summarizes 2011 through 2015 published monitoring data,
which is the most recent 5-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years,
SRA 9 has exceeded the O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-11
TABLE 4.3-1 AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Air Pollutant Averaging Time Item 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour
Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Days > State Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Days >National Standard (35 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.3
Days > State Standard (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Days >National Standard (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Ozone
(O3)
1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.111 0.134 0.115 0.123 0.122
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 13 18 7 11 21
8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.092 0.095 0.085 0.092 0.096
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 19 18 15 20 28
Days >National Standard (0.075 ppm) 12 10 6 11 17
Coarse Particulates
(PM10) 24 Hour
Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) 63.0 78.0 76.0 96.0 101.0
Days > State Standard (50 μg/m³) 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60 12/59
Days >National Standard (150 μg/m³) 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 0/59
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5) 24 Hour Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) 41.2 39.6 29.6 32.4 44.3
Days >National Standard (35 μg/m³) 2/119 1/118 0/120 0/118 1/119
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOx0 1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.080 0.072 0.077 0.070 0.071
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0.0 0 0 0
Sources: Giroux and Associates (June 2017), www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Notes:
ARB = California Air Resource Board
EPA= Environmental Protection Agency
μg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter
ppm = part per million
Short-Term Construction Emissions
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both
construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It
calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well
as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Although exhaust emissions would result from on and off-site equipment, the exact types and
numbers of equipment would vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be
quantified with certainty. Estimated construction emissions were modeled using
CalEEMod2016.3.1 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during proposed
project construction.
The proposed project entails the demolition of three existing residences and the construction of
60 senior apartment units. Construction was modeled in CalEEMod2013.2.2 using default
construction equipment and schedule for a project of this size as shown in Table 4.3-2.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-12
TABLE 4.3-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT FLEET
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Demolition
(20 days)
1 Concrete Saw
1 Dozer
3 Loader/Backhoes
Grading
(4 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
1 Loader/Backhoe
Construction
(200 days)
1 Crane
1 Generator Set
1 Loader/Backhoe
1 Forklift
Paving
(10 days)
1 Paver
1 Paving Equipment
1 Cement Mixer
1 Loader/Backhoe
1 Roller
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
Utilizing this indicated equipment fleet and durations shown in Table 4.3-2, the following daily
construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are provided in Table 4.3-3.
TABLE 4.3-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximum Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO3 PM10 PM2.5
2017
Unmitigated 3.3 27.4 17.0 0.0 5.9 3.4
Mitigated 3.3 27.4 17.0 0.0 3.2 2.0
2018
Unmitigated 39.0 18.3 16.2 0.0 1.6 1.2
Mitigated 39.0 18.3 16.2 0.0 1.6 1.2
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
The only model-based measure applied for the proposed project was:
Water exposed dirt surfaces two times per day to minimize the generation of fugitive dust
generation during grading.
Without mitigation, the proposed project construction emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. However, in an abundance of caution and to further
minimize generation of fugitive dust, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been included (see below).
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-13
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the
air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Construction emissions, including fugitive
dust emissions, can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations
taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors.
The proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control
fugitive dust, which have been included as Mitigation Measures AQ-1. Table 4.3-3 illustrates
total construction emissions, i.e., fugitive-dust emissions and construction equipment exhausts
that have incorporated a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably
implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction. Table 4.3-3 illustrates
that for all construction phases, the daily total construction emissions with standard control
measures would be below the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant fugitive dust emissions.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The project site is located in Los Angeles County, which is not among the counties that are
found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small, and as such is
considered to be less than significant.
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate
emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed
project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are
usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk.” “Individual Cancer Risk” is the
likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year
lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given
the relatively limited number of heavy- duty construction equipment and the short-term
construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)
substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
Therefore, less than significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during
construction of the proposed project.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from
project-related traffic and stationary source emissions. The stationary source emissions would
come from additional natural gas consumption for on-site buildings and electricity for the
lighting in the buildings and at the parking area.
Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod2016.3.1 for an assumed project
opening year of 2019. Trip rates were provided in the project trip generation report. The traffic
report predicts that the proposed project would generate 206 new daily trips.
In addition to mobile sources from vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of
“area source” air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption and from off-site
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-14
electrical generation. These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx
and CO burdens, and a few percent of other pollutants. The inclusion of such emissions adds
negligibly to the total project-related emissions burden as shown in Table 4.3-4, Project
Operational Emissions. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and
landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating.
Table 4.3-4 provides the proposed project's operational emissions, without mitigation. Table 4.3-
4 shows that without mitigation measures, the proposed project does not exceed the
corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Therefore, less than significant long-term
impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project.
TABLE 4.3-4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 17.2 1.3 35.5 0.1 4.6 4.6
Energy Sources 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
Mobile Sources 0.5 2.2 6.1 0.0 1.5 0.4
Total: Area Sources + Energy +
Mobile 17.7 3.8 41.7 0.1 6.2 5.0
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
MITIGATION MEASURES
As discussed above, without the incorporation of mitigation measures, both operational and
construction emissions would be less than significant. Further, SCAQMD regulations require that
construction activities adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, to further reduce the proposed project’s already
less than significant emissions relating to fugitive dust. Although impacts are less than significant,
and although SCAQMD 403 applies to the project pursuant to SCAQMD regulations, the following
mitigation measures has nonetheless been identified in an abundance of caution, and to further
reduce the proposed project’s already less than significant impacts relating to air quality emissions.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-15
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular
watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and
Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.
Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
During construction, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring that fugitive dust be controlled with best-available
control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD
Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques, include but
are not limited to:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications
to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas in active for 10 days or
more).
Water active sites at least three times daily.
Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at
least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle
Code (CVC) Section 23114.
Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better rated heavy equipment.
Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-16
C. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET
INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS
NON-ATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARD (INCLUDING RELEASING EMISSIONS WHICH EXCEED
QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE PRECURSORS)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Construction Impacts
With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and
cumulative South Coast Air Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed
strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2016 AQMP pursuant to
Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures
(Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the
best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible
in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the
proposed project would comply with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures.
Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant
impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403
compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with
adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction
projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.
Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce the proposed project’s
construction-related impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, it can be reasonably
inferred that the project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from
other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. A less
than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
As previously discussed, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality
impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted operational thresholds.
Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential
impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the
proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts associated
with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-17
D. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population
that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and
people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals,
and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following
groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65,
children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases
such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
Sensitive receptors near the project site include surrounding residences to the west, east, and
south of the project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD
recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction and operations
impacts (area sources only).
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local
level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis
elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response
to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST
methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by
SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of
possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital,
or convalescent facility.
LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed
based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and
distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
LST screening tables are available for 25-, 50-, 100-, 200- and 500-meter source receptor
distances. For the proposed project, the nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses
adjacent to the project site such that the most conservative 25-meter distance was modeled.
The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening
level concentration data is currently published for 1-, 2- and 5-acre sites for varying distances.
For the proposed project, the most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site were applied (although
the proposed project is actually 1.23 acres). The following thresholds and emissions in cited in
Table 4.3-5.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-18
TABLE 4.3-5 LST AND PROJECT EMISSIONS
LST: 1 acre/25 meters East San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-Site Emissions (pounds/day)
Unmitigated 17 27 6 3
Mitigated 17 27 3 2
LST Threshold 623 89 5 3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities, and the only model-based
measure applied for the proposed project was:
Water exposed dirt surfaces two times per day to minimize the generation of fugitive dust
generation during grading.
Although emissions of PM10 would exceed the LST threshold prior to the incorporation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, with incorporation of watering exposed dirt surfaces two times per
day, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The above-measure relating to watering
exposed dirt is included within Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Therefore, less than significant
impacts would result with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Table 4.3-5 indicates that the operational emission rates would not exceed the LST thresholds
for the nearest sensitive receptors at 25 meters. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts relative to localized operational emissions.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor
complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing
plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The
proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated
with odors.
Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors; however, the
construction activity is short-term and would cease after the proposed project construction is
completed. Potential sources that may emit odors during operation of proposed project include
emissions from diesel truck emissions and trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the
nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance to SCAQMD’s Rule 402, less
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-19
than significant odor emission impacts would occur during construction and operation of the
proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-20
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-21
4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Sources Cited in Section 4.4
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan EIR, April 2004
McKinley & Associates, Inc., Arborist Report, 360, 410, 416 East Gladstone Street, City of Azusa
(Arborist Report), November 26, 2016 – included in its entirety as Appendix B
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Plants of California, last updated July 2017
A. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER
DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HABITAT MODIFICATIONS, ON ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED
AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR
REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION
The project site and surrounding area is fully urbanized and occupied primarily by residential
and commercial uses. The project proposes to demolish three single-family residences and
construct 60 senior apartment units. The project site has been previously disturbed by grading.
One plant species was identified on-site: Coast Live Oak. The Coast Live Oak is not identified
as a State- or Federally-listed endangered, threatened, or rare plant on the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB), or as a rare plant species by the California Native Plant Society.
This California native species is a massive but graceful tree. Its habit is spreading or weeping
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-22
and requires ample growing space. Its form is oval, rounded or umbrella shape with evergreen
foliage; it is an important native species.
A total of three Coast Live Oak trees were identified on-site. Two of the trees (No. 7 and No. 11)
are in poor health, while one tree (No. 6) has above average health. Refer to Response 4.4.F for
additional information about the trees. All three trees would be removed as part of the
proposed project. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires replacement of all native trees at a 3:1
ratio with a 24-inch box size. Thus, nine 24-inch box size replacement trees would be planted.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 reduces the impact to native trees to less than
significant. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 ensure the viability of
future planted mitigation native trees. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
No other special status plant or animal species listed in in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service exist in the local vicinity due to the level of past disturbance and non-native plant
species in the area. Thus, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any other special status species. No impacts
would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO-1 All Coast Live Oak trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-
inch box size tree with a California native species of oak.
BIO-2 At no time shall any form of plant material be permitted within 15 feet of any newly
planted mitigation trees. All landscaping that is proposed and approved within the
protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of native drought-tolerant plant material
that is compatible with California native species of oak.
BIO-3 At no time shall any form of overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with
all newly planted mitigation oak trees. Irrigation approved within the protected zone
of an oak tree shall consist of drip or bubbler type systems only.
BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, an I.S.A Certified Arborist shall review the
landscape plan to ensure that the plan shows the correct tree species for each planting
area.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANY
RIPARIAN HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED IN
LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS OR BY THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE?
NO IMPACT
The project site has been developed since the 1920s with residential uses. Thus, no riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service exist on-site. No impacts would occur in this regard.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-23
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY
PROTECTED WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MARSH, VERNAL POOL, COASTAL, ETC.)
THROUGH DIRECT REMOVAL, FILLING, HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION, OR
OTHER MEANS?
NO IMPACT
No Federally protected wetlands occur within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed would not have an effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Clean Water Act
Section 404. No impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF
ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH
ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR
IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES?
NO IMPACT
No identified wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries occur within the boundaries of the
project site. As noted above, the project site and surrounding area is fully urbanized and
occupied primarily by residential and commercial uses. Although the San Gabriel River may be
considered an area for wildlife movement, the river is located more than 3.5 miles west of the
project site. The proposed project would not affect any wildlife movement that may currently
occur in the river. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with
the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES
PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
OR ORDINANCE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION
The project site consists of disturbed land with three single-family residences and native trees
and non-native ornamental trees and landscaping. An Arborist Report was prepared for the
project site. The Arborist Report identified 23 on-site trees, and concluded that all the trees and
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-24
landscaping were in a poor, declining condition (refer to Table 4.4-1, Condition of On-Site Trees).
In addition, the trees and landscaping were not being watered, which is contributing to the
stressed condition of the trees. Also, dead or dying trees have not been removed from the
project site.
Given either the health of the trees, or the location of future on-site development, the proposed
project would remove all 23 on-site trees, including the three native Coast Live Oak trees. The
Arborist Report includes a recommendation to replace all removed trees (native and non-native)
at a 3:1 ratio with a 24-inch box size. Thus, 69 24-inch box size replacement trees would be
required; a minimum of 9 of the 69 would be a California native oak to replace the three Coast
Live Oak trees removed.
Tree species suitable for replacement planting include, but are not limited to, Coast Live Oak,
Canyon Live Oak, Mesa Oak, California Sycamore, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Stone
Pine, Cork Oak, Tulip Tree Ginkgo Tree, Northern Red Oak, Crape Myrtle, Evergreen Peak,
Eastern Redbud, and Western Redbud.
As shown on Exhibit 2-9, Landscape Plan, the proposed project includes the replacement planting
of 74 trees: 9 Holly Oak, 7 Crape Myrtle, 8 Western Redbud, and 52 Bright ‘N” Tight Carolina
Laurel Cherry. The Holly Oak is not native to California; thus, the landscape plan would
require a revision for nine California native oak trees in compliance with Mitigation Measure
BIO-1.
The proposed project would be subject to Municipal Code Article VI, Tree Preservation, Section
62-197. - General requirements for new subdivisions, including subsection (c):
“Destruction of trees. If said trees are destroyed, applicant shall replace them with trees whose
size, number, and planting location shall be determined by the director of public works before
final occupancy is granted to any new residents. The size and age of the tree will determine how
many new trees may be substituted for the destroyed tree, but as a minimum three new trees
will replace one tree removed. The ratio may be increased at the discretion of the director.”
The proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Article VI, Tree Preservation, Section
62-197 with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 requiring the
replacement of native and non-native trees at a 3:1 ratio, along with measures to ensure the
viability of future on-site planted mitigation native trees. Thus, less than significant impacts
would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is
required.
BIO-5 All non-native trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch
box size tree.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-25
TABLE 4.4-1 CONDITION OF ON-SITE TREES
Tree No. Type Height (Feet)
Diameter at Breast Height (Inches)
Dripline (Feet) Crown Density
Foliage Size & Color
Health & Condition Rating
1 Italian Pine Stone 20 6 and 12 25 Normal Normal/
Normal Average D+
2 Aleppo Pine 65 24 29 Normal Normal/
Normal Good B
3 Plum -- 5 and 7 -- -- -- Dead F
4 Arizona Ash 40 17 15 Normal -
10% Dead
Normal/
Normal
Below
Average C-
5 Grapefruit 18 7 and 9 10 Fair Normal/
Normal Poor D
6 Coast Live Oak 50 38 29 Normal -
10% Dead
Normal/
Normal
Above
Average B-
7 Coast Live Oak 18 20 10 Sparse Normal/
Normal Poor D
8 White Mulberry 25 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 &
10 20 Thin Dormant Below
Average D+
9 Unknown -- 3, 3, 3, 6 & 15 -- -- -- Dead F
10 Aleppo Pine 70 22 40
Normal,
Very Dense
– 20% dead
needles
Normal/
Normal
Above
Average C+
11 Coast Live Oak 17 5 and 8 15 Fair Normal/ Normal Poor D
12 Silver Maple 25 4, 5, 6, 6 & 7 14 Fair Dormant Poor D
13 Silk Tree 40 9, 9, 9 & 11 25 Fair – 10%
Dead
Normal/
Normal
Below
Average C-
14 Avocado -- 17 -- -- -- Nearly Dead F
15 Avocado -- 18 -- -- -- Dead F
16 Valencia Orange 12 2, 3 & 4 7 Fair -10%
Dead
Normal/
Normal Poor D-
17 Avocado 45 18 23 Fair
Normal/
Wilted &
Burned
Above
Average D+
18 Avocado 25 18 22 50% Dead
Normal/
Brown &
Wilted
Poor D-
19 Avocado 40 17 12 40% Dead
Normal/–
Brown &
Wilted
Poor D
20 Mexican Fan Palm 25 12 3 -- Normal/
Normal
Below
Average C-
21 Avocado -- 12 -- -- -- Nearly Dead F
22 Avocado 30 15 15 60% Dead
Normal/
Wilted &
Stressed
Poor D
23 Avocado 45 3, 5, 10, 10 &
15 22 30% Dead Normal/
Stressed
Below
Average C-
Source: McKinley & Associates (November 2016)
Notes:
-- (No information available)
Native Trees shown in bold, italic
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-26
F. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ADOPTED
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN,
OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN?
NO IMPACT
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site.
Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-27
4.5. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k)?
f. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Sources Cited in Section 4.5
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2004
Correspondence from Native American Heritage Commission, June 12, 2017
A. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES
§15064.5?
NO IMPACT
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially alters the environmental
context or removes identified historical resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 generally
defines a historical resource as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural or
cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with
significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method
of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high
artistic values.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-28
An original list of 138 buildings, places, and sites is included in the 1983 General Plan although
the listing was considered tentative. This list was prioritized by the Cultural and Historical
Landmarks Commission (CHLC) and resulted in 20 listings considered to be of the highest
priority. No ordinances were adopted for the preservation of these resources at the time of the
1983 General Plan adoption. Since 1983, several of the original 138 listings have been
demolished or modified.
In 2000, the Cultural and Historical Preservation Commission (formerly the CHLC), developed
another list consisting of 60 places, objects, landscapes, and buildings that the Commission
believes best represents the culture and history of Azusa. Azusa General Plan EIR Table 4.5-1
reflects the list as of July 25, 2000. The listing is tabulated by street address and the number in
the right-hand column corresponds to the enumeration assigned by the CHLC. Furthermore,
on October 16, 2000, the Azusa City Council adopted an historic resource ordinance, Ordinance
Number 00-012, which amended the Municipal Code to include eligibility criteria and the
appropriate procedure for placing property onto a Designated Historic Landmark (DHL) list.
Of the potential 60 cultural-historic landmarks on the CHLC’s most recent list, five potential
landmarks should assume DHL status as of November 2003 by Azusa City Council approval,
commencing the City’s historic landmark list. They are the Durrell House/Museum, which
reflects the earlier architecture of Azusa and the adaptive reuse of the residence as a museum
and community focal point; the Wade/Talley Building, a fine example of brick commercial
architecture and a central point in downtown; the Woman’s Club, the City of Azusa Civic
Center, and the Pioneer Park Channel would also be included. Azusa General Plan EIR Figure
4.5-1 pictures the Durrell House, the Wade Talley Building, and the Women’s Club while a map
of the locations of the seven listed buildings or features is shown in Azusa General Plan EIR
Figure 4.5-2.
The project site is currently developed with three single-family residences, which are estimated
to be constructed before 1948, based upon the review of Fairchild aerial photographs for the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Azusa General Plan EIR Table 4.5-1 does not cite any
addresses for East Gladstone Street. In addition, the project site and surrounding area are not
located within a National Register District. Also, based on Azusa General Plan Figure HR-1,
Potential Historic Landmarks and Potential Historic Districts, there are no known potential
historic resources located on the project site.
The proposed project would demolish three existing residential units and develop the site with
60 senior apartment units. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impacts would occur
in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-29
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES §15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
A significant impact would occur if a known or unknown archaeological resource were
removed, altered, or destroyed as a result of the proposed development. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria
for historical resources or constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related
significant adverse effect may potentially occur if a project would adversely affect
archaeological resources, which fall under either of these categories.
According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, at least 19 archaeological studies have been conducted
within the City limits. These studies covered 0.5- to 45-acre areas within the City and no
archaeological resources were determined to be present. However, archaeological artifacts were
subsequently discovered during the grading phase of a residential development (the Rosedale
development) in the northern portion of the City.
No archaeological resources have been identified or are known to exist on the project site, and
the site has been disturbed by previous residential development. Therefore, it is unlikely that
archaeological materials would be found. However, construction of the proposed project would
require grading and excavation activities and may have the potential to encounter
undiscovered archaeological resources. In the event archeological resources are unearthed or
discovered during construction activities, compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant, given that the mitigation measure would
require the cessation of ground disturbance in the event resources are found, and appropriate
treatment measures would be implemented.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-1 If cultural materials or archaeological remains are encountered during the course of
construction, excavation and other construction activity, the project contractor shall
cease any ground disturbing activities near the find and the construction contractor
shall contact the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department.
With direction from the Director of Economic and Community Development, an
archaeologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall be retained to evaluate the
discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. Treatment
measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery, protection,
and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the
archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the
results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including
discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final
mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-30
C. WOULD THE PROJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Based on the Azusa General Plan EIR, certain rock units are present within the City. These
include Mesozoic plutonic rocks, Quaternary terrestrial sediments, and Tertiary marine
sediments. These rock units include formations that have been known to contain fossiliferous
materials, including remains of marine mammals. Neither the Azusa General Plan nor the Azusa
General Plan EIR note any locations of paleontological resources within the City.
A significant impact would occur if excavation or construction activities associated with the
proposed project would disturb paleontological or unique geological features. The probability
that construction of the proposed project would impact any paleontological resources appears
to be moderately low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site. Notwithstanding,
ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, could disturb previously
unidentified subsurface resources. In the event paleontological resources are unearthed or
discovered during construction activities, compliance with the recommended Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, given that this
mitigation measure would require the cessation of ground disturbing activities in the event that
resources are encountered, and require appropriate salvage and curation measures.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during the course
of grading or construction, the construction contractor shall cease any ground
disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find and the construction contractor shall
contact the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department. With
direction from the Director of Economic and Community Development, a
paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find.
Treatment measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data recovery,
protection, and/or other measures developed in consultation with the City. If
warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological
Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT DISTURB ANY HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE
INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
No known human remains occur on-site, and due to the level of past disturbance, it is not
anticipated that human remains exist. In the event human remains are encountered during
earth removal or disturbance activities, all activities would cease immediately and a qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor would be immediately contacted. The Coroner
would be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 relative to
Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission would be contacted pursuant to Public
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-31
Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3,
impacts would be reduced to less than significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-3 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all
excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the
find shall be protected, and the Los Angeles County Coroner immediately notified of
the find. The provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 relative to Native American
involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary, shall be met.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, DEFINED IN PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21074 AS EITHER A SITE, FEATURE, PLACE,
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE THAT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE
SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE LANDSCAPE, SACRED PLACE, OR OBJECT WITH
CULTURAL VALUE TO A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE, AND THAT IS
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL
RESOURCES, OR IN A LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES AS DEFINED
IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5020.1(K)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Tribal Consultation
Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential
to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural
landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical resources or included in a
local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to
determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural
resource.”
Also per AB 52 (specifically Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), Native American
consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously
requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on June 8, 2017, and a
Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the proposed project, as was a list of potential Native
American contacts for consultation. The NAHC responded on June 12, 2017, to notify the City
that the SLF search was negative for the Project area. The NAHC provided a Tribal
Consultation List that included the following six Native Americans to be contacted:
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation - Andrew Salas, Chairperson
Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians - Anthony Morales
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation - Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-32
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council - Robert F. Dorame, Chairperson
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe - Charles Alvarez
San Fernando Band of Mission Indians - John Valenzuela, Chairperson
The City sent letters for the purposes of SB 18 1 and AB 52 consultation to all of the individuals
listed above on June 26, 2017.
As of August 30, 2017, the City received one request for consultation from the Gabrieleño Band
of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation, and coordinated with the tribe to schedule a consultation
meeting. The 90-day period to request consultation ended on September 25, 2017; no other
tribes requested consultation.
On August 24, 2017, the City met with Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairperson, and Matthew
Teutimez, Tribal Biologist, of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation for a SB 18
and AB 52 consultation. As part of the consultation, the tribal representatives provided the City
with oral information regarding the history of the tribe in the Los Angeles Basin and a hard
copy of suggested mitigation measures relative to tribal cultural resources and human remains
and associated funerary objects within the Kizh Gabrieleño tribal territory. Following the
meeting, the tribe provided the City with excerpts from the Handbook of North American Indians
(1978) on Gabrieleño ethnography, and recent news articles regarding the tribe in the San
Gabriel Valley News (What’s In A Name?, July 30, 2017) and the Pasadena Weekly (Native
American Heritage Commission Recognizes SG Mountains as Sacred Land, August 3, 2017). In
addition, the tribe provided a link to the La Misíon Vieja: The Center of Los Angeles Blog.
Human Remains
Human remains are defined as any physical remains of a human being. The term "human
remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal
Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of associated cultural resources
(Funerary objects) with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These
remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated
funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are
reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of
death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains
can also be considered as associated funerary objects.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) provides guidance
that agencies shall consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and
cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship
to the human remains and other cultural items.
Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation as recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As stated
above, the City has consulted with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.
1 SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (Public Resources Code Section 65352.3) requires cities and counties to contact and
consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or
designating land as open space.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-33
Gabrieleño Background
The project locale Azusa, formally known as the Village area "Ashuukshanga" (The Place of the
Skunk), lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleño villages
adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Periods. The homeland of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleños, probably the most influential Native
American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978:538), was centered in
the Los Angeles Basin.
Kizh/Gabrieleño People and Misión Vieja 2
Prior to the first European site established in Los Angeles County - Misión Vieja or Old Mission
- there was thousands of years of habitation in the area by the native indigenous peoples. These
native indigenous settlers are often called Gabrieleño (or Gabrieliño) because of their
"association" with the Mission San Gabriel, which started at Misión Vieja in 1771, but relocated
to the current site within a few years because of flooding from the San Gabriel River. A more
recent appellation has been Tongva; however, this term has no historical basis, whereas the
name Kizh has legitimacy in the historical record.
The Kizh/Gabrieleño, like most pre-literate peoples throughout the world, did not have a
written language. Instead, they had and still have a vast oral record passed down through the
generations among the Kizh/Gabrieleño, which shares their religious beliefs, history, and
cultural and social practices. The fact that these attributes were not written down do not, in any
way, make them subordinate to the written record; oral record represents a different method of
recording history.
History and Territory
According to archaeological records, the Gabrieleño were not the first inhabitants of the Los
Angeles Basin, but arrived around 500 B.C. (Bean and Smith 1978:540) The Gabrieleño territory
generally included the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers,
several smaller intermittent streams in the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, all of the
Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and
the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina. (Bean and Smith: 1978:538)
Permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in
sheltered areas along the coast. The Gabrieleño population expanded with many larger,
permanent villages having satellite communities lying at various distances from them and
connected through economic, religious, and social ties. (Bean and Smith 1978:540)
Structures
Houses were domed, circular structures thatched with tule, fern, and carrizo. Other structures
commonly found in villages included sweathouses (small, semi-circular, earth-covered
buildings used for pleasure and as a clubhouse or meeting place for adult males), menstrual
huts, and a ceremonial enclosure, the yuva’r. The yuva’r was built near the chief’s house and
was essentially an open-air oval-shaped enclosure made with willows inserted wicker fashion
among willow stakes, and decorated with eagle and raven feathers, skins, and flowers.
2 Source: La Misíon Vieja: The Center of Los Angeles Blog
http://misionvieja.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-kizhgabrieleno-people-and-mision.html?m=1
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-34
Contained within the enclosure were painted and decorated poles. The yuva’r was consecrated
anew before each ceremony. Another building, similar in structure and design to the yuva’r but
never consecrated, was sometimes built and used for instruction and practice for upcoming
ceremonies.
Material Culture Items
The majority of Gabrieleño material culture was perishable and lasted several years, but
reflected an elaborately developed artisanship, with many everyday use items decorated with
shell inlaid in asphaltic, rare minerals, carvings, and painting. The best-known items of
Gabrieleño material culture are objects made of steatite, which was used in making animal
carvings, pipes, “ritual” objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. Other food preparation items
included bedrock and portable mortars, metates, mullers, mealing brushes, wooden stirrers,
paddles, shell spoons, bark platters, wooden bowls, and pottery vessels made by coiling
technique and paddle and anvil. (Blackburn 1962-1963; Bean and Smith 1978:542).
A variety of tools were made, including saws from deep scapulae, bone or shell needles,
fishhooks and awls, scrapers, flakers (bone or shell), wedges, hafted or unhafted flint or cane
knives, and flint drills.
Baskets were made by the women from the stems of rushes (Juncus sp.), grass (Muhlenbergia
rigens), and squawbush (Rhus trilobata) with a three-colored patterned decoration. (Harrington
1942: 20-23; Bean and Smith 1978:542)
Coiled wares included mortars hoppers; flat baskets used as plates, trays, winnowers, shallow
carrying or serving baskets; storage baskets; and small globular baskets used to keep trinkets.
Closework and openwork twining was used to make deep or globular-shaped baskets, or for
baskets used in leaching, straining, or gathering. Ceremonial baskets, urn-shaped and choke-
mouthed, were used for grave offerings. (Merriam 1955:84; Blackburn 1962-1963; Bean and
Smith 1978:542)
Trade
Intra- and inter-group exchange was brisk and common, with people, goods, and ideas flowing
in many directions and in some cases, long distances. From the inland Serranos, the coastal
Gabrieleños obtained acorns, seeds, obsidian, and deerskins in exchange for shell beads, dried
fish, sea otter pelts, shells, possibly salt, and steatite (obtained by coastal Gabrieleños from
those living on the islands). Through middlemen located in the interior southern California,
such as Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, and Mojave, shells from coastal sections controlled by
Gabrieleños were traded as far east as central Arizona. Most trading was usually of the barter
type, but when this was not feasible, strung Olivella beads, considered legal tender throughout
most of southern California, were used to transact business. (Ruby 1970, Bean and Smith
1978:547)
Impact Analysis
Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited
similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or
lineage groups. Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock
mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-35
within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering
strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock
boulders, at the locations of the resources.
As noted above, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation requested SB 18 and AB
52 consultation with the City and did so as the project site lies within their ancestral tribal
territory. And, in order to protect these irreplaceable tribal cultural resources within their
ancestral tribal territory, they have requested that Native American Monitors l be from the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh -Nation.
Given the long-standing history of the Gabrieleños in and around Azusa, and that the project
site lies within the ancestral territories of the Kizh Gabrieleño, there is the potential for
construction of the proposed project to impact tribal cultural resources. Construction and
development practices in place at the time the three residences were constructed were not as
sensitive to tribal cultural resources as current practices. Thus, ground-disturbing activities,
such as grading or excavation, could disturb previously unidentified subsurface resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8 would reduce any potential
impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation
Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural
resources would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-4 Prior to commencement of any demolition, grading, or construction activities, the
Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Azusa Economic and Community
Development Department that a qualified Native American Monitor has been
retained to provide Native American monitoring services for any construction
activities that may disturb native soils. The Native American Monitor shall be selected
by the Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Native American Monitor
shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal
cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and
evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American Monitor to be Tribal Cultural
Resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall
be reviewed and approved by the City of Azusa Economic and Community
Development Department prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the
project site.
CUL-5 Retain a Native American Monitor. The Applicant shall be required to obtain the
services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related
ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal
Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as
activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-36
auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching, within the project site.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall be approved by the Tribal Representatives
from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall notify the City of
Azusa Economic and Community Development Department once the Native
American Monitor(s) has been approved.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve any ground disturbing activities described above.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall prepare daily monitoring logs that provide
descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil,
and any cultural materials identified.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance
certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s)
encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions
outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (a) through (k).
The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation
activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Native American
Monitor(s) have indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological
resources.
CUL-6 Professional Standards for Monitors
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during
construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All
feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or
separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken.
Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology
and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working
with Tribal Cultural Resources in southern California. The Native American
Monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) certification. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other
personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
CUL-7 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources: All archaeological resources
unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Qualified
Archaeologist and Native American Monitor.
If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation Tribe shall coordinate with the Applicant and/or landowner
regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will
request reburial or preservation for educational purposes.
If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a historical
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a unique
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-37
archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the
Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the Applicant and/or landowner to
develop a formal Treatment Plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the
resources.
The Treatment Plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources
Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials,
such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler
Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the Applicant and/or land owner
shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project site for
the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the
Los Angeles County Coroner.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall immediately divert work at minimum of 50
feet or stop work, if necessary, and place an exclusion zone around the burial.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall then notify the Qualified Archaeologist and
the on-site construction manager who will call the Los Angeles County Coroner.
Work shall continue to be diverted or stopped, whichever is most appropriate,
while the Coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The
discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance.
If Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission as mandated by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely
Descendent.
In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and
recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a
steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation
opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour
guard shall be posted outside of working hours.
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation shall make every effort to
recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-38
If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials shall be
removed. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation shall work
closely with the Qualified Archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated
carefully, ethically, and respectfully.
If data recovery is approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation, documentation shall be taken that includes, at a minimum, detailed
descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation for data
recovery purposes.
Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure
completely recovery of all material.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is
considered a cemetery and a separate Treatment Plan shall be prepared. The
Applicant shall consult with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites.
Construction on-site shall be halted until the Treatment Plan is prepared. Once
complete, a final report of all activities shall to be submitted to the Native
American Heritage Commission.
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Tribe does not authorize
any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human
remains.
If the Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American
burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of
the coroner. Reburial shall be in an appropriate setting. If the coroner determines
the remains to be modern, the coroner shall take custody of the remains.
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored
using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and
objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on-site, if
possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery.
The site of reburial/repatriation shall be at a location determined between the
Tribe and a landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity, and not on the
project site.
There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-39
F. WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, DEFINED IN PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21074 AS EITHER A SITE, FEATURE, PLACE,
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE THAT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE
SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE LANDSCAPE, SACRED PLACE, OR OBJECT WITH
CULTURAL VALUE TO A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE, AND THAT IS A
RESOURCE DETERMINED BY THE LEAD AGENCY, IN ITS DISCRETION AND
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, TO BE SIGNIFICANT PURSUANT TO
CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION (C) OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
5024.1?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Refer to Response 4.5.E.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-8. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-40
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-41
4.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
Sources Cited in Section 4.6
Table 4. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of January
2010. This is an updated version of Table 4 from the 2007 edition of Special Publication 42
(Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, by William A. Bryant and Earl W. Hart)*.
California Department of Conservation website
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx
State of California, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones, Azusa Quadrangle,
Official Map Released March 25, 1999
State of California, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation,
Azusa Quadrangle, Official Map Released November 6, 2014
State of California, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle,
Official Map, Released March 25, 1999
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2004
T.K. Engineering Corp., Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report, October 7. 2016 –
included in its entirety as Appendix C
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-42
A. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL
SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR
DEATH INVOLVING:
1. RUPTURE OF A KNOWN EARTHQUAKE FAULT, AS DELINEATED ON THE MOST
RECENT ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING MAP ISSUED BY THE
STATE GEOLOGIST FOR THE AREA OR BASED ON OTHER SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OF A KNOWN FAULT? REFER TO DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
SPECIAL PUBLICATION 42.
NO IMPACT
Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to
the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced
surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a
State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to Table 4 of Special
Publication 42 and the Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the project site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (within the Azusa Quadrangle, dated 1999), as mapped by
the California Geological Survey (CGS). Therefore, no impacts would result from the potential
for fault rupture of a known earthquake fault.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
2. STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of Southern California.
The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive
faults. As defined by the CGS, active faults are faults that have ruptured within Holocene time,
or within approximately the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are those that show
evidence of movement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but
for which evidence of Holocene movement has not been established. Inactive faults have not
ruptured in the last approximately 1.6 million years.
Southern California is considered a tectonically active area. Since the project site is located in a
seismically active region, numerous faults capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes
exist within the project vicinity. The two closest faults, Sierra Madre Fault and Duarte Fault,
run in an east-west direction through the City. Other nearby active faults include the Raymond
Fault (located five miles west), the Whittier Fault (11 miles south), and the San Andreas Fault
(22 miles north).
The Sierra Madre Fault is a potentially active fault capable of causing surface rupture in the
City. The fault is responsible for thousands of feet of vertical and significant left-lateral offset
thrusting in the San Gabriel Mountains. Within the City limits the fault is concealed at its
western end where it crosses the mouth of Van Tassel Canyon and extends across the San
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-43
Gabriel River floodplain. It is exposed in the hill above Clearhaven Drive where Wilson Diorite
is thrust over Topanga Formation. The fault dips about 40 to 90 degrees into the mountain and
is intermittently exposed as it continues eastward. It continues east, beyond the City limits,
about 500 feet north of the intersection of Sierra Madre Boulevard and Citrus Avenue. The fault
is approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site.
The Duarte Fault is the southernmost known significant fault within the City. It is deemed a
potentially active fault by the State and an active fault by the County of Los Angeles. The fault
crosses into the City near the southern portion of the Rancho Duarte Golf Course, continuing
through the Vulcan mine, stretching southeast Slauson School (near 5th Street and Azusa
Avenue). From here, it extends approximately northeast through Lee School, where it extends
beyond the City boundaries. The fault is approximately 1.1 miles north of the project site.
During the life of the proposed project, the project site would likely experience moderate to
high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other
seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Although some structural damage is
typically not avoidable during a large earthquake, the proposed project would be constructed
to meet existing construction ordinances and the California Building Code in order to protect
against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. The California Building Code
includes specific design measures, which are based on the determination of Site Classification
and Seismic Design Categories specific to the project site. These design measures are intended
to maximize structural stability in the event of an earthquake. Thus, adherence to the California
Building Code requirements, would reduce the risks related to strong seismic shaking to a less
than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
3. SEISMIC-RELATED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore-water
pressures to increase to levels where grain-to-grain contact is lost and material temporarily
behaves as a fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and
tilting of engineered structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures, and cracking of the
ground surface. A common manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils, which
are short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly
deposited mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface.
The project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction, as shown on the following
CGS maps: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle dated November
6, 2014 and the Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle, dated March 25, 1999.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-44
4. LANDSLIDES?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The geologic and topographic characteristics of an area often determine its potential for
landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all
contribute to the potential slope failure and landslide events.
The subject property is located at an elevation of approximately 5340 feet above mean sea level
(amsl), is generally flat, and slopes slightly to the south. The overall topographic trend of the
surrounding area is also to the south.
The site is located within the San Gabriel Valley (or Basin), which is a structural basin that is
filled with undifferentiated alluvial sediments overlying low permeability bedrock. The surface
of the valley is a broad piedmont plain that generally slopes from base of the San Gabriel
Mountains in the north toward Whittier Narrows in the south. To the north, the valley is
bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains. To the south, the valley is bounded by the Repetto,
Merced, Puente, and San Jose Hills. Alluvial sediments that fill the valley include large
boulders, cobbles, coarse- to medium-grained sand, and silty sand. These sediments are largely
considered homogeneous on a regional scale throughout the valley. The bedrock basement of
the San Gabriel Valley forms a closed elliptical depression that is approximately 2,000 feet deep.
On the project site, the distribution of the poorly sorted sand and gravel with rare fine-grained
silt and sand layers in the subsurface is consistent with the deposition of sediments in a high-
energy proximal alluvial fan environment.
The project site is not located within an area subject to landslides, as shown on the following
CGS maps: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle dated November 6, 2014
and the Seismic Hazard Zones, Baldwin Park Quadrangle, dated March 25, 1999. Therefore, less
than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF
TOPSOIL?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The limited on-site grading and earthwork activities to create the proposed project’s feature
construction activities would result in ground surface disruption that could create the potential
for short-term erosion by wind and water to occur.
All demolition and construction activities on-site would be subject to compliance with the
California Building Code. Further, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the
requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm
Water General Construction Permit for construction activities; refer to Response 4.9.A. The
NPDES Storm Water General Construction Permit requires preparation of a Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which identifies specific erosion and sediment control
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-45
Best Management Practices that would be implemented to protect storm water runoff during
construction activities. Compliance with the California Building Code and NPDES would
minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan.
Once construction is complete, disturbed surfaces would be stabilized through vegetation or
pavement. Therefore, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is not expected to occur during
long-term operations. Following compliance with NPDES requirements, project
implementation would result in less than significant impacts regarding soil erosion.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS
UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT,
AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN AN ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE LANDSLIDE, LATERAL
SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Fill Soils
No significant fill soils were encountered in any of three test borings. However, fill soils up to
four feet or deeper may be encountered at the other locations within the site. To provide an
adequate support for proposed buildings, construction of the proposed project requires that the
fill and upper loose/soft native soils for the proposed building areas be removed and
recompacted as engineered fill. Any imported soils to be used for fill would be evaluated prior
to placement on-site.
The removal and recompaction of existing soils shall extend to a minimum depth of five feet
below the existing grade or two feet below the bottom of footing, whichever is greater. Two feet
of removal and recompaction are recommended for parking and driveway areas. However, if
the encountered fill is deeper than five feet, the entire fill shall be removed and recompacted to
a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Corrosive Soils
The on-site soil was tested for corrosivity. The testing results indicate that the on-site soils are
mildly corrosive to ferrous metals. Based on the soluble sulfate content, type II Portland cement
may be used for concrete. The PH value is 6.88 which are slightly acidic. All underground steel
utilities and cast iron pipings shall be given a high quality protective coating, or encased in an 8
mil polyethylene tube or wrapped with 20 mil plastic tapes covered by primer or hot applied
coal tar enamel. Reinforcing steel shall have at least 3 inches thick concrete cover if it is placed
against earth.
Impact Conclusion
In order to ensure that the proposed project is not susceptible to damage as a result of on-site
soils and geological conditions, the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report has
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-46
included specific recommendations to reduce these risks to less than significant levels, which
are to be reviewed and revised as necessary as part of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
MITIGATION MEASURES
GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the recommendations in
Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be confirmed or modified by
a geotechnical engineer to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. The
recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be implemented during site
grading and construction.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL, AS DEFINED IN TABLE
18-1-B OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1994), CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISKS
TO LIFE OR PROPERTY?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Expansive soils can be a problem, as variation in moisture content will cause a volume change
in the soil. Expansive soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as they dry. During
inclement weather and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the soil and causes
the soil to heave (expansion). When drying occurs the soils will shrink (contraction). Repeated
cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade and
foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and windows.
Subsurface Conditions
Field exploration was performed on September 24, 2016. Three test borings were drilled to a
depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Approximate locations of the borings are
shown on Appendix C Plate A-1. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration are
presented in the log of test borings (Appendix C Plates B-1 to B-3). Selected samples obtained
during field exploration were tested in the laboratory. A description of the field exploration
and laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C.
The native soils encountered in the test borings consist generally of silty sand to sand with
variant amount of gravel. No significant fill soils were encountered in any of three test borings.
But, based on the existing site conditions, fill soils up to four feet or deeper may be encountered
at the other locations within the site. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the three test
borings.
Expansion tests were performed on selected samples in accordance with Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Test Standard No. 29-2. The representative sample of the on-site upper soils was
remolded at approximately 50% degree of saturation and then soaked for 24 hours. The results
are as follows:
Sample Location Soil Description Expansion Index Expansion Potential
B-1 @ 0-2 fee silty sand 23 low
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-47
A significant impact may occur if a project is built on expansive soils without proper site
preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus,
posing a hazard to life and property. The soils on-site have a “low” expansion potential as
defined by the California Building Code. However, in order to ensure that the proposed project is
not susceptible to damage as a result of on-site soils and geological conditions, the Preliminary
Soils Engineering Investigation Report has included specific recommendations to reduce this risk
to less than significant levels, which are to be reviewed and revised as necessary as part of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Thus, less than impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE SOILS INCAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SUPPORTING
THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
WHERE SEWERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE WATER?
NO IMPACT
Sewers are currently available for the on-site disposal of wastewater; therefore, it would not be
necessary to install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-48
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-49
4.7. GREENHOUSE GASES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Sources Cited in Section 4.7
Giroux and Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses, Gladstone Senior Villas Project,
Azusa, California, June 23, 2017 (Air Quality/GHG Study) – included in its entirety as
Appendix A
Regulatory Setting
Key Federal Regulations: Greenhouse Gas Endangerment, Clean Vehicles, Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, and New Source Review
Key State Regulations: Title 24, California Green Building Standards, Pavley Regulations,
Executive Order S-3-05, Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Executive Order S-01-07, SB 1368 (2006),
SB 97 and CEQA Guidelines Update (2007, 2009), AB 32 (2006), SB 375 (2008), Executive Order
S-13-08, Renewable Electricity Standards
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Regulation XXVII currently
includes three rules:
The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials.
The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, is to establish a voluntary
program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified greenhouse
gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, was adopted on February 6, 2009. The
purpose of this rule is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for greenhouse gas
emission reductions in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in
response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.
The SCAQMD has established recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for
local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”). SCAQMD has
published a five-tiered draft GHG threshold which includes a 10,000 metric ton of CO2e per
year for stationary/industrial sources and 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance
threshold for residential/commercial projects (South Coast Air Quality Management District
2010c). Tier 3 is anticipated to be the primary tier by which the SCAQMD will determine
significance for projects. The Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an
emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90-precent emission
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-50
capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary
source projects would be subject to CEQA analysis. The 90-percent capture rate GHG
significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using the SCAQMD’s
annual Emissions Reporting Program.
The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable
exemption under CEQA.
Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas
reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction
plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose but must be
consistent. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a
project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following
screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
Based on land use types: residential is 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial is 1,400
MTCO2e per year; and mixed use is 3,000 MTCO2e per year
A. WOULD THE PROJECT GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CalEEMod was used to estimate on-site and off-site emissions. For assumptions used in
estimating these emissions, refer to the Air Quality/GHG Study. Greenhouse gas emissions from
proposed project construction equipment and worker vehicle emissions are shown in Table 4.7-
1, Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project is assumed to require less
than two years of construction. During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.2.1 computer
model predicts that the construction activities would generate annual CO2e emissions; refer to
Table 4.7-1. The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated
at 9.4 metric tons of CO2e per year. CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Air
Quality/GHG Study (Appendix A). While construction-related activities associated with the
proposed project would generate GHG emissions, the impacts are concluded to be individually
less than significant.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-51
TABLE 4.7-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Time Period Emissions (MTCO2e)
Year 2017 175.2
Year 2018 108.0
Total 282.2
Averaged Over 30 Years 9.4
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
Notes: 1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbons).
2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the
operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of a project. The operational emissions
for the proposed project are 524.5 metric tons of CO2e per year as shown in Table 4.7-2, Proposed
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion
from consumption to annual regional CO2e emissions are summarized in the
CalEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the Appendix A.
TABLE 4.7-2 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source Emissions (MTCO2e)
with Regulation
Area Source 20.3
Energy Utilization 136.0
Mobile Source 314.5
Solid Waste 13.9
Water Consumption 30.4
Subtotal Operation 515.1
Subtotal Construction (averaged over 30 years) 9.4
Total Annual Emissions 524.5
SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Screening Threshold No
Source: Giroux and Associates (June 2017)
Notes:
1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
and/or hydrofluorocarbons).
These emissions are below the SCAQMD screening threshold for all land uses of 3,000 metric
tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur during operation of
the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-52
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR
REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Azusa General Plan includes the following air quality implementation programs in the
Natural Environment Element.
AQ2 Land Use Patterns Encouraging Alternative Transportation
Encourage land use patterns that enable people to use alternative transportation methods such
as transit, walking, and cycling in their day-to-day activities. Expand opportunities for people
to live and work in close proximity.
AQ3 Promote Mixed-Use Development
Promote mixed-use development that provides commercial services close to residential zones
and employment centers, enabling citizens to walk or bicycle to services rather than drive. AQ5
Provide Sidewalks, Bicycle Lanes, and Bus Shelters
The City of Azusa has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan specific to new
residential development. As discussed above, the proposed project results in GHG emissions
below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000-ton threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.
Similarly, the proposed project would promote the goals of AB 32. The project site location is
positioned within Los Angeles County’s and the City’s planned growth urban footprint. The
proposed project incorporates a number of features and mitigation measures in other impact
areas that would minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Although the proposed project would
generate greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed above, these emissions would have a less than
significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-53
4.8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Sources Cited in Section 4.8
DCE Environmental Services, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Residential Property, 360-
410 E. Gladstone Street, Azusa, CA 91702, May 23, 2017 – included in its entirety as
Appendix D
City of Azusa, Azusa Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2016-O7, adopted
September 19, 2016
A. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project involves the demolition of three existing residences and the construction
of 60 senior apartment units. The proposed project may involve limited amounts of use,
storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials related to janitorial/maintenance
cleaning materials used to clean and maintain the residences/property once the proposed
project is constructed, but does not propose the use of underground storage tanks.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not require extensive or on-going
use of acutely hazardous materials or substances. Construction activities would be short-term
in nature, and would involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. The storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the United States Environmental
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-54
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the
Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County/Los Angeles County Fire
Department (LACoFD), LaCoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), the Los
Angeles County Health Department, and Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article IV,
Hazardous Waste or Substance Spills, Releases and Other Incidents. Adherence to the
regulations set forth by these agencies would reduce the potential impacts to less than
significant.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the proposed development plans would be reviewed
by LACoFD for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. The LACoFD
would require that conditions of approval be applied to the proposed project to reduce
hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste that is generated on-site be
transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State
and Federal law. Additionally, any hazardous materials used in construction and operation of
the proposed project would be subject to City, State and Federal regulations. Thus, construction
and operation of the proposed uses is not expected to pose a threat to people residing or
working in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT
CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the project site. The
report is included in Appendix D.
Existing Site Conditions
The project site consists of two residential parcels of land developed with three single-family
dwelling units and decorative landscaping. The dwelling units have occupied the site for over
85 years.
The buildings are wood framed structures on raised foundations and covered by wood framed
composition roofs. Interior walls are painted plaster over wood frame with plaster ceilings. No
regulated hazardous materials are being handled or stored within the buildings. Common
household type chemicals are used for cleaning and general maintenance. No staining,
corrosion, or other signs of chemical releases was observed in the buildings.
Access to the project site is via East Gladstone Street and East Orkney Street. The exterior lot is
covered with the buildings, storage shed, asphalt-composition, cement, and decorative
landscaping. The on-site pavement has some minor cracks and staining from normal vehicle
traffic. Hazardous materials are not being handled or stored on the exterior lot. No significant
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-55
staining, corrosion, or other signs of illegal dumping activities was present. All municipal
services, including sewer, water, telephone, gas, and electric are connected to the project site.
Records Review
BBL of Solana Beach provided DCI Environmental Services with a report containing (at a
minimum) all federal, state, and tribal environmental databases required by ASTM E 1527-13 to
determine any potential recognized environmental conditions connected to the project site from
on-site or in the vicinity of the site. The environmental databases are included in the
Environmental Records Search (ERS) in Appendix D.
Several of the databases included in the ERS report contain information not relevant to this
investigation, have duplicate information, or contain no sites within a one-mile radius of the
project site. The Phase I ESA determined, based on the review of the databases, there is no
evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or potential environmental
conditions (PECs) associated with the site.
On-Site Hazardous Material Sources and Releases
One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is
through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance
into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in
addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and
completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or
channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or
water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the
contaminant and the degree of exposure.
Demolition Activities
Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) surveys were not included in
the Phase I ESA.
On-site structures would be demolished and removed as part of the proposed project. Given
the age of the existing buildings on-site, it is likely that the buildings contain asbestos-
containing materials, as well as lead-based paints and/or other contaminants. As a result,
construction workers and the public could be exposed. Further, the potential exists that
construction activities may release potential contaminants that may be present in building
materials (e.g., mold, lead, etc.). Federal and State regulations govern the renovation and
demolition of structures where asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints are present.
All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos-containing materials or lead-based
paints must be conducted according to Federal and State standards, including but not limited
to, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105256. The National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos
survey to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials prior to the commencement
of any remedial work, including demolition. If ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos
would be required prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 (compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403) would
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-56
Grading Activities
The Phase I ESA found no adverse environmental impact due to past or present hazardous
materials use or storage on the project site, and no heavy staining or corrosion was observed.
Also, there was no migration of hazardous substances from off-site sources onto the project site.
Thus, grading activities during construction would not upset contaminated soils and/or expose
construction workers to hazardous materials. Therefore, less than significant impacts would
occur in this regard.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could release hazardous materials
into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. There is a
possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances, such as petroleum-based fuels or
hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the
accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small
volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The
construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety
procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such
substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that
any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State,
and Federal law. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
HAZ-1 To comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403, prior to
structural demolition/renovation activities, demolition materials containing asbestos-
containing materials and/or lead-based paints shall be removed and properly
disposed of at an appropriate permitted facility per existing Federal and State
regulations.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT EMIT HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS OR HANDLE HAZARDOUS
OR ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SUBSTANCES, OR WASTE WITHIN ONE-
QUARTER MILE OF AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED SCHOOL?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Murray Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet southeast of the site and the
closest school to the project site. There are no schools proposed for development within one-
quarter mile of the project site.
Materials used during project construction or the janitorial/maintenance cleaning materials
used to clean and maintain the residences/property once the proposed project is constructed
and operational would not would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts to
Murray Elementary School or other area public schools (existing or proposed) within one-
quarter mile of the project site. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-57
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A SITE WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65962.5 AND, AS A RESULT, WOULD IT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD
TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT?
NO IMPACT
Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed as a hazardous material site on the
Cortese list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Development of the proposed senior
apartment project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment per
Government Code Section 65962.5. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
E. FOR A PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR, WHERE
SUCH A PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED, WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC
AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SAFETY
HAZARD FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA?
NO IMPACT
The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of the project
site. The second closest airport to the site is Brackett Field Airport in La Verne, approximately
8.5 southeast of the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or
within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Construction and operation of the proposed
project would not impact airport operations at either El Monte Airport or Brackett Field
Airport, nor would the proposed project expose people residing in or working on the project
site to safety hazards associated with an airport or private airstrip. Thus, no impacts would
occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
F. FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, WOULD THE
PROJECT RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN
THE PROJECT AREA?
NO IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.8.E.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-58
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
G. WOULD THE PROJECT IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE
WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION
PLAN?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
All of the proposed improvements, including the demolition of three existing residences and
the construction of 60 senior apartment units, would occur on private property. East Gladstone
Street, which is adjacent to and north of the project site is used as an emergency evacuation
route by the City of Azusa.
Emergency vehicles would continue to have access to project-related and surrounding
roadways during construction and upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed
project would not impact access to emergency response. In addition, the proposed project
would not physically interfere with Los Angeles County’s or the City of Azusa’s emergency
evacuation routes. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from the construction
and operation of the proposed project in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
H. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK
OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES, INCLUDING WHERE
WILDLANDS ARE ADJACENT TO URBANIZED AREAS OR WHERE RESIDENCES ARE
INTERMIXED WITH WILDLANDS?
NO IMPACT
The project site is located within an urbanized area that is not subject to wildland fires.
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-59
4.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Sources Cited in Section 4.9
Apple Engineering Group, Hydraulic & Hydrology Calculation for 360 Gladstone LLC, 360, 410 &
416 E. Gladstone Street, June 16, 2017 – included in its entirety as Appendix E
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06037C1700F,
effective date September 26, 2008
A. WOULD THE PROJECT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into storm drains and, in most cases, flows
directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on
drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array
of environmental, chemical, and biological compounds from both point and non-point sources.
In the urban environment, storm water characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use,
impervious cover, pollution prevention, types and amounts of Best Management
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-60
Practices[BMP]), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events),
soil type and particle sizes, multiple chemical conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and
atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include
sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons,
pathogenic, and bacteria.
Urban runoff can be divided into two categories – dry and wet weather urban runoff:
Dry weather urban runoff occurs when there is no precipitation-generated runoff. Typical
sources include landscape irrigation runoff; driveway and sidewalk washing;
noncommercial vehicle washing; groundwater seepage; fire flow; potable water line
operations and maintenance discharges; and permitted or illegal non storm water
discharges.
Wet weather urban runoff refers collectively to non-point source discharges that result from
precipitation events. Wet weather runoff includes storm water runoff. Storm water
discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets
and parking lots, building rooftops.
Wet- and dry-weather runoff typically contains similar pollutants of concern. However, except
for the first flush concentrations following a long period between rainfalls, the concentration
levels found in wet weather flows are typically lower than levels found in dry weather flows
because the larger wet weather flows dilute the amount of pollution in runoff waters. Most
urban storm water discharges are considered non-point sources and are regulated by a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal General Permit or Construction
General Permit.
Existing Site Conditions
The project site is developed with three single-family residences and ornamental landscaping.
The existing site drainage pattern is from the northeast to the southwest, and flows off-site to
existing streets and storm drains.
Proposed Site Drainage
The existing surface drainage over the site is from on-site surface water. The water quality
compliance conditions for the proposed project would require the control and clean-water
treatment of the on-site surface water run-off. The requirement for the on-flow is to control the
waters passage through the project site to avoid risk of flooding and to avoid property damage
or health and safety issues.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-61
Hydrology Analysis
The existing and proposed developed conditions are show in Table 4.9-1, Hydrology Calculations.
TABLE 4.9-1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
Existing (Pre-Construction) Proposed (Post-Construction) Delta (∆) Q50
50 Year (CFS/CF) 4.3468/11,587 4.8271/23,691
85th Percentile (CFS/CF) 0.2349/3,077
0.4803/12,104
Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017)
Notes:
CFS = Clear Peak Flow Rate (in cubic feet per second)
CF = 24-hour Clean Runoff Volume (in cubic feet)
Delta (∆) Q50 is the Clear Flow Peak Rate that will be used to size the curb drain pipe.
The 85th percentile was used to size the vegetated swales.
LID Measures
The calculations in Table 4.9-1 assume the following Low Impact Development (LID) measures
for the proposed (post-construction) condition:
Vegetated Swales. Swales would be installed along the eastern and southeastern boundary
adjacent to the parking area; along the southwestern boundary between the proposed building
and boundary; and along the western boundary of the proposed building.
Landscape and Landscape Irrigation. Plant trees near impervious surface to intercept
precipitation in their leaves. Trees planted adjacent to impervious surfaces can intercept water
that would otherwise become stormwater runoff. A minimum of two 15-gallon trees must be
planted a maximum of 10 feet from impervious surfaces. Tree locations per landscaping plan.
Install irrigation systems that utilize weather-based smart irrigation controller to minimize
water usage and reduce dry weather urban runoff per Low Impact Development Standards
Manual (February 2014), page 3-3.
Short-Term Construction
There are three sources of short-term construction-related storm water pollution associated
with the proposed project that could impact the beneficial uses of downstream water bodies:
Handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants
Maintenance and operation of construction equipment
Earthmoving activities
These sources, if not controlled, can generate soil erosion and on- and off-site transport via
storm run-off or mechanical equipment. Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment
leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids on the project site are also common
sources of storm water pollution and soil contamination. Implementation of the proposed
project has the potential to produce typical pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals,
pesticides and herbicides, toxic chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-62
including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and sanitary wastes, fuel,
and lubricants. Generally, standard safety precautions for handling and storing construction
materials can adequately reduce the potential pollution of storm water by these materials.
These types of standard procedures can be extended to non-hazardous storm water pollutants
such as sawdust, concrete washout, and other wastes.
In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes, leading to impacts on
storm drains and sediment loading to storm runoff flows. Two general strategies are
recommended to prevent soil materials from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control
procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed, and secondly, the
project site should be secured to control off-site transport of pollutants.
In order to reduce the amount of on-site exposed soil, grading would be limited to the extent
feasible, and any graded areas would be protected against erosion once they are brought to
final grade. Furthermore, development associated with implementation of the proposed project
would be required to comply with the Construction General NPDES Permit. Prior to
construction, the General Permit requires the following:
Electronic submittal of the Permit Registration Documents (PRD) to the SWRCB at least 30
days before the start of construction, which includes submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI),
risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee,
and a signed certification statement;
Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP; and
Electronic submittal of a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB upon completion of
construction and stabilization of the site.
Construction activities for development associated with implementation of the proposed
project would be subject to inspection by the City of Azusa Public Works/Engineering
Department. The General Permit requires that non-storm water discharges from construction
sites be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent practicable, that a SWPPP be developed
governing construction activities for the proposed project, and that routine inspections be
performed of all storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices being used at
the site, including inspections before and after storm events.
Preparation of and compliance with the SWPPP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1) would reduce
potential short-term water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Operation
The 1.23-acre project site is developed with three residential units, accessory structures, and
landscaped areas. With these existing on-site uses, the site is 83 percent pervious and 17 percent
impervious.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 60 senior
apartment units. Table 4.9-1, Existing and Proposed Pervious and Impervious Conditions, shows that
the post-project conditions result in a decrease to 26 percent in the amount of pervious area and
an increase to 74 percent in the amount of impervious area.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-63
TABLE 4.9-2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS SITE
CONDITIONS
Area Impervious Area Pervious Area
Square Feet Square Feet % of Area Square Feet % of Area
Existing
(Pre-Construction) 53,780 9,270 17 44,510 83
Proposed
(Post-Construction) 53,780 39,568 74 14,212 26
Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017)
The long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project would be a source of
pollutants, including suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens
(bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, trash and debris, and
household hazardous wastes. The vegetated areas are likely to produce suspended
solids/sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The beneficial uses of downstream water bodies
could be impacted due to development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
would be required to prepare and implement a plan (i.e., SUSMP or functional equivalent
document) in accordance with the guidance to be developed by the NPDES Permit permittees,
that includes post-construction BMPs (such as LID, if feasible) to reduce pollutant loading. This
plan, included as Mitigation Measure HYD-2, would be required prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
The proposed project shall provide stormwater quality treatment by means of on-site
infiltration as a top priority mitigation measure by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit). Design and feasibility screening shall be per methods
outlined in the 2014 Los Angeles County Low Impact Development (LID) Manual.
MITIGATION MEASURES
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall enroll electronically
through the SMARTS program to comply with the State of California General
Construction Permit. Proof of enrollment must be submitted to the City of Azusa before
issuance of grading or building permits. Also, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) or functional equivalent required at that time shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Manager and the City Engineer for water quality construction
activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time shall
be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP or
functional equivalent required at that time shall outline the source control and/or
treatment control Best Management Practices to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the
construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.”
HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a plan (i.e., Standard
Urban Storm Water Management Plan [SUSMP] or functional equivalent document per
current State law or other applicable statutes) in accordance with the guidance to be
developed by the NPDES Permit permittees, that includes Low Impact Development and
other post-construction Best Management Practices to reduce pollutant loading. The plan
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-64
shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and City Engineer. The
Applicant shall be responsible for implement the measures identified in the SUSMP or
functional equivalent document.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR
INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT
THERE WOULD BE A NET DEFICIT IN AQUIFER VOLUME OR A LOWERING OF THE
LOCAL GROUNDWATER TABLE LEVEL (E.G., THE PRODUCTION RATE OF PRE-
EXISTING NEARBY WELLS WOULD DROP TO A LEVEL WHICH WOULD NOT
SUPPORT EXISTING LAND USES OR PLANNED USES FOR WHICH PERMITS HAVE
BEEN GRANTED)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project would continue to be connected to the City’s utility lines and is not
anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies through the consumption of the water. Refer to
Response 4.17.D. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE
PATTERN OF THE SITE OR AREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE
COURSE OF STREAM OR RIVER, IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF-SITE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project would increase the percentage of impervious surfaces on-site from 17
percent (pre-construction conditions) to 74 percent (post-construction) on the 1.23-acre project
site. In the proposed conditions, the site’s drainage pattern would not substantially change
from current conditions. Revegetation of currently improved surfaces would reduce the
sediment load in storm water runoff, as well as increase the on-site percolation of runoff. While
the rate and quantity of runoff from the site would slightly increase as a result of implementing
the proposed project, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-65
D. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE
PATTERN OF THE SITE OR AREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE
COURSE OF A STREAM OR RIVER, OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR
AMOUNT OF SURFACE RUNOFF IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN
FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Refer to Response 4.9.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE RUNOFF WATER WHICH WOULD
EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING OR PLANNED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS OR PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF POLLUTED
RUNOFF?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Refer to Response 4.9.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
F. WOULD THE PROJECT OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Refer to Response 4.9.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
G. WOULD THE PROJECT PLACE HOUSING WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD
AREA AS MAPPED ON A FEDERAL FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY OR FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAP OR OTHER FLOOD HAZARD DELINEATION MAP?
NO IMPACT
Flood hazards related to storm events generally are described in terms of the “100-year flood.”
As its name implies, the 100-year flood is the largest flood event, which may be expected to
occur within a 100-year period. This flood is considered a severe flood, but one that can be
reasonably predicted and mitigated.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-66
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares and maintains Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs), which show the extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and other
thematic features related to flood risk. Based on FEMA FIRM Map 06037C1700F, the project site
is located in Zone X, which is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Also, the proposed
project does not include the construction of residential uses. Thus, no impacts would occur in
this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
H. WOULD THE PROJECT PLACE WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA
STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOOD FLOWS?
NO IMPACT
No structures are proposed within the Zone X; thus, the proposed project would not impede or
redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
I. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK
OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING FLOODING, INCLUDING FLOODING AS A
RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF A LEVEE OR DAM?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is located approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the Morris Dam and
approximately 6.4 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Dam. According to the Azusa General Plan
EIR, the project site is located within the San Gabriel and Morris Dam failure inundation zone.
The San Gabriel and Morris Dams are owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Flood Control Division. These
dams, as well as others in California, are continually monitored by various governmental
agencies (such as the State of California Division of Safety of Dams and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) to guard against the threat of failure. Current design and construction practices and
ongoing programs of review, modification, or total reconstruction of existing dams are
intended to ensure that all dams are capable of withstanding the maximum credible earthquake
(MCE). Further, although the project site is within a dam inundation area, the project site was
previously developed with residential uses and is located within a developed residential and
commercial area; as such, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving dam failure already exists.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-67
J. WOULD THE PROJECT EXPERIENCE INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI, OR
MUDFLOW?
NO IMPACT
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking.
The project site is not located within a coastal area, and no water bodies are on or adjacent to
the project site that would impact the project due to seiche. The nearest water body to the
project site is the San Gabriel River situated approximately 3.5 miles to the west. The nearest
coastal area is the Pacific Ocean, located approximately 35 miles west of the project site. As a
result, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) and seiches are not considered a significant hazard at the
project site. In addition, given the developed nature of the project area, there are no features
adjacent to the project site that are capable of inundating the site by mudflow. Thus, no impacts
would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-68
Exhibit 4-1 Grading and Drainage Plan
Source: Apple Engineering Group (June 2017)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-69
4.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Sources Cited in Section 4.10
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004
City of Azusa, Zoning Map
A. WOULD THE PROJECT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is located in a developed residential and commercial area in the City of Azusa,
along East Gladstone Street, east of Azusa Boulevard. The project site adjoins one- and two-
story apartments to the east, single-family residences to the south and west, and a commercial
center to the north, north of East Gladstone Street. Implementation of the proposed project on a
site currently developed with three single-family residences to a site developed with 60 senior
apartment units would not represent a change in land use that would adversely affect
surrounding areas.
The proposed project would be located on a site in an urbanized area, consistent with the
existing on-site and surrounding established land use patterns. The physical arrangement of
the surrounding community and roadway network would not be modified or divided as result
of project implementation. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE LAND USE PLAN,
POLICY, OR REGULATION OF AN AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE
PROJECT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, OR ZONING ORDINANCE) ADOPTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Azusa General Plan Figure CD-3, Regulating Plan, and Figure CD-4, Land Use Diagram,
designate the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 (NG2), Low
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-70
Density Residential. The project site is located within Neighborhood 19 per General Plan Figure
CD-5, Neighborhood Map. General Plan Table CD-2, Land Use Plan Classification, identifies
single-family residential as the typical principal use within the Low Density Residential
category with a maximum density of 0 to 8 dwelling units per net acre. The Zoning Map
designates the project site as Southeast Neighborhoods, Neighborhood General 2 Low (NG2
Low Density Residential).
The proposed project includes:
General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District
Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District
Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use
Density Bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
Concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
• 36-foot building height/3 stories
Affordable Housing Agreement
Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements
The proposed project would involve the demolition of all on-site buildings and the construction
of 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre (53,579 square foot) project site. The proposed
project includes five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom units (550
square feet) for a total of 60 units; six of the units would be designated as low-income units. The
proposed project includes a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security
office, storage areas, and a community garden. Surface parking would be provided on the
eastern portion of the site. A singular ingress and egress access would be provided be provided
in the northeastern portion of the site from East Gladstone Street. A secondary emergency
access gate would be provided in the southeastern portion of the site from East Orkney Street.
General Plan and Zoning
The General Plan DE Edgewood District designation allows for a maximum density of 15.1 to
27 dwelling units per net acre. The 2014-2021 Housing Element has identified that this density is
adequate to support the development of affordable housing in Azusa given the comparably
lower cost of land and lower cost of housing in the City relative to surrounding communities.
Further, the 2014-2021 Housing Element indicates that the City’s willingness to allow the
construction of senior housing at a density of up to 40 units per acre to provide incentives for
this type of new housing.
The Zoning that corresponds with the General Plan DE Edgewood District designation is DE
Edgewood District. The DE Edgewood District standards are intended to result in a more
pedestrian-oriented district, with stronger relationships between buildings, the sidewalks, and
abutting streets. The desired future for the Edgewood District is a "village center" with two and
three-story mixed-use buildings. Senior apartments are permitted with a Minor Use Permit in
the DE Edgewood District zone.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-71
Development Code
The proposed project is subject to Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Standards for
Specific Plan Uses, Subsection 88.42.200, Senior Citizen Apartments and Chapter 88.30,
Standards for All Development and Land Uses. Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42
provides site planning, development, and/or operating standards for certain land uses that are
allowed by Article 2 (Urban Standards) within individual or multiple zones, and for activities
that require special standards to mitigate their potential adverse impacts. Development Code
Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Subsection 88.42.200 recognizes that the housing needs of older
residents may differ from those of the general population in terms of dwelling unit size, unit
accessibility, parking requirements, and housing affordability, among other considerations, and
establishes special requirements for senior citizen apartments.
The site-specific development standards for the proposed project are shown in Table 4-10.1,
Project Consistency with Development Standards.
DENSITY AND LOT COVERAGE
As shown in Table 4.10-1, the density development standard is 40 units per gross acre. The
project site is 1.23 acres, thus up to 49 units would be permitted. The proposed project would
result in a density of 48.8 dwelling units per gross acre and a lot coverage of 31 percent.
BUILDING HEIGHTS
The building height would be a maximum of three stories/36 feet.
OPEN SPACE
Azusa Development Code Subsection 88.42.200 requires a minimum of 60 square feet per unit of
private open space and 125 square feet per unit of common open space for senior citizen
apartments. Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 3,600 square feet of private open
space and 7,500 square feet of common open space for a combined total of 11,100 square feet.
The proposed project includes a total of 2,100 square feet of private open space (balcony -
average 35 square feet per unit) and 9,826 square feet of common open space with the
community garden. In total, the proposed project includes a total of 11,926 square feet of
private and common open space. The proposed project does not meet the private open space
standard as only 35 square feet per unit was assumed, which is less than 60 square feet
requirement. However, the reduction in private open space by 1,500 square feet is accounted
for in the community garden area, which exceeds the standard by 2,326 square feet.
PARKING
Azusa Development Code Subsection 88.42.200 requires one covered space per unit and one guest
space per for every five units. Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 72 parking
spaces. The proposed project includes a total of 37 parking spaces, which includes 31 parking
spaces for the units (assumes 0.5 parking stalls per unit) and 6 guest spaces (assumes one space
for every ten units). The City would require the Applicant through the variance approval to
prepare a parking study demonstrating that the proposed reduction in parking standards is
adequate for the proposed project based upon existing senior apartment facilities in the City
and in surrounding jurisdictions.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-72
TABLE 4.10-1 CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Regulation for Senior Citizen Apartment Standard Proposed Project Complies with Development Regulation
Building Height (Maximum) 2 stories/35 feet 3 stories/36 feet
Yes – Concession per
Government Code Sections
69515 -69518
Density (Maximum) 40 units per gross acre 48.81
Yes – Density Bonuses per
Government Code Sections
69515 -69518
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60% 31% Yes
Front Yard Setback (Minimum)
20 feet with minimum 15 feet
between building and any
private patio wall
21 feet 6 inches Yes
Side Yard Setback (Minimum)
Interior 10 feet 15 feet (west)
41 feet to porte-cochere (east) Yes
Street Side 15 feet n/a
Rear Yard Setback (Minimum) 15 feet 15 feet Yes
Dwelling Unit Size (Minimum
1-bedroom,
1-bathroom unit 550 square feet 550 square feet Yes
2-bedroom,
1-bathroom unit 600 square feet 835 square feet
(1-3/4 bathrooms) Yes
2-bedroom,
2-bathroom unit or larger 700 square feet n/a
Common Open Space 125 square feet per unit 9,826 square feet
(163 square feet per unit) Yes
Private Open Space 60 square feet per unit 2,100 square feet2
(35 square feet per unit) No – Variance required
Off-Street Parking 1 covered space per unit and 1
guest space for each five units 373 (0.5 space per unit and 1
guest space per 10 units) No – Variance required
Source: Azusa Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Subsection 88.42.200, Senior Citizen Apartments
Notes:
1. Site is 1.23 acres.
2. Private open space assumed an average of 35 square feet per unit.
3. Includes two handicapped parking spaces.
Variances
Variances are permitted per Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.51.050. A variance or minor
variance may be granted to waive or modify any requirement of the Azusa Development Code
except allowed land uses; residential density; specific prohibitions, or procedural requirements.
The proposed project requires approval of a variance to reduce the amount of private open
space square footage required per unit and for the reduction in parking spaces (37 spaces). The
Applicant is proposing the following parking standards: 1) 0.5 spaces per unit and 2) one guest
space per 10 units. Under the proposed parking standards, the proposed project would need to
provide 36 parking spaces.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-73
Affordable Housing Incentives
SB 1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) amended the State density bonus program (Government Code
Section 65915) and took effect on January 1, 2005. The amendments addressed density bonus;
continued affordability; concessions and incentives; waivers and modifications of development
standards; land donation; and parking.
Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88.32, Affordable Housing Incentives, has codified the
requirements of SB 1818.
The Applicant is seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet). In addition, the
Applicant is seeking a density bonus per Government Code Sections 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (g)(1).
As shown in Table 4.10-1, the density for the site is 40 units per gross acre, which equates to 49
units on the 1.23 acres. Under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1), a developer may seek a
density bonus if ten percent of the units are for lower income households as defined in Health
and Safety Code Section 50079.5. The proposed project includes six units for low-income
residents. Thus, the proposed project qualifies for a 23 percent density bonus under Government
Code Section 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (g)(1). The 23 percent density bonus is applied to 49 units
for a total of 60 units, which is the number of units proposed for the project.
Impact Conclusion
Development of the project site would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process,
including approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Minor Use Permit, Variances,
Affordable Housing Agreement, and Density Bonuses and Concessions per Government Code
Section 69515 through 69518. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change, the proposed project would be consistent with the Azusa General Plan DE Edgewood
District land use designation and the Zoning DE Edgewood District designation.
Senior apartment uses are permitted in DE Edgewood District zoning designation with a Minor
Use Permit and must comply with the regulations of Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200
– Senior Citizen Apartments. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the proposed project generally complies
with the development standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200, with the
exception of building height, parking, and private open space. As noted above, the Applicant is
seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet), and a variance for private open
space and a reduction in parking spaces (37 spaces). Thus, the proposed project would be
consistent with the development standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200 and
the requirements in Chapter 88.32 upon approval of the concession and variances.
In addition, the proposed senior apartment units are consistent with adjacent multi-family and
single-family uses to the east, west, and south, as well as with adjacent commercial uses to the
north.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-74
C. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN?
NO IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.4.F.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-75
4.11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Sources Cited in Section 4.11
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004
A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A KNOWN
MINERAL RESOURCE THAT WOULD BE OF VALUE TO THE REGION AND THE
RESIDENTS OF THE STATE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The City of Azusa is situated on sand and gravel deposits formed at the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains known as the San Gabriel Fan District. These aggregate deposits are designated by
the Department of Conservation as mineral resources of regional importance. Aggregate from
Azusa and surrounding areas is used for a variety of construction activities throughout the San
Gabriel Valley and Los Angeles Basin, including production of concrete, road base, and related
building materials. Presently, only aggregate and Portland Cement Concrete are commercial
commodities within Azusa. Three active aggregate mining pits lie within the Azusa city limits,
two operated by Vulcan Materials, and the third by Cemex. Other areas containing aggregate
resources are not mined, but are devoted to other uses, including agriculture, residential, and
industrial uses. Vulcan Material - Reliance Azusa Mine is an open pit facility located on
relatively flat terrain, and located directly south of the project site. Approximately one-third of
the gravel pit is in Azusa, and the remaining two-thirds, including the Reliance Pit and
Reliance Plant, is located in Irwindale.
Based on Azusa General Plan Figure MR-1, Mineral Resource Zones in Azusa, the project site is
located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 consists of areas of undetermined
mineral resource significance.
The proposed project consists of the demolition of three single-family residences and the
construction of 60 senior apartment units on the project site. The proposed project would not
result in the displacement of an existing mining operation since no mining activities currently
occur on-site. The site is located within MRZ-3, and is not located near large-scale aggregate
mining facilities that exist within the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not represent a loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Thus, impacts would be
less than significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-76
B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A LOCALLY-
IMPORTANT MINERAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SITE DELINEATED ON A LOCAL
GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN OR OTHER LAND USE PLAN?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.11.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-77
4.12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Sources Cited in Section 4.12
Giroux and Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Gladstone Senior Villas Project, Azusa,
California, June 24, 2017 (Noise Study) – included in its entirety as Appendix F
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Noise Element, April 2004
City of Azusa, Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2016-O7, adopted September
19, 2016
City of Azusa Noise Regulations
The City of Azusa establishes noise regulations and standards within the Azusa General Plan
Noise Element and the Municipal Code. For purposes of this analysis, the City’s Noise
Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 88.31.020(C)) is used to evaluate the noise impacts to and
from the proposed project. The following summarizes Section 88.31.020(C):
C. Noise Source Standards.
1. Noise Level Limitations. No use, activity, or process within the city shall generate noise in
excess of the levels identified by Tables 3-3 and 3-4, as the noise is measured at the property
line of a noise sensitive land use identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.
a. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any
category shown in Table 3-3, the applicable standards shall be adjusted to equal the
ambient noise level.
b. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or
stopped to allow measurement of the ambient noise level, the noise level measured
while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the applicable noise
level standards identified in Table 3-3.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-78
Notwithstanding the above requirements, no person shall allow or cause the generation of any noise of a type,
volume, pitch, tone, repetition, or duration that would be found to be a nuisance by a reasonable person beyond
the boundaries of the property where the noise is generated.
Table 3-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Level By Receiving Land Use
Noise Sensitive Land Use
Outdoor Activity
Area (1) (2) Interior Spaces
dBA Ldn dBA Ldn dBA Leq
Residential 65 45 N/A
Transient lodging 65 45 N/A
Hospitals, extended car 65 45 N/A
Theater, auditorium (3) 45 35
Meeting facility, public or private 65 45 40
Offices 65 45 45
School, library, museum 65 45 45
Playground, park 70 N/A N/A
Notes:
1. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2. Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best available noise
reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 70 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have
been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.
3. Subject to an acoustical analysis in compliance with subsection C.2.
Table 3-4. Noise Standards For Short-Duration Events Near Residential Areas
Sound Level
Maximum Allowable Sound Level (1)
Day/Evening dB
(7AM to 10PM)
Night dB
(10PM - 7AM)
Hourly Leq dB 50 45
Maximum Level, dB 70 65
Maximum Level, dB, for Impulsive Noise 65 60
Notes:
1. If the offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone (e.g., a screech or hum), is a repetitive noise (e.g., hammering), or contains speech or music,
the maximum allowable sound level shall be reduced by five dB.
2. Acoustical Analysis Required. Where the director determines that a proposed project may
generate noise in excess of any limit established by Table 3-3, and/or where the use may
generate noise in outdoor areas in excess of 60 dBA, the land use permit application for
the use shall include an acoustical analysis by a qualified professional approved by the
director.
a. Contents. The Analysis shall determine the potential for stationary source
noise impacts to neighboring land uses, include field measurements to
determine more precise locations for existing and projected future noise levels
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-79
(based on traffic projections in the circulation element of the general plan or as
otherwise accepted by the city), and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
B Preferred Mitigation Measures for Receptor Sites. When development is
subject to high noise levels requiring mitigation, the following measures shall be
considered and preference shall be given where feasible in the following order:
Site layout, including setbacks, open space separation and shielding of noise
sensitive uses with non-sensitive uses;
Acoustical treatment of buildings; or
Structural measures such as construction of earth berms and/or wood or
concrete barriers; provided that no sound wall shall be located adjacent to
a public street.
3. Limitation on Hours of Construction. In order to allow construction schedules to take
advantage of the weather and normal daylight hours, and to ensure that nearby residents as
well as nonresidential activities are not disturbed by the early morning or late night activities,
the city has established the following limits on construction, in compliance with Table 3-5 or as
required by conditions of approval.
Table 3-5. Allowable Hours of Construction
Day Allowable Hours
Monday through Saturday
7AM to 6PM
Extended construction hours may only be allowed
by the review authority through conditions of
approval between 6PM and 10PM.
Sunday and National Holidays
Construction activities may only be allowed by the
review authority through conditions of approval
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
4. Limitation on Truck Deliveries. Truck deliveries to a commercial or industrial parcel
adjacent to a conforming residential use shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m., unless the Director authorizes other delivery times based on the
determination that there is either no feasible alternative, or there are overriding
transportation and traffic management benefits to scheduling deliveries at night.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-80
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is primarily affected by East Gladstone Street traffic along the northern site
perimeter. Traffic noise along the East Orkney Street perimeter is minimal since this section of
East Orkney Street is a cul-de-sac at the project site. The Interstate 210 (I-210) Freeway is
approximately 0.5 miles north of the site, and is a major traffic noise source with multiple
intervening structures. The I-210 Freeway generates a minimal low frequency hum late at night,
but not enough to measurably affect background levels.
The detailed noise impact study for a proposed new refuse transfer station (2010) concluded
that then existing traffic noise along East Gladstone Street was 64 dB CNEL at 100 feet from the
roadway centerline. The distance from the centerline to the City’s 65 dB CNEL goal for usable
outdoor space was calculated at 81 feet. Although these findings are dated, the study
concluded that the City of Azusa is built out, except for future small infill projects. The ultimate
noise contour along East Gladstone Street is forecast to be less than +1 dB higher than the
baseline. The threshold of human noise distinction, even in an acoustic laboratory, is around 1.5
dB. Future buildout traffic noise levels along the northern project perimeter would be
indistinguishable from existing levels.
The closest residential units to the project site are located immediately to the west, east, and
south.
Because of the substantial passage of time since the previous traffic noise impact analysis along
Gladstone, an updated noise measurement was conducted on July 10, 2017. Measurements
were made at the South Orkney Street cul-de-sac and at 50 feet from the South Gladstone Street
centerline. Measured levels were as follows (dB):
Location Time Leq Lmax Lmin 50% Level
Orkney Street 12:00 47 56 42 45
Gladstone Street 12:20 62 70 44 58
Caltrans guidelines suggest that weighted 24-hour CNEL’s are typically 3 dB higher than mid-
day Leq levels. The above readings predict an existing level of 65 dB at 50 feet from the South
Gladstone Street centerline. This measurement is very similar to the historical model prediction
of 67 dB CNEL at 50 feet.
As a conservative estimate, the slightly higher model prediction was used to assess project
façade traffic noise impacts to account for limited future noise impacts from 20 percent
maximum traffic growth, a design noise loading of 69 dB CNEL at 50 feet from Gladstone Street
was assumed for the proposed project.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-81
A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION
OF NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL
GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER
AGENCIES?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary
depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction would
vary with the different phases of construction.
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
The United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has compiled data regarding the
noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table
4.12-3, Typical Construction Noise Levels. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with
distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a
noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100
feet. At 200 feet from the noise source the noise level would reduce to 74 dBA. At 400 feet, the
noise source would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA. Contractors are required to comply
with the City of Azusa Noise Ordinance during construction.
As shown in Table 4.12-3, temporary construction noise impacts would vary markedly as the
noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used
and its activity level.
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately eight to 12 months and
would include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and
architectural coating. Temporary noise impacts associated with the proposed project would
occur from construction activities.
The project site is essentially flat and would not require extensive heavy grading. The primary
construction equipment noise sources to develop the proposed project would be during
grading and paving activities where it is anticipated that loader/backhoes and a dozer would
be employed. This equipment is expected to be the noisiest with equipment noise of about 85
dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-82
TABLE 4.12-3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Earth Moving
Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76
Front Loaders 73 - 84
Backhoes 73 - 92
Tractors 75 - 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92
Pavers 85 - 87
Trucks 81 - 94
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72 - 87
Concrete Pumps 81 - 83
Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87
Stationary
Pumps 68 - 71
Generators 71 - 83
Compressors 75 - 86
Impact Equipment
Pneumatic Wrenches 82 - 87
Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 80 - 99
Pile Drivers (Peak) 95-105
Other
Vibrators 68 - 82
Saws 71 - 82
Notes:
Referenced noise levels from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
The nearest sensitive uses to the project site are the single-family homes to the immediate west
and south, and multi-family apartments to the east. Also, single-family homes are located
northeast of the project site. Due to the proximity of these off-site sensitive uses to the project
site, they may experience a temporary noise nuisance during the most intensive periods of
activity (demolition of three existing homes, excavation of foundations and utilities, limited on-
site earth movement for final grade).
Each off-site sensitive receiver is partially noise-shielded by its location relative to the project
site. The multi-family apartments to the east have no outdoor recreational space along the
shared property line, and the closest new on-site building would be more than 50 feet away
separated by a 6-foot block wall. The single-family homes south of South Orkney Street are
more than 70 feet from the location of building construction and have their outdoor space in the
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-83
rear yard additionally shielded by the homes themselves. The two homes on the east side of
Conwell Avenue along the site’s western property line are the closest off-site noise-sensitive
receivers. These single-story homes have a solid rear yard wall, which would partially shield
interior rooms and patio areas from construction activity noise.
Because of the existing pre-graded gentle slope of the site parcel, project construction would
also not require the use of extremely noisy construction equipment. However, construction of
the proposed project would expose surrounding off-site receptors to increased ambient exterior
noise levels comparable to those previously listed in Table 4.12-3. It should be noted that any
increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the proposed project would
be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although
occasional single-event disturbances from construction are possible. In addition, the
construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., demolition and
grading work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior
building construction) as the physical structures of the proposed project would break the line-
of-sight noise transmission from the construction area to the nearby sensitive receptors.
The City of Azusa exempts construction noise from adherence to noise standards as long as
activity occurs during permissible hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday.
Unless conditional approval is provided by the review authority, construction activities are not
permitted outside the allowable time window or on Sundays and National Holidays.
As such, a potentially significant impact would occur with regard to short-term construction
noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise
Ordinance and implementation of Best Management Practices. Short-term construction Best
Management Practices require mobile equipment to be muffled and directing equipment away
from receptors in order to minimize construction-related noise. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant and/or construction contractor shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Azusa Community Development
Department, that the project complies with the following:
Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
State required noise attenuation devices.
Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday, per the
City’s Noise Ordinance.
The construction contractor shall ensure that equipment operators limit equipment
idling to five minutes or less. If greater than five minutes, idling equipment shall
be turned off not in use.
The construction contractor shall maintain equipment to ensure that vehicles and
the loads are secured to limit reduce rattling or banging noises.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-84
B. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION
OF EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. The construction activities for the proposed project would not
include blasting or pile driving, and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts in
this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT INCREASE IN
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING
WITHOUT THE PROJECT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Ambient Mobile Source Noise Impacts
The existing traffic noise at the façade of the planned units facing East Gladstone Street is 66-67
dB CNEL. The anticipated increase associated with future buildout traffic would be +0.6 dB
CNEL. Such a change is imperceptible within the range of human hearing.
Based upon traffic noise computer modeling, the existing setback from the East Gladstone
Street centerline is 80 feet to the 65 dB CNEL contour. Measured noise levels suggest that the
modeled estimate may be a few decibels higher than observed short-term monitoring. The
slightly higher modeled value was used for the impact analysis. At buildout, the ultimate 65 dB
CNEL contour distance would increase to 90 feet. Any proposed exterior or balconies directly
fronting East Gladstone Street would marginally exceed the City of Azusa noise standard of 65
dB CNEL for usable outdoor residential space. Any patio/deck space on the northern façade
facing East Gladstone Street would require a partial shield (solid base and transparent top) to
achieve a noise level reduction to create noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, which is included
in Mitigation Measure NOI-2, and would reduce impacts to less than significant. One amenity
of the proposed project is a community garden with outdoor seating, walking paths, etc. within
the interior courtyard of the building, which creates more than 1,500 square feet of additional
noise-protected space for residents.
As previously noted, noise levels at the facades of the planned northernmost units would be 67-
68 dB CNEL. Structural attenuation of 22-23 dB would be needed to achieve the California
Building Code interior level of 45 dB CNEL. The hierarchy of residential construction noise
reduction is as follows:
Open Windows (10%) – 12 dB
Closed Single Pane - 20 dB
Closed Dual Pane – 28 dB
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-85
CALGreen normally requires dual-paned windows in new California residential construction.
With closed dual paned windows, the California Building Code Standard would be met with a
large margin of safety. When window closure is needed to achieve a noise requirement, the
California Building Code requires the provision of supplemental fresh air ventilation typically
at a rate of 30 CFM per minute. These requirements have been included in Mitigation Measure
NOI-3, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact
The proposed project would generate 187 daily net trips accessed via East Gladstone Street. The
existing street volume is around 11,000 average daily traffic (ADT). City future buildout traffic
volumes are forecast to be 11,500 ADT as the City of Azusa is substantially built out. With
limited additional growth and anticipated penetration of quiet electric cars into the future,
travel fleet, negligible change in the baseline traffic noise environment is forecast.
The addition of 187 net daily trips onto an 11,000 ADT baseline would increase overall traffic
noise by +0.1 dB CNEL, individually or cumulatively. The threshold of human perception even
under ideal conditions is approximately 1.5 dB. Thus, no perceptible change in the traffic noise
environment would result from proposed project implementation. Also, the cumulative traffic
associated with the proposed project would not be great enough to result in a measurable or
perceptible increase in traffic noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to
increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0 dBA or greater per the Federal Highway
Administration). Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
On-Site Noise Impact
The noise level generated by the normal operations of the 60 senior apartment units would not
result in a significant increase in the ambient noise levels, nor impact the sensitive receptors
near the project site. Noise from the senior apartment units would primarily occur during the
daytime activity hours, and would be typical of noise from residential uses. Thus, less than
significant impacts would occur in this regard.
The proposed project does include a community garden, but this passive outdoor use at a
senior apartment complex is not a noise generator of substance. Active recreation would occur
indoors within a community room.
Noise measurements along East Orkney Street found that with only partial shielding of East
Gladstone Street traffic and negligible vehicles on the East Orkney Street cul-de-sac, existing
noise levels in the proposed community garden are in the low 50 dB CNEL range. The
proposed 3-story building would additionally reduce the noise levels in the community garden.
Therefore, noise is not an issue either from the community garden use impacting the neighbors
or from ambient noise affecting outdoor enjoyment in the community garden.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-86
MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-2 Exterior Noise. Patio/deck space on the northern façade facing East Gladstone Street
shall include a shield with a solid base and an upper transparent shield to a combined
height of 5.5 feet above the deck surface to achieve a noise level reduction to less than
65 dB CNEL.
NOI-3 Interior Noise. The building shall be designed and constructed to achieve an exterior
to interior noise level reduction of 25 dB, inclusive of the following elements:
Exterior walls shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of at least
STC-39.
Stud walls shall be at least 4-inch in nominal depth finished on the outside with
stucco.
Interior walls shall be gypsum board or plaster at least ½-inch thick.
Insulation material at least 3.5-inch thick shall be installed in the cavity space
between studs.
Windows shall meet current CalGreen requirements rating at least STC=28.
Exterior doors shall be solid core at least 1.75-inch thick and fully weather-
stripped.
Roofs shall have an STC rating of at least STC=39.
Ceilings shall be at least 0.5-inch thick.
Insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists.
A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed to provide the minimum air
circulation and fresh air supply specified in the California Building Code.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC
INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE THE
LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Refer to Responses 4.12.A through 4.12.C.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-3. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-87
E. FOR A PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR, WHERE
SUCH A PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED, WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC
AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE
RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?
NO IMPACT
The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of the project
site. The second closest airport to the site is Brackett Field Airport in La Verne is approximately
8.5 southeast of the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or
within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project
would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels
associated with an airport or private airstrip. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
F. FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, WOULD THE
PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO
EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?
NO IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.12.E.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-88
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-89
4.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Sources Cited in Section 4.13
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan, April 2004
City of Azusa, Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2004
City of Azusa, 2014-2021 Housing Element, Adopted October 21, 2013
State of California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2017, With 2010 Benchmark, January 1, 2017
Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan,
Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a Sustainable Future Growth Forecast Appendix, Adopted
April 2012
A. WOULD THE PROJECT INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH IN AN
AREA, EITHER DIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, BY PROPOSING NEW HOMES AND
BUSINESSES) OR INDIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH EXTENSION OF ROADS
OR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Population Growth
The project proposes to demolish the three on-site residences and construct a 60-unit senior
apartment project on the 1.23-acre project site, thus providing senior housing for people that
have special housing needs. Six of the 60 units would be designated as low-income units. The
proposed project includes 55 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units, which could have
an estimated occupancy of 96 residents based on 1.5 residents for the one-bedroom units and
2.5 residents for the two-bedroom units.
It is anticipated that many of the senior apartments would be occupied by existing Azusa
residents, therefore, the City’s population would not substantially increase by the proposed
project. As such, the 96 residents represent 0.19 percent of the City’s 2017 population of
approximately 49,762 persons. However, if all the future residents live outside the City and
move to the development, there would be a 0.19 percent growth over the City’s 2017
population.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-90
SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing and population
forecasts for local Los Angeles County governments, among other counties, and provides
population projection estimates in five-year increments from 2005 to 2035. SCAG projects that
the City’s population will be 53,800 persons in 2035. Thus, the proposed project is within
SCAG’s 2035 population forecast for the City. Additionally, the small increase in residential
units and population is consistent with the growth projections in the Azusa General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, which forecasted the City’s population to be approximately 56,336
persons in 2020. Therefore, the proposed project is within the City’s 2020 population forecast.
Housing Element
The State’s Housing Element law requires local governments to make plans to adequately
address their share of existing and projected population growth, taking into consideration
affordability of available and future housing. In the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element, the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Azusa totals 779 units, which includes
Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate and Above Moderate affordability levels. The City
is required to ensure that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide for the development
of the 779 residential units.
The 2014-2021 Housing Element addresses the need for senior housing in the City. Regarding
senior housing, the Housing Element states:
“The special housing needs of the elderly stem from several factors: their relatively low, fixed incomes,
high health care costs, and physical limitations. Being on a low, fixed income makes it difficult for many
elderly to afford adequate housing or maintain their homes. This is further compounded by rising health
care costs due to health problems that arise with older age. As a person ages and faces reduced physical
mobility, accessibility improvements may be necessary to maintain safe and independent living.”
According to the 2010 Census, there were 3,576 elderly persons (over age 65) in Azusa. This
represents a 15 percent increase from 2000. Of this elderly population, almost 39 percent had
some form of disability in 2010. Many elderly persons have limited income potential, as they
are most often retired and have fixed incomes (retirement funds and Social Security income).
This poses a special problem with regard to housing affordability. Azusa has 1,165 elderly
households with low, very low, or extremely low incomes. Of these lower-income elderly
households, 33 percent were renters and 67 percent were owners.3
Six of the 60 units would be designated as low-income units. These units would be available
only to those with incomes at 50 to 80 percent of the County’s median family income (MFI). The
City’s 2014-2021 RHNA allocation for low income units is 118 and 336 for above-moderate
income units. The proposed project assists the City in meeting its RHNA allocation by
constructing six low income units and 54 above-moderate income units, thus making the
proposed project consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 2014-2021 Housing Element.
3 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) database, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html#2006-2014_query, accessed June 28, 2017.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-91
Impact Conclusion
The proposed project would not significantly increase the population of Azusa. The proposed
project would provide housing for the senior adult sector as envisioned by the Housing Element.
The proposed project would have a positive impact by providing 54 senior apartments for the
senior adults in Azusa along with providing six affordable senior apartments with many of the
future residents estimated to be existing residents of Azusa. In conclusion, implementation of
the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth within the City either
directly or indirectly, resulting in less than significant impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
B. WOULD THE PROJECT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF EXISTING
HOUSING, NECESSITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING
ELSEWHERE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project proposes to demolish the three on-site single-family residences, and construct a 60-
unit senior apartment project on the 1.23-acre project site. There would be a displacement of
three residential housing units (ownership or rental), but not the need to construct replacement
housing elsewhere, as there is sufficient housing supply in the City. In 2017, the California
Department of Finance reported 8,082 4 single-family detached and attached homes in the City.
Thus, the small decrease of three homes represents 0.04 percent of the City’s total. The
proposed project would displace up to 11 residents, but this would not require the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere in the City, given the available housing stock (rental and for-
sale) and that the proposed project would be providing 60 units in the City. Thus, less than
significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE,
NECESSITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING ELSEWHERE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.13.B.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
4 Source: California Department of Finance E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2017.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-92
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-93
4.14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
A. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED
GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES, NEED FOR NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED
GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE
SERVICE RATIOS, RESPONSE TIMES OR OTHER PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR
ANY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. FIRE PROTECTION?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Fire protection and paramedic services in the City of Azusa are provided by the Consolidated
Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County/Los Angeles County Fire Department
(LACoFD). The City of Azusa is served by Fire Stations 32 and 97. Fire Station 32 is located at
605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, approximately 1.14 miles northwest of the project site,
and would be the first station to respond to the project site in case of an emergency. This station
is staffed with a 4-person engine company (1-fire captain, 1-fire fighter specialist, 1-fire
fighter/paramedic and 1-firefighter) and a 2-person paramedic squad. Fire Station 97 is located
at 18453 East Sierra Madre Avenue, Azusa, approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the project site.
This station is staffed with a 4-person engine company (1-fire captain, 1-fire fighter specialist,
and 21-firefighters).
A single fire station is located within the City of Irwindale, Fire Station 48, located at 15546
Arrow Highway. This station is approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project site, and
would support the project site, if needed.
Fire protection serving the project area is currently adequate.
The proposed project would demolish three existing single-family residences and construct 60
senior apartment units. Construction activities have the potential to increase fire hazards on-
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-94
site. However, LACoFD reviews all development projects and requires standard conditions of
approval to mitigate project-related impacts in this regard. Specifically, LACoFD addresses fire
and life safety requirements for project construction at the fire plan check stage. This includes
plan review of the design details of the architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and
electrical systems. All projects are required to comply with applicable City, County, and State
code and ordinance requirements for fire protection. Thus, impacts in this regard are less than
significant.
The City of Azusa has an Insurance Service Organization (ISO) rating of 3, and LACoFD does
not anticipate that the proposed project would create a need for additional staffing or resources.
The availability of sufficient on-site water pressure for fire flows is a basic requirement of the
LACoFD. The proposed project may require fire flows of up to 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm)
at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration.
Due to the stations’ close proximity to the project site, the response time from the nearest fire
station (Station 32) is approximately 4.6 minutes. At this time, there are no facilities or staffing
needs at the fire stations that would be required in order to serve the proposed project.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the Los Angeles County Code, Title 32,
Los Angeles County Fire Code and the Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 30, Fire Code, as
applicable and any conditions of approval identified by either agency. The proposed project
would be reviewed by LACoFD and the City of Azusa prior to construction to ensure that
adequate water pressure and emergency vehicle access is provided. Thus, with implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts to fire protection services.
MITIGATION MEASURES
FP-1 The Applicant must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for
construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants to service all on-site
buildings.
FP-2 The Applicant shall install fire sprinkler systems in all on-site buildings.
2. POLICE PROTECTION?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
The Azusa Police Department is responsible for providing general law enforcement to the City
of Azusa. The Azusa Police Department is located at 725 North Alameda Avenue, which is
approximately 1.4 miles north of the project site. This facility was upgraded in 1999 and
expanded to house a total personnel of 146 sworn and non-sworn officers, as well as other
equipment and related needs. The facility would accommodate a projected citywide buildout
population of approximately 63,500. The sworn officer to population ratio is approximately 1.36
sworn officers for each 1,000 residents, based on the 2011 population of 46,678 with 63 sworn
officers, which is just below the target ratio of 1.4 officers to each 1,000 residents. Current
staffing levels, facilities, and level of service are considered adequate for the current
population. The target response time for the Azusa Police Department is less than five minutes
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-95
Priority One calls. The current response time to the project area is four and a half minutes. At
this time, the Azusa Police Department does not have any plans for facility expansion or new
facilities.
During construction of the proposed project, there is a potential for increased calls for service to
the project site as a result of the increased number of persons at the project site. Also, due to the
presence of building materials, construction and related temporary office buildings, the
potential for vandalism and theft is also greater; thereby, increasing the Azusa Police
Department’s calls for service demands for emergency services. The Azusa Police Department
can accommodate calls for service during construction with existing staff levels.
Slow-moving construction related traffic on adjacent roadways could reduce optimal traffic
flows and could impact police services by delaying emergency vehicles traveling through the
area. However, potential traffic impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project
completion. Construction-related traffic would not result in a significant impact on police
services or traffic flows.
The proposed project would induce population growth of 96 residents with the 60 senior
apartment units. The Azusa Police Department has indicated that implementation of the
proposed project would not require the expansion of police facilities or services, and that
adequate services exist to serve the project site. However, in order to ensure employee and
visitor safety at the project site as well as overall site security, the Applicant would be required
to adhere to specific conditions related to safety and security specified by the Azusa Police
Department, such as perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications,
surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings (Mitigation Measure PP-1).
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure PP-1, impacts in this regard would be
reduced to less than significant levels. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would
result in less than significant impacts in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
PP-1 The Applicant shall incorporate safety and security conditions specified by the Azusa
Police Department regarding issues including, but not limited to, perimeter walls,
parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting
systems, and pedestrian crossings. The incorporation of specified conditions in
building plans and specifications shall be verified by the Azusa Police Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. SCHOOLS?
NO IMPACT
The proposed project involves the demolition of three existing single-family residences and the
construction of 60 senior apartment units. The proposed project would generate no school-aged
children; thus, there would be no impacts to school facilities. However, the Applicant would be
required to pay statutory fees in place to the Azusa Unified School District (AUSD) in order to
compensate for the impacts of development on school capacities. The AUSD currently assesses
developer fees of $2.05 per square foot for residential development.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-96
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
4. PARKS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Responses 4.15.A and 4.15.B.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
5. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES?
NO IMPACT
The project site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Azusa and Los Angeles
County. The proposed project would not require the construction of any new facilities or
alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause
the need to construct new facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-97
4.15. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
A. WOULD THE PROJECT INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND
REGIONAL PARKS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SUCH THAT
SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OF THE FACILITY WOULD OCCUR OR
BE ACCELERATED?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of park facilities located within
the City, as the proposed project would construct 60 senior apartment units and generate
approximately 96 new residents.
The nearest City public park is Gladstone Park at 414 South Pasadena Avenue, which is 0.15-
miles northeast of the project site. The increase in residential units and population is consistent
with the growth projections in the Azusa General Plan and no additional impacts beyond those
identified in the Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report would occur with
implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the population increase associated with the
proposed project would not significantly impact the use of the City’s existing parks and/or
other recreational facilities. However, the proposed project would be required to pay fees or
dedicate land for the purpose of providing park and recreation facilities in accordance with
Azusa Municipal Code Article 1, Section 14-7, Park and Recreation Fees. Azusa Municipal Code
Article 1, Section 14-7 requires residential developers to pay a park and recreation fee based on
the number of bedrooms included in each dwelling unit. Per Azusa Municipal Code Article 1,
Section 14-7, a $150.00 fee is required for each bedroom in a single or multi-family unit, and
shall be paid to the City at the time the building permit is issued. Payment of the Park and
Recreation Fees is a City standard condition of approval. Thus, while the proposed project’s
population increase would increase the use of parks and other recreational facilities in the City,
these impacts are considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-98
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?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.15.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-99
4.16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities?
Sources Cited in Section 4.16
Crain & Associates, Gladstone Senior Villas Project (360, 410-416 East Gladstone Street, City of
Azusa) Trip Generation Analysis, September 19, 2016 – included in its entirety as Appendix
G
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010 Congestion Management Plan
A. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, ORDINANCE OR
POLICY ESTABLISHING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING MASS TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL
AND RELEVANT COMPONENTS OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO INTERSECTIONS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS,
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHS, AND MASS TRANSIT?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Existing Roadways
Regional access to the site is provided primarily by the Interstate 210 (I-210) Freeway, located
approximately ½-half mile north of the project site. The project site is located at 360, 410-416
East Gladstone Street in the City of Azusa, and takes access off East Gladstone Street and East
Orkney Street.
Project Trip Generation
The latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition, 2012) was used to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project. The trip
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-100
generation equations and rates in the ITE manual are nationally recognized and are used as the
basis for most traffic studies conducted in the Southern California region. The ITE Trip
Generation Manual rates for LUC 210: Single- Family Detached Housing and LUC 252: Senior
Adult Housing were used for the existing use and proposed use, respectively. Table 4.16-1
presents the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates used to determine the expected weekday daily
and peak-hour traffic generation volumes for the proposed project.
By applying the trip rates provided in Table 4.16-1, weekday daily, AM peak-hour, and PM
peak-hour trips were calculated for the proposed project. These trip estimates are also
summarized in Table 4.16-1. Once completed and occupied, the proposed project is expected to
generate approximately 206 daily trips, with 12 AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips.
The existing uses on the project site generate approximately 29 daily trips, with 2 AM peak
hour trips and 3 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the estimated net trip generation to the
surrounding street system for the proposed project (proposed project trips minus existing uses
trips) is approximately 177 daily trips, with 10 AM peak-hour trips and 12 PM peak-hour trips.
Given the low net trip generation estimates for the proposed project, less than significant
impacts would occur on the surrounding intersections or roadway segments.
Transit
Existing City and Regional Transit operates along Azusa Boulevard and Gladstone Street, thus
future residents would have access to bus transportation within ¼-mile of the proposed project.
These bus routes also provide access to the two Gold Line Stations in the City.
Bicycle Routes
Existing bicycle routes are located in close proximity to the project site. A signed route (Class
III) exists along Azusa Boulevard south of I-210 to Arrow Highway, a bike lane (Class II) exists
along East Gladstone Street east of Azusa Boulevard, and a signed route (Class III) exists along
East Gladstone Street west of Azusa Boulevard. These bicycle facilities would be accessible to
future residents of the proposed project.
Impact Conclusion
The proposed project generates a net amount of traffic trips that would not impact the
surrounding intersections or roadway segments. In addition, the future residents of the
proposed project would have access to bus transit, Gold Line Stations, and bicycle facilities.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-101
TABLE 4.16-1 PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION
Land Use ITE Code Intensity1
Average Weekday Daily
Rate
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 Dwelling Unit 9.52 25% 75% 0.75 63% 37% 1.00
Senior Adult Housing - Attached 252 1 Dwelling Unit 3.44 34% 66% 0..20 54% 46% 0.25
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Existing Use
Single-Family Detached Housing 3 Dwelling Units 29 1 1 2 2 1 3
Existing Use Trips 29 1 1 2 2 1 3
Proposed Project
Senior Adult Housing- Attached 60 Dwelling Units 206 4 8 12 8 7 15
Proposed Project Trips 206 4 8 12 8 7 15
NET TRIPS (PROPOSED PROJECT – EXISTING USE) 177 3 7 10 6 6 12
Sources: Crain & Associates (September 2016) and ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012)
Notes:
1. For a conservative analysis, no discount was applied for employees, guests, and residents using nearby transit facilities.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-102
B. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LEVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARDS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES, OR OTHER STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR
DESIGNATED ROADS OR HIGHWAYS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County is intended to reduce traffic
congestion and provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions
throughout Los Angeles County. The Congestion Management Program requires the analysis
of the traffic impacts of individual projects with potential regional significance. In conformance
with Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, a traffic impact
analysis is conducted at:
Congestion Management Program arterial monitoring intersections, including
freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where a project would add 50 or more vehicle
trips during either morning or afternoon weekday peak hours.
Congestion Management Program mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where
a project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the
morning or afternoon weekday peak hours.
There are no Congestion Management Program arterial monitoring intersections located within
proximity to the project site that would receive project-generated trips. Thus, no additional
analysis is required. Interstate 210 is considered a Congestion Management Program mainline
freeway-monitoring location within the project vicinity that would receive project-generated
trips. However, the proposed project would not add 150 or more vehicle trips to this freeway-
monitoring location during the peak hour. The maximum number of net peak hour trips that
would result from the proposed project is 10 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 12 trips in the PM
peak hour for either the I-210 westbound ramps or I-210 eastbound ramps. Thus, additional
CMP Transportation Impact Analysis is not required. Impacts would be considered less than
significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-103
C. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A CHANGE IN AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS,
INCLUDING EITHER AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC LEVELS OR A CHANGE IN
LOCATION THAT RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY RISKS?
NO IMPACT
The project proposes senior apartment units, which do not have the capacity to directly change
air traffic patterns or change the location of air traffic. The project site is not within the
immediate vicinity (two miles) of an airport. The proposed project would not generate a
population increase that would substantially increase air traffic levels or require relocation of
an existing airport. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A DESIGN
FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR
INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Presently, the project site has two driveways onto East Gladstone Street and one driveway onto
East Orkney Street (one for 360 East Gladstone Street and one for the 410-416 East Gladstone
Street properties). All driveways on East Gladstone Street and East Orkney Street would be
closed as part of the proposed project.
Access/egress for the proposed project would be provided via a single driveway onto East
Gladstone Street, which would be located near the northeast corner of the project site.
Additionally, a secondary emergency vehicle access would be provided via East Orkney Street,
near the southeast corner of the project site. The proposed project would be subject to review
and approval by the City of Azusa Economic and Community Development and Public Works
Departments. Access to the project site would be required to comply with all City design
standards, which preclude the potential for dangerous conditions. Further, the proposed senior
apartment residential development would be similar to existing single- and multi-family
residential uses in the project area.
In addition, the proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable City of
Azusa laws and regulations pertaining to emergency access to the site. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in hazards.
Thus, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-104
E. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Access/egress for the proposed project would be provided via a single driveway onto East
Gladstone Street, which would be located near the northeast corner of the project site.
Additionally, a secondary emergency vehicle access would be provided via East Orkney Street,
near the southeast corner of the project site. Constructed roadways and driveways are required
to meet access standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Compliance with Los
Angeles County Fire Department and City of Azusa Police Department requirements would
ensure impacts remain less than significant levels.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
F. WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ADOPTED POLICIES, PLANS, OR
PROGRAMS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT, BICYCLE, OR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES,
OR OTHERWISE DECREASE THE PERFORMANCE OR SAFETY OF SUCH FACILITIES?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
As stated in Response 4.16.A, the proposed project would not result in substantive long-term
operational traffic. The proposed project does not include any components that would conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-105
4.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Sources Cited in Section 4.17
SA Associates Consulting Engineers, 2010 Azusa Light and Water Urban Water Management Plan,
July 2011 (2010 UWMP)
Correspondence from Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, August 15, 2017
Existing Conditions
Utility systems (i.e., water and sewer lines, hydrants, storm drains, power poles, etc.) are
present in the project area.
Potable water and electricity in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the Azusa Light
and Water Department (ALW), a municipal utility owned and operated by the City of Azusa.
The City of Azusa owns, operates, and maintains the local sewer lines that collect wastewater
generated within the City. Local sewer lines are connected to the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County (LACSD) main trunk lines. LACSD oversees the treatment facilities that serve
Azusa.
A. WOULD THE PROJECT EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF
THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 22 of the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts). The State Water Resource Control Board
(SWRCB) works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-106
preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Azusa and Los Angeles
County are within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Districts oversees the
treatment facilities that serve the City and Los Angeles County.
Wastewater flow originating from the project site discharges to local sewers before it is
conveyed to the Districts’ trunk sewers. The trunk sewer that serves the project area, Lark Ellen,
is located approximately 0.65 miles southwest of the project site in East Arrow Highway at
Homerest Avenue. The Lark Ellen Trunk Sewer Sections 4, 5, and 6 are a 15-inch diameter
trunk sewer with a capacity of 3.9 million gallons per day (mgd). The trunk sewer conveyed a
peak flow of 0.9 mgd when last measured in 2015.
Wastewater originating from the project site is treated at the Districts’ San Jose Creek WRP, or
the Whittier Narrows WRP. San Jose Creek WRP, located at 1965 Workman Mill Road in
Industry, provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 100 mgd of wastewater.
Currently, the San Jose Creek WRP processes an average flow of 64.6 mgd. Whittier Narrows
WRP, located at 301 N. Rosemead Boulevard in South El Monte, provides primary, secondary,
and tertiary treatment for 15 mgd of wastewater. Currently, the Whittier Narrows WRP
processes an average flow of 7.3 mgd.
At the present time, there is wastewater flow originating from the project site, and on-site uses
are generating the need for water. The proposed project would remove existing on-site water
and wastewater infrastructure and install on-site and off-site wastewater infrastructure to serve
the proposed project.
Table 4.17-1, Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation, indicates that the proposed project
would generate a net increase of 7,553 gallons per day (gpd) on an average day and
approximately 18,883 gpd on a peak day.
According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, the City of Azusa is estimated to generate
approximately 23.8 million gallons of sewage and wastewater per day in the year 2025, and the
sewage pipes in the City have the capacity to accommodate the 2025 projections. Since the
proposed project represents only 0.19 percent of the anticipated City growth for 2025, the
proposed project would be accommodated by existing City sewer pipelines and would not
require additional City sewer infrastructure to serve the proposed project. Therefore, with the
installation of on-site wastewater infrastructure, the proposed project would be accommodated
by existing City sewer pipelines.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-107
TABLE 4.17-1 PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use Dwelling Units Flow Factor (gpd) Average Flow
(gpd)
Peak Flow1
(gpd)
Existing Use
Single-Family Residential
(1 parcels) 1 260/parcel 260 650
Single-Family Residential
(1 parcel) 2 312/parcel 312 780
Proposed Use
Senior Apartments2 60 125/bed 8,125 20,313
Net Increase (Proposed Use – Existing Use) 7,553 18,883
Source: Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Land uses cited include Single
Family Home, Duplex, and Convalescent Home.
Notes:
1. To determine peak rates, a conservative value of 2.5 was multiplied to the average flow.
2. The proposed project include 55 one-bedroom and 5 two-bedroom units for a total of 65 beds.
gpd = gallons per day
The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant can
convey and treat up to 100 and 400 mgd, respectively. The existing wastewater treatment plant
capacity is designed to accommodate the average and peak amounts of wastewater generated
in the community through the year 2025. The proposed project would result in peak sewage
flows of 0.019 mgd, and average flows of 0.008 mgd. Currently, the San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant processes an effluent flow of 87.5 mgd and the Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant treated an effluent flow of 284 mgd. Therefore, the design capacity of the San Jose Creek
Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant would accommodate the
minimal increase in wastewater generated by the proposed project.
In conclusion, the proposed project would result in an increase of wastewater generation, but
not to the extent that it would constrain the capacity of the existing wastewater infrastructure at
the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The
increase of wastewater generated from the proposed project would be accommodated by
existing and new project-related infrastructure. The proposed project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Compliance with Azusa
Public Works regulations and the Azusa Municipal Code would ensure the proposed project
would have less than significant impacts on the existing sewer system. As such, impacts
regarding wastewater associated with project implementation would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-108
B. WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
WATER OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING
FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.17.A.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
C. WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES,
THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Refer to Response 4.9.A. The proposed project would not substantially increase storm water
runoff from the site. The majority of the runoff from the site presently percolates into the soil or
enters the San Gabriel River. This is not anticipated to substantially change as a result of the
proposed project. It is anticipated that any runoff collected on-site would be treated and
allowed to percolate into the soil. The proposed project is anticipated to use existing storm
water drainage facilities, and not require the construction or expansion of existing facilities.
Thus, no significant impacts to the existing storm drain system would result from project
implementation. The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES), which ensure that storm water drainage impacts remain
at or below existing levels.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
D. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE
THE PROJECT FROM EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS AND RESOURCES, OR ARE NEW OR
EXPANDED ENTITLEMENTS NEEDED?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Azusa Light and Water Department (ALW), a City-owned and operated water utility
company, provides the City’s residents and businesses with potable water. The ALW’s service
area is approximately 15 square miles and includes the City of Azusa as well as portions of
Glendora, Irwindale, Covina, West Covina, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Based on
the number of 2010 residential and commercial customers and a projected one percent increase
every year, the 2010 Azusa Light and Water Department Urban Water Management Plan (2010
UWMP) estimated the number of 2015 customers to be approximately 115,000 residents and
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-109
businesses. The City of Azusa makes up approximately 40 percent of Department’s total service
area and resident population. The ALW’s water resources are comprised of groundwater
(approximately 69 to 91 percent), surface water (16 to 27 percent), and a minimal amount of
imported water (less than one percent).
The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria in Senate Bill 610 or Senate Bill 221 (California
Water Code Sections 10910-10915, Business and Professions Code Section 11010, and Government
Code Section 66473) regarding the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment.
Project implementation would result in a long-term water demand for the residential units,
laundry room, administrative office, and landscaping. The proposed project includes 60 senior
apartment units on the 1.23-acre site. Table 4.17-2, Proposed Project Estimated Water Demand,
illustrates a breakdown of the proposed project’s estimated average total water demands. As
indicated in Table 4.17-2, operation of the proposed project would create a net increase in total
potable water demand of approximately 26,969 gallons per day on an average day and annual
water demand of approximately 30.21 acre-feet (AF) per year. The net increase with the
proposed project represents 0.30 percent of the 2020 single- and multi-family residential
demand (10,065 AF).
TABLE 4.17-2 PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND
Land Use Unit Quantity
Acre-Feet Per Unit Per Year
Project Water Demand
GPD AFY
Existing Use
Single-Family Residential 3 Dwelling Units 0.53 1,420 1.59
Proposed Use
Senior Apartments 60 Dwelling Units 0.53 28,389 31.80
Net Increase (Proposed Project – Existing Use) 26,969 30.21
Sources: 2010 Azusa Light and Water Urban Water Management Plan (July 2011), Azusa General Plan EIR (2004)
Notes: GPD = Gallons Per Day; AFY = Acre-Feet Per Year
ALW anticipates in the 2010 UWMP it would be able to accommodate the proposed project’s
demand for potable water services in combination with other water demands throughout the
City at project completion with existing water supplies. New water meters and service would
be required to accommodate the proposed project.
Section 5, Reliability Planning, of the 2010 UWMP discusses local and regional efforts to ensure
a reliable supply of water and compares projected supply to projected demand. The 2010
UWMP concludes that the service area is vulnerable to water shortages due to climatic
environment and seasonally hot summer months. While the data shown in Section 5 identifies
availability during single and multiple dry year scenarios, response to a future drought would
follow the water use efficiency mandates of the Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 78, Utilities,
Article VI - Water, Division 6 - Conservation Plan and City Ordinance No. 2446, along with
implementation of the appropriate stage of regional plans (Metropolitan Water District
[MWD]). MWD has made investments in conservation and supply augmentation as part of its
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-110
long-term water management strategy. MWD’s approach to a long-term water management
strategy was to develop an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to include sources. Thus, ALW has
an adequate water supply to serve anticipated growth, including the proposed project. The
Applicant would be required to contribute fees based on the project’s proportional demand for
new resources, to be calculated by the directory of utilities, per Azusa Municipal Code Chapter
78, Utilities, Article VI - Water, Division 5 - System Development Fee. As such, with payment of
such fees, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on
water supply.
The construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project are not
anticipated to require a significant amount of water, and thus, water demand is not expected to
have a significant impact on the local or regional supplies. Therefore, less than significant
impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
E. WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROVIDER WHICH SERVES OR MAY SERVE THE PROJECT THAT IT
HAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED GENERATION
IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project results in an increase in population of 96 residents. As shown in
Responses 4.17.A and 4.17.B, both the City and the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, less than significant
impacts would occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
F. WOULD THE PROJECT BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED
CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project would not result in the generation of significant amounts of solid waste
during construction, as construction activities would consist of limited grading, utility
connections, paving, and revegetation. Any construction debris generated would be recycled or
transported to the nearest landfill site for proper disposal. The amount of debris generated
would not be expected to significant impact landfill capacities. Also, most daily waste
generated during the operation of the proposed project would be recycled. Thus, the proposed
project would not result in the need for new solid waste facilities for the County of Los
Angeles.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-111
However, the proposed project would be required to comply with Azusa Municipal Code
Chapter 58, Solid Waste, as well as the California Green Building Code. The proposed project
would be required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
concert with countywide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering
landfills. In addition, the location of recycling/separation areas is required to comply with all
applicable Federal, public health, state, or local laws relating to fire, building, access,
transportation, circulation, or safety. Compliance with all applicable State, Los Angeles County
and/or City of Azusa regulations for the use, collection, and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes is also mandated. It can be assumed that the proposed project would include adequate,
accessible and convenient areas for collecting recyclable materials. Therefore, it is anticipated
that construction and operational solid waste impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
G. WOULD THE PROJECT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES
AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and Los
Angeles County and City of Azusa recycling programs. A less than significant impact would
occur in this regard.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-112
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-113
4.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
d. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
A. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE
SPECIES, CAUSE A FISH OR WILDLIFE POPULATION TO DROP BELOW SELF-
SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN TO ELIMINATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL
COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A RARE OR
ENDANGERED PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT EXAMPLES OF THE
MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
The project site was previously developed and is surrounded on all sides by urban
development. The project site does contain threatened or endangered species, sensitive
habitats, or cultural or historical resources. Three Coast Live Oak trees are located on the site,
which are native trees, but are not threatened or endangered species. Thus, there is the
potential to degrade the environment with respect to biological and cultural resources.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, BIO-5, and CUL-
1 through CUL-8, potential impacts to biological and cultural resources would be reduced to
less than significant.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-114
B. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS THAT ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (“CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE” MEANS
THAT THE INCREMENTAL EFFECTS OF A PROJECT ARE CONSIDERABLE WHEN
VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EFFECTS OF PAST PROJECTS, THE EFFECTS
OF OTHER CURRENT PROJECTS, AND THE EFFECTS OF PROBABLE FUTURE
PROJECTS)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have
cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation of project mitigation measures.
Implementation of mitigation measures at the project-level would reduce the potential for the
incremental effects of the proposed project to be considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects.
C. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE
SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related
to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; geology and
soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise, and public services
and utilities. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in
less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental
impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project is an infill senior apartment project that would provide 60 units. Six of the
60 units would be designated as low-income units. A total of 96 residents are anticipated. The
growth in population associated with the proposed project is within the City’s 2020 population
forecast. The proposed project assists the City in meeting its RHNA allocation by constructing
six low income units and 54 above-moderate income units, thus making the proposed project
consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 2014-2021 Housing Element.
The proposed project has no potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project would contribute to
long-term environmental goals with some short-term environmental impacts which, with the
mitigation measures imposed in this document, would be reduced to a less than significant.
Thus, long-term environmental goals in the Azusa General Plan would continue to be met with
implementation of the proposed project.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-115
4.19. REFERENCES
Refer to Section 4.1 through Section 4.17 for the listing of references utilized in the preparation of this
Initial Study.
4.20. REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
CITY OF AZUSA
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, California 91702
Mr. Kurt Christiansen, FAICP, Director of Economic and Community Development
Mr. Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner
Mr. Daniel Bobadilla, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
MORSE PLANNING GROUP (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT)
145 N C Street
Tustin, California 92780
Ms. Collette L. Morse, AICP, Principal, Project Manager
TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS
Apple Engineering Group (Hydrology)
9080 Testar Avenue., Suite 309
El Monte, California 91731
Crain & Associates (Traffic)
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 450
Culver City, California 90230
DCI Environmental Services (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
9795 Cabrini Drive, Suite 104
Burbank, California 91504
Giroux and Associates (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise)
1800 E. Garry Avenue, Suite 205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
McKinley and Associates, Inc. (Arborist)
1734 Del Valle Avenue
Glendale, California 91208
T.K. Engineering Corp. (Geotechnical)
3831 Arden Drive
El Monte, California 91731
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Environmental Analysis | 4-116
This page intentionally left blank.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program | 5-1
5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Section 4.0 of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies the mitigation measures
that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Gladstone Senior Villas Project.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which
requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring
compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6,
. . . the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation
monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be
enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be included as
conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those outlined in Section 4.0. To
ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been
devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The
Applicant/Developer of the project will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and
the various City of Azusa departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and
reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-2
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
AESTHETICS
AES-1 Construction equipment staging areas shall use appropriate
screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to buffer
views of construction equipment and material, when feasible.
Staging locations shall be indicated on Final Development Plans
and Grading Plans.
Prior to Issuance of
Grading and Building
Permits
During Grading and
Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
AES-2 All construction-related lighting shall include shielding in order to
direct lighting down and away from nearby residential uses and
consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the
construction site. A construction safety lighting plan shall be
submitted to the City of Azusa Building Division for review and
approval concurrent with Grading Permit application.
During Grading and
Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
AES-3 A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the City of Azusa Economic
and Community Development Department for review and approval
prior to approval of Final Development Plans and Grading Plans to
ensure compliance with applicable City codes and provisions
pertaining to light and glare.
Prior to Approval of
Final Development
Plans and Grading
Plans
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall
confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or
other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s
Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
During Grading and
Construction
Azusa Public Works
Department
(Engineering
Division)
Azusa Economic &
Community
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-3
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts
on nearby sensitive receptors:
During construction, the Applicant and/or construction contractor
shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring that fugitive dust be
controlled with best-available control measures so that the
presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere
beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition,
SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression
techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off
site. Applicable suppression techniques are as follows:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas in active for 10 days or more).
Water active sites at least three times daily.
Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as
needed.
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials,
or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the
requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen
materials.
Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the
construction site.
Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better
Development
Department
(Building Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-4
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
rated heavy equipment.
Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-
road equipment.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 All Coast Live Oak trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio
with a minimum 24-inch box size tree with a California native
species of oak.
Review of Landscape
Plan
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
BIO-2 At no time shall any form of plant material be permitted within 15
feet of any newly planted mitigation trees. All landscaping that is
proposed and approved within the protected zone of an oak tree
shall consist of native drought-tolerant plant material that is
compatible with California native species of oak.
Review of Landscape
Plan
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
BIO-3 At no time shall any form of overhead irrigation be permitted to
come in contact with all newly planted mitigation oak trees.
Irrigation approved within the protected zone of an oak tree shall
consist of drip or bubbler type systems only.
Review of Landscape
Plan
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-5
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, an I.S.A Certified Arborist
shall review the landscape plan to ensure that the plan shows the
correct tree species for each planting area.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
BIO-5 All non-native trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with a
minimum 24-inch box size tree.
Review of Landscape
Plan
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 If cultural materials or archaeological remains are encountered
during the course of construction, excavation and other
construction activity, the project contractor shall cease any ground
disturbing activities near the find and the construction contractor
shall contact the City of Azusa Community Development
Department. With direction from the Director of Community
Development, an archaeologist certified by the County of Los
Angeles shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to
resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. Treatment
measures may include avoidance, preservation, removal, data
recovery, protection, and/or other measures developed in
consultation with the City. If warranted, the archaeologist shall
collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the
results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the
site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition
During Construction Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-6
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations,
and cost estimates.
CUL-2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources are
encountered during the course of grading or construction, the
construction contractor shall cease any ground disturbing activities
within 50 feet of the find and the construction contractor shall
contact the City of Azusa Community Development Department.
With direction from the Director of Community Development, a
paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate
the find. Treatment measures may include avoidance,
preservation, removal, data recovery, protection, and/or other
measures developed in consultation with the City. If warranted, the
paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard
Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and
curation of identified resources.
During Construction Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
CUL-3 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected
human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find
shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and
the Los Angeles County Coroner immediately notified of the find.
The provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
relative to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-
burial, if necessary, shall be met.
During Construction Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
CUL-4 Prior to commencement of any demolition, grading, or construction
activities, the Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Azusa
Economic and Community Development Department that a
qualified Native American monitor has been retained to provide
Native American monitoring services for any construction activities
that may disturb native soils. The Native American monitor shall be
selected by the Applicant from the list of certified Native American
Pre-Construction
During Construction
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-7
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
monitors maintained by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation. The Native American monitor shall be present at the
pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural
resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions
for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling,
identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native
American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Azusa Economic and
Community Development Department prior to commencement of
any surface disturbance on the project site.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the
recommendations in Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation
Report shall be confirmed or modified by a geotechnical engineer
to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. The
recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be
implemented during site grading and construction.
Prior to Issuance of
Grading or Building
Permit
Azusa Public Works
Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 To comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
1403, prior to structural demolition/renovation activities, demolition
materials containing asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-
based paints shall be removed and properly disposed of at an
appropriate permitted facility per existing Federal and State
regulations.
Prior to Issuance of
Demolition Permit
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-8
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall
enroll electronically through the SMARTS program to comply with
the State of California General Construction Permit. Proof of
enrollment must be submitted to the City of Duarte before issuance
of grading or building permits. Also, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or functional equivalent required at that
time shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager
and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities on-
site. A copy of the SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that
time shall be available and implemented at the construction site at
all times. The SWPPP or functional equivalent required at that time
shall outline the source control and/or treatment control Best
Management Practices to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the
construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.”
Prior to Issuance of
Grading or Building
Permit
Azusa Public Works
Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare
a plan (i.e., Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan
[SUSMP] or functional equivalent document per current State law
or other applicable statutes) in accordance with the guidance to be
developed by the NPDES Permit permittees, that includes Low
Impact Development and other post-construction Best
Management Practices to reduce pollutant loading. The plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Manager and City
Engineer. The Applicant shall be responsible for implement the
measures identified in the SUSMP or functional equivalent
document.
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Azusa Public Works
Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
NOISE
NOI-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant and/or construction
contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of
Azusa Community Development Department, that the project
complies with the following:
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
During Grading and
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-9
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers and other State required noise
attenuation devices.
Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of
6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time
on Sunday or a Federal holiday, per the City’s Noise
Ordinance.
The construction contractor shall ensure that equipment
operators limit equipment idling to five minutes or less. If
greater than five minutes, idling equipment shall be turned off
not in use.
The construction contractor shall maintain equipment to
ensure that vehicles and the loads are secured to limit reduce
rattling or banging noises.
Construction (Building Division)
NOI-2 Exterior Noise. Patio/deck space on the northern façade facing
East Gladstone Street shall include a shield with a solid base and
an upper transparent shield to a combined height of 5.5 feet above
the deck surface to achieve a noise level reduction to less than 65
dB CNEL.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
NOI-3 Interior Noise. The building shall be designed and constructed to
achieve an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 25 dB,
inclusive of the following elements:
Exterior walls shall have a minimum sound transmission class
(STC) of at least STC-39.
Stud walls shall be at least 4-inch in nominal depth finished on
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-10
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the outside with stucco.
Interior walls shall be gypsum board or plaster at least ½-inch
thick.
Insulation material at least 3.5-inch thick shall be installed in
the cavity space between studs.
Windows shall meet current CalGreen requirements rating at
least STC=28.
Exterior doors shall be solid core at least 1.75-inch thick and
fully weather-stripped.
Roofs shall have an STC rating of at least STC=39.
Ceilings shall be at least 0.5-inch thick.
Insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the
ceiling between joists.
A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed to provide
the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply specified in
the California Building Code.
FIRE PROTECTION
FP-1 The Applicant must comply with all applicable code and ordinance
requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and
fire hydrants to service all on-site buildings.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Los Angeles County
Fire Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-11
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Timing/Frequency
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
FP-2 The Applicant shall install fire sprinkler systems in all on-site
buildings.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Los Angeles County
Fire Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Building Division)
POLICE PROTECTION
POL-1 The Applicant shall incorporate safety and security conditions
specified by the Azusa Police Department regarding issues
including, but not limited to, perimeter walls, parking requirements,
fire lanes, traffic specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting
systems, and pedestrian crossings. The incorporation of specified
conditions in building plans and specifications shall be verified by
the Azusa Police Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Azusa Police
Department
Azusa Economic &
Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division
and Building
Division)
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft | October 2017 Mitigation Monitoring Program | 5-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Project Revisions | March 2018 1
CEQA PROJECT REVISIONS
Revisions to CEQA Project Description
Beginning in November 2017, the proposed project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at
two hearings held on November 15, 2017 and December 13, 2017, and by the City Council at one
hearing held on January 16, 2018. In response to issues raised throughout the public hearing process
with the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Applicant revised the proposed project as
follows:
▪ Removed the Porte-Cochere entry on the eastern side of building
▪ Added a second elevator in the building.
▪ Added a security wall along Gladstone Street.
▪ Increased on-site parking from 37 to 50 parking spaces. The originally proposed 37 spaces
included 31 resident and employee spaces (assuming 0.5 spaces per unit) and six guest spaces
(assuming 1 space for every 10 units). The revised proposal includes 50 spaces for residents
and guests (assuming 0.73 spaces per unit and 1 guest space for every 10 units).
▪ The Applicant will prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan. This plan will be
included as a Condition of Approval.
Clarification to CEQA Project Description
Open Space
The proposed project includes a community garden totaling 9,261 square feet in the central portion of
site surrounded by the building on the east, north, and west. The community garden will be
landscaped with two fountains and seating areas. Landscaping is proposed around the project
perimeter and throughout the parking area. In addition, each unit will include a private balcony that
averages approximately 35 square feet, and totals approximately 2,100 square feet for the 60 units.
The proposed project is required to provide 3,600 square feet of private open space and 7,500 square
feet of common open space for a combined total of 11,100 square feet. The proposed project includes
a combined total of 11,361 square feet of private and common open space. The proposed project does
not meet the private open space standard as only 35 square feet per unit was assumed, which is less
than the requirement of 60 square feet per unit. However, the reduction in private open space by
1,500 square feet is accounted for in the community garden, which exceeds the requirement by 261
square feet. Thus, a variance is not necessary for open space.
Project Revisions | March 2018 2
Environmental Conclusions Regarding Project Revisions
The revisions to the Project Description do not result in any new substantial environmental impacts,
and do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA Section
21092.1 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Revisions for Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following corrections and additions are in response to comments received during and after the
public review period. New text is noted in underline, and deleted text is noted in strikeout.
Section 2.4.1, Description of Project
Page 2-3, Second Paragraph
The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom
units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first floor and 21 units each
on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated as low-income units. The building
will include a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security office, and storage
areas. Refer to Exhibit 2-4, Site Plan – Ground Floor; Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6, which show the site
plan for the second and third floors; and Exhibit 2-7 and Exhibit 2-8, which illustrate the building
elevations from all directions.
Parking
A total of 37 50 parking spaces will be provided. This includes 31 44 resident and employee spaces
(assumes 0.5 0.73 spaces per unit) and six guest spaces (assumes 1 space for every 10 units). Two of
the 37 50 spaces will be for handicapped parking. Parking will be provided on the eastern portion of
the site.
Section 2.5, Permits and Approvals
The permits and approvals from lead, responsible, and trustee agencies that would be necessary
include:
▪ City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA-2016-01) from NG2 Low Density
Residential to DE Edgewood District
▪ City of Azusa approval of Zone Change (Z-2016-01) from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood
District
▪ City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit (MUP-2016-02) for the senior citizen apartment
use
Project Revisions | March 2018 3
▪ City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through
69518
▪ City of Azusa approval of concessions per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
• 36-foot building height/3 stories
▪ City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing Agreement
▪ City of Azusa approval of Variance (V-2017-07) to reduce parking and private open space
requirements
▪ City of Azusa approval of Design Review (DR-2017-23)
▪ City of Azusa issuance of Grading Permit
▪ City of Azusa issuance of Building and Safety Permits
▪ Los Angeles County Fire Department approval of proposed site improvements
▪ Azusa Light and Power water and sewer connection permit
Exhibit 2-4, Site Plan – Ground Floor
Replace with revised site plan presented to City Council on March 8, 2018.
Section 4.10, Land Use
Page 4-70
The proposed project includes:
▪ General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood District
▪ Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District
▪ Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use
▪ Density Bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
▪ Concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518
• 36-foot building height/3 stories
▪ Affordable Housing Agreement
▪ Variance to reduce parking and private open space requirements
The proposed project would involve the demolition of all on-site buildings and the construction
of 60 senior apartment units on the 1.23-acre (53,579 square foot) project site. The proposed
project includes five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom units (550 square
feet) for a total of 60 units; six of the units would be designated as low-income units. The
proposed project includes a porte-cochere, lobby area, community room, mail room, security
office, storage areas, and a community garden. Surface parking would be provided on the eastern
portion of the site. A singular ingress and egress access would be provided be provided in the
Project Revisions | March 2018 4
northeastern portion of the site from East Gladstone Street. A secondary emergency access gate
would be provided in the southeastern portion of the site from East Orkney Street.
Page 4-72, Table 4.10-1
TABLE 4.10-1 CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Regulation for
Senior Citizen Apartment Standard Proposed Project Complies with
Development Regulation
Building Height (Maximum) 2 stories/35 feet 3 stories/36 feet
Yes – Concession per
Government Code Sections
69515 -69518
Density (Maximum) 40 units per gross acre 48.81
Yes – Density Bonuses per
Government Code Sections
69515 -69518
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60% 31% Yes
Front Yard Setback (Minimum)
20 feet with minimum 15 feet
between building and any
private patio wall
21 feet 6 inches Yes
Side Yard Setback (Minimum)
Interior 10 feet 15 feet (west)
41 feet to porte-cochere (east) Yes
Street Side 15 feet n/a
Rear Yard Setback (Minimum) 15 feet 15 feet Yes
Dwelling Unit Size (Minimum
1-bedroom,
1-bathroom unit 550 square feet 550 square feet Yes
2-bedroom,
1-bathroom unit 600 square feet 835 square feet
(1-3/4 bathrooms) Yes
2-bedroom,
2-bathroom unit or larger 700 square feet n/a
Common Open Space 125 square feet per unit
9,261 9,826 square feet
(163 154.4 square feet per
unit)
Yes
Private Open Space 60 square feet per unit 2,100 square feet2
(35 square feet per unit)
No – Variance required
Yes – Combined Total with
Common Open Space
Off-Street Parking 1 covered space per unit and 1
guest space for each five units
373 503 (0.5 0.73 space per
unit and 1 guest space per 10
units)
No – Variance required
Source: Azusa Development Code Chapter 88, Section 88.42, Subsection 88.42.200, Senior Citizen Apartments
Notes:
1. Site is 1.23 acres.
2. Private open space assumed an average of 35 square feet per unit.
3. Includes two handicapped parking spaces.
Project Revisions | March 2018 5
Page 4-73, Impact Conclusion, Second Paragraph
Senior apartment uses are permitted in DE Edgewood District zoning designation with a Minor Use
Permit and must comply with the regulations of Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200 – Senior
Citizen Apartments. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the proposed project generally complies with the
development standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200, with the exception of building
height and, parking, and private open space. As noted above, the Applicant is seeking a concession
for building height (3 stories/36 feet), and a variance for private open space and a reduction in
parking spaces (37 50 spaces). Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the development
standards in Azusa Municipal Code Subsection 88.42.200 and the requirements in Chapter 88.32 upon
approval of the concession and variances.
Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems
Page 4-106, Second Full Paragraph
Wastewater originating from the project site is treated at the Districts’ San Jose Creek WRP, or the
Whittier Narrows WRP. San Jose Creek WRP, located at 1965 Workman Mill Road in Industry,
provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 100 mgd of wastewater. Currently, the San
Jose Creek WRP processes an average flow of 64.6 mgd. Whittier Narrows WRP, located at 301 N.
Rosemead Boulevard in South El Monte, provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 15
mgd of wastewater. Currently, the Whittier Narrows WRP processes an average recycled water flow
of 7.3 mgd.
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS PROJECT, LOCATED AT 360, 410, AND 416
W. GLADSTONE STREET, AND INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. GPA-2017-01, ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-2016-01, MINOR USE PERMIT NO.
MUP-2016-12, DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR-2017-23, VARIANCE NO. V-2017-
7AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, 360 Gladstone LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application requesting
approval of the “Gladstone Senior Villa Project” (the “Project”), proposed at 360, 410, and 416
W. Gladstone Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, at which time all persons wishing to testify
were heard and the Project was fully considered, and recommended that the City Council
approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes the demolition of three existing single-family dwelling
units and the development of 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site (APNs 8621-022-001
and 8621-022-002); and
WHEREAS, to develop the Project, Applicant seeks several entitlements, including
General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2017-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Minor Use Permit
No. MUP-2016-12, Design Review No. DR-2017-23, Variance No. V-2017-7, and an Affordable
Housing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) section 21067 and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15367, the City of Azusa (“City”) is the Lead Agency for
the Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that pursuant to section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was the appropriate
environmental review procedure under CEQA, because all potentially significant impacts of the
Project can be mitigated to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared
and circulated for a 20-day public review and comment period beginning October 2, 2017 and
ending October 23, 2017, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA’s mandates mitigation measures have been
incorporated in the MND and will be imposed upon the Project through the City’s adoption of a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to the City as
Resolution No. XXX
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 3
a whole; and
WHEREAS, the MND reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission
and is deemed adequate for purpose of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on this Resolution and the Project, at which time all persons wishing to testify were
heard and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Based on the information and analysis contained in the MND prepared for
the Project, the comments received during the public review period, and testimony received at
the public hearings, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument that there would be a significant impact on the environment with mitigation measures
imposed on the Project. These findings are based on an independent review of the MND and all
its supporting documentation, all comments, written and oral, received regarding the MND, and
based on the whole record. The City Council further finds that the MND was prepared in
compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, that there is no substantial evidence
that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of
mitigation measures provided in the MMRP. The City Council further finds that the MND
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
SECTION 3: Based upon the findings made herein and its independent judgment and
analysis, the City Council recommends the adoption the MND for the Gladstone Senior Villa
Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of
approval of the Project, should it be approved, in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 4: The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Azusa City
Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The Director of Economic and Community
Development is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
Resolution No. XXX
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 3
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________, 2018
by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2016-
01 FOR PARCELS LOCATED AT 360,410, AND 416 W. GLADSTONE
STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, after having given notice thereof as
required by law, held a public hearing on the application for a 60-unit senior housing project; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the 60 unit senior housing project is located in the
City’s Neighborhood General 2 zone and requires approval of a General Plan Amendment No.
GPA-2016-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Design Review No. DR-2016-23, Minor Use
Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Variance No. V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction), and together these
approvals constitute “the proposed project”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, and recommended that the City Council
approve this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the
staff report presented during the public hearing for the requested general plan amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to City Council Resolution XX, the City Council approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project. The MND addresses the
environmental impacts of the entire project, and hence for the purposes of approving the General
Plan Amendment No. GPA 2016-01, no further review under the California Environmental
Quality Act is required.
SECTION 3: That in accordance with Section 88.51.080.D of the Azusa Development
Code, it is found that the project would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property in the vicinity, and would not adversely affect the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare. The City Council hereby recommends approval and adoption of said General Plan
Amendment (GPA-2016-01) based on the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, and there will be a community benefit
resulting from the amendment;
The proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and will benefit the
community with consistent language found in the Housing Element. The proposed project
includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE Edgewood
Resolution No. XXX for GPA-2016-01
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 4
District, and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. The proposed General
Plan and Zoning designations allow a maximum density of 27 dwelling units per acre;
however, the Housing Element allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre for senior housing.
Additional housing units are permitted in accordance with Government Code Section 65915,
enforced through the execution of a density bonus housing agreement for the proposed
project.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other goals, policies, and objectives of the
General Plan;
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M and the granting
of the accompanying Variance application, the proposed project is consistent with the DE
zone and, as well as the Azusa General Plan.
In accordance with the Azusa Housing Element, the development is in conformance with the
following Policies:
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for Housing
demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to meet the needs
of the community, and establishes a balanced approach to meet housing needs that includes
the needs of both renter and owner households. Policy H2.3 facilitates development of
affordable housing through the use of financial and or regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3
concerns established partnerships with private developers and non-profit housing
corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its housing goals. The project is intended to provide
affordable housing and accommodations for low to moderate income earning residents.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of residential
development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes, moderate-density
residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and residential-commercial mixed
use in order to address the City’s share of regional housing needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-
quality rental housing for large families, students, and senior households. Policy H3.8 says to
provide incentives to facilitate the development of senior housing options. Policy H3.9 states
the requirement that housing that constructed expressly for low and moderate-income
households not be constructed in any single portion of the City. The applicant is seeking to
fulfill these policies through their development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on housing
production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density bonuses and
reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The applicant is
requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has recommended a
parking analysis to justify the reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which provides an
alternative senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
Resolution No. XXX for GPA-2016-01
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 4
3. The proposed amendment will not conflict with provisions of the Development Code,
subdivision regulations, or any applicable specific plan; and
The proposed General Plan Amendment and accompanying Zone Change will allow a use
that is highly desired by the City and which the Housing Element encourages. The proposed
amendments will not conflict with development regulations, as they are intended to be for
informational purposes and do not propose any land use or policy changes.
4. In the event that the proposed amendment is a change to the land use policy map, that the
amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties.
The proposed General Plan Amendment does include a change to the Land Use policy map.
The General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. There is a
senior apartment to the west of the project and is consistent with similar uses in the vicinity.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6: Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and materials
associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
are based are located at Azusa City Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The
Director of Economic and Community Development is the custodian of the record of
proceedings.
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________,
2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Resolution No. XXX for GPA-2016-01
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 4 of 4
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA
Attention: Planning Division
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Space above for Recorder’s Use)
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code §6103
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF AZUSA,
A California Municipal Corporation
and
360 GLADSTONE, LLC,
A California limited liability company
1
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT
This Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement (hereinafter
“Agreement”) is entered into as of the _____ day of _________________, 2018 (hereinafter the
“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF AZUSA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
“City”), and 360 GLADSTONE, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter “Owner”).
City and Owner are hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the “Parties” and individually as
a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. Owner is a California limited liability company and is experienced in the
development of senior apartment units.
B. The City is a California municipal corporation required by state law (Government
Code section 65580, et seq.) to assess local housing needs, the City’s fair share of the
regional housing need, available resources, and potential constraints on the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and
persons with disabilities. The City is likewise required to adopt a program identifying
specific sites adequate to accommodate the development of housing for all income
levels sufficient to meet its share of the regional housing need.
C. On October 21, 2013, the City adopted its 2014-2021 Housing Element Update,
wherein it identified its regional housing need allocation (“RHNA”) for the 2014-
2021. In its ‘Summary of Quantified Objectives’, the City identified the following
construction objectives (RHNA): 198 extremely low income and very low income
housing units, and 118 low income housing units.
D. The City has adopted a schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the Housing Element, including the provision of housing for
all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element identified the need
to provide for the special housing needs of the elderly as a result of several factors:
“their relatively low, fixed incomes, high health care costs, and physical limitations.”
E. Owner is currently the owner of certain real property located at 360-416 Gladstone
Street, City of Azusa, State of California, more particularly described in the legal
description attached hereto as Exhibit A and more particularly depicted in Exhibit B,
both of which are incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”). Owner
proposes to merge parcels, and to develop the 1.23-acre parcel with a 60-unit senior
housing development. To this end, Owner intends to seek approvals for a zone
change, general plan amendment, lot merger, minor use permit, design review and
other approvals to accommodate the development.
F. Owner submitted to the City a “Planning Application” with supporting
documentation, proposing to construct on the Property a senior housing development
consisting of sixty (60) units (each a “Unit”), of which six (6) would be rent restricted
at an affordable housing cost to Low Income Senior Households (the “Housing
2
Project”). The Owner seeks to rezone the Property and amend the Property’s General
Plan designation to permit construction of such development.
G. Pursuant to California Law (Government Code sections 65915-65918) (the “State
Density Bonus Law”), projects that include specified levels of affordable housing are
entitled to apply for and receive certain density bonuses and additional concessions
and incentives in order to facilitate the economic feasibility of those projects. These
requirements are codified in Chapter 88.32 of the Azusa Municipal Code.
H. Since Owner is proposing twelve percent (12%) affordable housing, Owner is entitled
to a twenty-three percent (23%) density bonus above the otherwise maximum
allowable residential density, pursuant to Government Code section 65915(f)(1), and
one (1) concession or incentive, pursuant to Government Code section 65915
(d)(2)(A).
I. Under the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code, the allowable residential density
would entitle Owner to build forty-nine (49) units per acre. With a twenty percent
(20%) density bonus, Owner is entitled to build sixty (60) residential units. Owner
has proposed to build sixty (60) units.
J. Owner has also requested certain concessions or incentives relating to the height
limits and parking requirements for the Housing Project. Owner is entitled to one
(1) concession or incentive under Government Code section 65915 (d)(2)(A). The
purpose of this Agreement is to implement the density bonus and that request.
K. This Agreement (which includes the attached Exhibits, all of which are incorporated
herein by reference) is intended to set forth the terms and conditions for the
implementation of the Housing Project’s requirement to provide affordable housing
units in exchange for receiving the density bonus units and concessions or incentives,
pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.
L. The development of the Housing Project on the Property pursuant to this Agreement,
and the fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of
the City and the welfare of its residents, and in accordance with the public purposes
and provisions of applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements. It will
redevelop and improve a site currently occupied by three single-family detached
residences with chain link fencing and ornamental landscaping and trees, and will
provide greatly needed affordable senior housing in the City, where the high cost of
land is a severe constraint to the development of such housing. In addition, by
providing six (6) low income units, the development will assist the City’s efforts to
meet the needs identified in the Housing Element.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which are incorporated herein
by this reference, and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as
follows:
3
1 DEFINITIONS. In addition to the terms that may be defined elsewhere in this
Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as
follows:
1.1 “Affordable Housing Covenant” means the Affordable Housing Covenant
attached hereto as Attachment “C” and incorporated herein by reference. The
Affordable Housing Covenant shall be executed by City and Owner and recorded
against the Property concurrently with this Agreement, but in any event no later than
the issuance of a building permit for construction of any of the Affordable Units on
the Property. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall be a priority lien against the
Property, and shall not be subject or subordinate to any liens or encumbrances except
as expressly approved in writing by the City.
1.2 “Affordable Unit” or “Affordable Units” means individually or collectively, as
the case may be, the six (6) Units, to be constructed on the Property, each of which
will rented to a Senior Citizen that qualifies as a Low Income Households at an
Affordable Rent in accordance with the Affordable Housing Covenant.
1.3 “Affordable Rent” shall mean rental rates for the Units, calculated as set forth in
the Affordable Housing Covenant, not to exceed “Affordable Rent” for Low Income
Households as defined by California Health & Safety Code Section 50053 or its
successor. “Affordable Rent” shall include a reasonable utility allowance for tenant-
paid utilities based on the published utility schedules.
1.4 “Eligible Senior Household” means a household composed of one (1) or more
persons who is a Senior Citizen, that meets the definition of Very Low Income
Household or Low Income Household, who intends to reside in the Affordable Unit
as his or her primary residence on a permanent basis and whose members that are not
Senior Citizens, if any, are each a “Qualified Permanent Resident.”
1.5 “Low Income Household” means Senior Citizen whose gross income does not
exceed sixty (60 %) percent of the Area Median Income.
1.6 “Area Median Income” means the Los Angeles County, California area median
income, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit, as periodically published by
the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in
section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, or successor
regulation.
1.7 “Qualified Permanent Resident” shall have the meaning ascribed to the term in
California Civil Code Section 51.3(b), sub-sections (2) and (3), as such code section
may be amended, replaced or renumbered from time to time
1.8 “Senior Citizen” shall mean and refers to a person sixty-two (62) years of age or
older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development, pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 51.3.
2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
4
2.1 Overall Project. Owner shall develop, or cause to be developed, the Property with
sixty (60) Units, with appurtenant amenities.
2.2 Total Number of Affordable Units; Location, Size, Number of Bedrooms. The
Housing Project shall have six (6) Affordable Units and appurtenant amenities,
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. All of the Affordable Units
shall be rented to a Low Income Household. Owner expressly understands and agrees
that the State Density Bonus Law currently allows up to a twenty-three percent (23%)
increase in the number of units that may be constructed on the Property since Owner
has agreed to restrict twelve percent (12%) of the units as Affordable Units and, were
it not for Owner meeting said threshold, Owner would be entitled to build only forty-
nine (49) units. The Housing Project shall consist of fifty-five (55) one-bedroom
units and five (5) two-bedroom units, parking as required by the City, and other
appurtenant amenities as set forth in the plans and drawings approved by the City for
the Housing Project.
2.3 Facilities. All of the Units in the Housing Project shall contain facilities adequate
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws and codes. The development and maintenance of the
Units shall comply with the City’s building code and all other applicable local codes,
development standards, ordinances and zoning ordinances in effect, and the Units
shall be decent, safe and sanitary and shall conform to the building, electrical,
plumbing, mechanical and energy codes that have been adopted by the City of Azusa.
To the extent applicable, the Housing Project shall comply with the accessibility
requirements at 24 CFR Part 8, which implements Section 504 of the Development
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and, if applicable, the design and construction
requirements at 24 CFR 100.205 for covered multifamily dwellings, as defined at 24
CFR 100.201, which implements the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619).
2.4 Restrictions. None of the Units in the Housing Project will at any time be utilized
on a transient basis or will ever be used as a hotel, motel, dormitory, fraternity house,
sorority house, rooming house, nursing home, hospital, sanitarium, or trailer court or
park, or any other use that is inconsistent or incompatible with this Agreement.
2.5 Concessions or Incentives. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the City is
required to provide a concession in addition to the density bonus itself. The City and
Owner have agreed to the following:
2.5.1 Stories/Height Limit. The City’s Municipal Code sets forth a
height limit of 35 feet or two stories for this development. Keeping the height at
or below 35 feet and two stories would require cutting approximately twenty-one
third-floor units (which would make the project financially infeasible) or
sprawling on a larger footprint and needing a larger parcel (which would result in
(1) falling short of the density required in the Housing Element for this Property,
(2) environmental impacts such as cutting down additional trees and adding to the
storm water that must be collected off impervious surfaces, and (3) jeopardizing
the financial feasibility by shrinking the remaining acres which Owner must sell
5
to cover the purchase price). Based on the foregoing, City agrees to grant a
building height/story concession. At its highest point, the Housing Project shall
not exceed 36 feet and may consist of three stories.
2.5.2 Owner acknowledges and agrees that Owner is eligible to
receive one incentive or concession for the Housing Project under Government
Code section 65915(d)(2), the concessions and incentives identified above are
satisfactory to Owner, and Owner’s receipt of such concessions and incentives are
sufficient to fully comply with the requirements of Government Code section
65915 (d)(2).
2.6 Planning Approvals; Environmental Review. Owner acknowledges that the City
is a “public entity” and/or a “public agency” as defined under applicable California
law. Therefore, the City must satisfy the requirements of certain California statutes
relating to the actions of public entities, including, without limitation, the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Also, as a public entity, the City’s action in
approving this Agreement may be subject to proceedings to challenge or invalidate
this Agreement or mandamus. Owner assumes the risk of delays and damages that
may result to Owner from any third-party legal actions related to the City’s approval
of this Agreement or pursuit of the activities contemplated by this Agreement, even in
the event that an error, omission or abuse of discretion by the City is determined to
have occurred. If a third-party files a legal action regarding the City’s approval of
this Agreement or the pursuit of the activities contemplated by this Agreement, the
City may terminate this Agreement on thirty (30) days advance written notice to
Owner of the City’s intent to terminate this Agreement, referencing this Section 2.6,
without any further obligation to perform the terms of this Agreement and without
any liability to Owner resulting from such termination, unless Owner unconditionally
agrees in writing to indemnify and defend the City, with legal counsel acceptable to
the City, against such third-party legal action, such indemnity agreement to be in
form and content satisfactory to the City.
2.7 Laws and Regulations; Prevailing Wage. Owner shall cause all construction and
other work performed in connection with the Housing Project to be performed in
compliance with (i) all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal,
state, county or municipal governments or agencies now in force or that may be
enacted hereafter, including without limitation and to the extent applicable, the
prevailing wage provisions of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and implementing rules
and regulations, and state residential prevailing wages pursuant to California Labor
Code Section 1770 et seq., and the regulations pursuant thereto; and (ii) all
directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector,
or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring
jurisdiction. The construction work shall proceed only after procurement of each
permit, license, or other authorization that may be required by any governmental
agency having jurisdiction, and Owner shall be responsible to the City for the
procurement thereof, as may be required of Owner and all entities engaged in work
on the Property.
6
The Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (with counsel reasonably
acceptable to the City) the City against any claim for damages, compensation, fines,
penalties or other amounts arising out of the failure or alleged failure of the Owner,
its contractor and subcontractors, to pay prevailing wages as determined pursuant to
the prevailing wage provisions of applicable laws and implementing rules and
regulations in connection with the construction work or any other work undertaken or
in connection with the Property or the Housing Project. The requirements in this
Section shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
2.8 Completion of Project. Owner shall diligently work to complete construction of
the Housing Project within twenty-four (24) months following commencement of
construction, but in no event later than June 30, 2021.
3 OCCUPANCY OF UNITS BY ELIGIBLE SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
3.1 Income Restrictions. Except as expressly provided herein, throughout the term of
this Agreement, the Affordable Units shall be rented only to, and occupied only by,
Eligible Senior Households.
3.2 Rental Rates. Prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
Housing Project, and annually thereafter, the Owner shall submit to the City’s
Director of Community Development (herein referred to as the “Director”) a
maximum rent schedule for the Affordable Units. Maximum rents for the Affordable
Units set forth in such schedule shall not exceed the Affordable Rent. Owner shall
rent the Affordable Units to Eligible Senior Households at no more than the allowable
Affordable Rents for a household size appropriate to the unit, in accordance with the
Affordable Housing Covenant. The rental rates for the Affordable Units shall be
adjusted annually based upon annual updates of the applicable income and rent
standards, including but not limited to updates published by the California Housing
and Community Development Department and the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development. In no event shall any of the Affordable Units be
rented at a rate greater than the applicable Affordable Rent. Failure to comply with
the affordability requirements of this Agreement is an event of default.
3.3 Income Computation. Immediately prior to a prospective tenant’s occupancy of
an Affordable Unit, and annually thereafter, Owner shall obtain and maintain on file
an income computation and certification form from such prospective tenant dated
immediately prior to the date of initial occupancy of an Affordable Unit by such
prospective tenant. Owner shall verify that the income information provided by an
applicant is accurate by following all applicable City policies and procedures and by
taking one or more of the following steps as a part of the verification process: (i)
obtain two (2) pay stubs from the most recent pay periods; (ii) obtain a written
verification of income and employment from applicant’s current employer; (iii)
obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or
California Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from
either agency; (iv) if an applicant is unemployed or did not file a tax return for the
previous calendar year, obtain other verification of such applicant’s income as is
7
reasonably satisfactory; or (v) obtain such other information as may be reasonably
required. Owner shall update the foregoing records annually and shall provide copies
of updated tenant eligibility records and rental records to the Director (or his/her
designee) for review. Upon review of such records, City may at its option perform an
independent audit of the tenant eligibility records in order to verify compliance with
the income and affordability requirements set forth herein. Owner shall retain the
records described in this Section for a period of three (3) years after the date the
respective records were created.
3.4 Lease Provisions. Total move-in costs for Eligible Senior Households occupying
the Affordable Units shall be limited to the first month’s rent plus a cleaning or
security deposit not to exceed one month’s rent. The lease for Affordable Units shall
not permit subletting except if (i) written permission is obtained from the Director (or
his/her designee), (ii) the sublessee qualifies as an Eligible Senior Household, as
applicable to the Affordable Unit, and (iii) the rent payable by the sublessee does not
exceed Affordable Rent applicable to the Affordable Unit.
3.5 Annual Reports. Owner covenants and agrees to submit to the Director an annual
report (the “Annual Report”), as set forth in the Affordable Housing Covenant. The
income information shall be supplied by the tenant in a certified statement on a form
provided by the City. The first report and income certification shall be submitted to
the City within thirty (30) days of the date of the initial rental of all the Affordable
Units on the Property. Subsequent annual reports shall be submitted to the City on or
before April 1 of the year following the year covered by the Annual Report. The
Owner shall provide for the submission of household information and certification in
its leases with tenants.
4 DURATION OF AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS. The Affordable Units shall
be subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the Affordable Housing
Covenant for fifty-five (55) years, commencing upon the date of recordation of the
Affordable Housing Covenant against the Property. The Owner hereby agrees that
the Housing Project is to be owned, managed, and operated as a project for Eligible
Senior Households for the term of this Agreement and the Affordable Housing
Covenant.
5 NON-DISCRIMINATION COVENANTS. The Owner herein covenants by and for
itself, its successors or assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that
there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of
persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the
Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision
(m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the
Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or
enjoyment of the Units, nor shall the Owner or any person claiming under or through
him or her, establish or permit any practice or practices of discrimination or
segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of
tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Housing Project. The
foregoing covenants shall run with the land.
8
6 TENANT PREFERENCES; MARKETING PLAN. All of the Affordable Units will
be made available to Eligible Senior Households for rental in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Covenant, and the Owner shall
not give preference to any particular class or group in renting the Affordable Units,
except to the extent that the Affordable Units are required to be leased or rented to
Eligible Senior Households.
7 COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND. Owner hereby subjects the Housing
Project to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions set forth in this Agreement.
City and Owner hereby declare their express intent that all such covenants,
reservations, and restrictions shall be deemed covenants running with the land and
shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner’s successors in title to the Housing
Project; provided, however, that on the termination of this Agreement said covenants,
reservations and restrictions shall expire, except the nondiscrimination covenants
contained in Section 5 shall remain in perpetuity. The covenants established in this
Section 7 shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding
for the benefit and in favor of the City and its successors and assigns, and shall
remain in effect in perpetuity.
8 MONITORING & RECORDKEEPING. Throughout the term of this Agreement,
Owner shall maintain complete and accurate records pertaining to the Affordable
Units, and shall annually submit to City a rent report in accordance with Section 1 (C)
of the Affordable Housing Covenant. Representatives of the City shall be entitled to
enter the Housing Project, upon at least forty-eight (48) hour notice, to monitor
compliance with this Agreement, to inspect the records of the Housing Project,
including, but not limited to, those records pertaining to tenant eligibility and
occupancy of the Affordable Units, and to conduct an independent audit or inspection
of such records. The Owner agrees to cooperate with the City in making the said
records available for such inspection or audit. Owner agrees to maintain records in
businesslike manner, and to maintain such records for at least three (3) years.
9 EVENTS OF DEFAULT. An “Event of Default” shall occur under this Agreement in
the event there is a material breach of any provision, condition, covenant, warranty,
promise or representation contained in this Agreement, the Fee Deferral Agreement
or the Affordable Housing Covenant, and such breach continues for a period of thirty
(30) days after written notice thereof to the defaulting party without the defaulting
party curing such breach. However, no Event of Default shall occur if such breach
cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, and the party
commences the cure of such breach within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter
diligently proceeds to cure such breach.
10 REMEDIES. The occurrence of any Event of Default shall give the non-
defaulting party the right to proceed with any and all remedies set forth in this
Agreement, including an action for damages, and an action or proceeding at law or in
equity to require the defaulting party to perform its obligations and covenants
hereunder or to enjoin acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the
provisions of this Agreement.
9
11 RIGHTS AND REMEDIES CUMULATIVE. No right, power, or remedy given to
the City or Owner by the terms of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any
other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall
be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the City
or Owner by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise against
any other person.
12 PERMITS AND PROCESSING; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Owner at its sole
cost and expense shall secure or cause to be secured any and all permits that may be
required by City or any other federal, state, or local government entity having or
claiming jurisdiction over the Property or Project, except as provided by this
Agreement. Upon securing any and all permits, Owner shall carry out and perform
the development of the Housing Project in accordance with plans approved by the
City, and in conformity with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
13 EFFECT ON PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES. This Agreement and any renewals
or extensions thereof shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien on the
Site and the Housing Project prior and superior to the lien created by the lien or
charge of any mortgage or deed of trust or security recorded of record against the
Property. No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions
or limitations contained in this Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any way
impair the lien or charge of any mortgage or deed of trust or security recorded of
record against the Property; provided, however, that any subsequent owner of the
Property shall be bound by such remaining covenants, conditions, restrictions,
provisions and limitations, whether such owner’s title was acquired by foreclosure,
deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise.
14 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND OWNER.
14.1 Cooperation. It is hereby acknowledged that the relationship between the
City and the Owner is not that of a partnership or joint venture and that the City and
the Owner shall not be deemed or construed for any purpose to be the agent of the
other. Accordingly, except as expressly provided herein, the City shall have no
rights, powers, duties or obligations with respect to the development, operation,
maintenance or management of the Housing Project. Each party agrees to cooperate
with the other in this transaction and, in that regard, to sign any and all documents
which may be reasonably necessary, helpful or appropriate to carry out the purposes
and intent of this Agreement including, but not limited to, releases or additional
agreements.
14.2 Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of City. No member, official
or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Owner or any successor in
interest, in the event of any Default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms
of this Agreement.
10
14.3 City Approvals and Actions. The City shall maintain authority of this
Agreement and the authority to implement this Agreement through the City’s
Director. The Director shall have the authority to make approvals, issue
interpretations, waive provisions, make and execute further agreements and/or enter
into amendments of this Agreement on behalf of the City so long as such actions do
not materially or substantially change the uses or development permitted on the Site.
All amendments to this Agreement shall be duly executed and recorded in the Official
Records of the County of Los Angeles.
14.4 Conflicts of Interest. No member, official or employee of the City shall
have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such
member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement
which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or
association in which he is directly or indirectly interested.
14.5 Project as Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed
by and between the Parties hereto that the Housing Project is a private development,
that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that
each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants,
and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other
association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between
City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private
property and the owner of such property.
15 ASSIGNMENT. The qualifications and identity of Owner is of particular concern to
City. It is because of those qualifications and identity that City has entered into this
Agreement. Accordingly, Owner shall not sell, transfer, or assign the Housing
Project in whole or part, or transfer or assign Owner’s rights and obligations in this
Agreement, without the City’s prior written approval, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
16 MISCELLANEOUS.
16.1 Waiver of Terms and Conditions. The City may, in its sole discretion,
waive in writing any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Waivers of any
covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of
any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term, or condition.
16.2 Integration. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between
the parties relating to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, except as
otherwise provided. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings,
representations and statements, oral or written, are merged in this Agreement and
shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement
based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own
independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. This
Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties,
11
notwithstanding any previous negotiations or agreements between the parties or their
predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
16.3 Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter
gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others
where and when the context so dictates. The word “including” shall be construed as
if followed by the words “without limitation.” This Agreement shall be interpreted as
though prepared jointly by both parties.
16.4 Modifications. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this
Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and in each
instance signed on behalf of each party.
16.5 Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this
Agreement or its application to any party or circumstances shall be held, to any
extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application
of the term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than
those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected,
and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
16.6 Computation of Time. The time in which any act is to be done under this
Agreement is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless
the last day is a holiday or Saturday or Sunday, and then that day is also excluded.
The term “holiday” shall mean all holidays as specified in Section 6700 and 6701 of
the California Government Code. If any act is to be done by a particular time during
a day, that time shall be Pacific Time Zone time.
16.7 Legal Advice. Each party represents and warrants to the other the
following: they have carefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement,
they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received
independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matters set forth
in this Agreement, or have knowingly chosen not to consult legal counsel as to the
matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement
without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or
on behalf of the other party, or their respective agents, employees or attorneys, except
as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether
economic or otherwise.
16.8 Time of Essence. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to
the performance by the City and the Owner of each and every obligation, covenant
and/or condition of this Agreement. No later than ten (10) days following execution
of this Agreement by City, Owner shall record or shall cause to be recorded in the
Official Records for Los Angeles County, California, an executed original of this
Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in promptly executing in recordable
form this Agreement.
12
16.9 Default. Failure or delay by any Party to perform any term or provision
of this Agreement which is not cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice
from the other Party specifying the default (or such other period specifically provided
herein) constitutes a default under this Agreement; provided, however, if such default
is of the nature requiring more than 30 days to cure, the defaulting Party shall avoid
default hereunder by commencing to cure within such 30 day period, and thereafter
diligently pursuing such cure to completion within an additional sixty (60) days
following the conclusion of such 30 day period (for a total of ninety (90) days).
Except as required to protect against further damages, the injured Party may not
institute proceedings against the Party in default until the time for cure has expired.
Failure or delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default, nor
shall it change the time of default.
16.10 Indemnification. In addition to any other indemnification specifically
provided in this Agreement, Owner agrees to defend (with counsel of City’s choosing
and the consent of Owner, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, and which may
be joint defense counsel upon City’s and Owner’s consent), indemnify and hold
harmless City and its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives, and
volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any loss, liability, claim, or
judgment arising from any act or omission of Owner in connection with its
obligations under this Agreement, except to the extent caused by the negligence or
misconduct of Indemnitees.
16.11 Notices. As used in this Agreement, “notice” includes, but is not limited
to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report,
acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or
permitted hereunder. All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given
either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of
delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a
sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested,
and postage and postal charge prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below;
or (iii) two (2) days after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, first
class mail and postage prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iv)
one (1) day after deposit with a known and reliable next-day document delivery
service (such as Fed Ex), charges prepaid and delivery scheduled next-day to the
recipient named below, provided that the sending party receives a confirmation of
delivery from the delivery service provider. All notices shall be addressed as follows:
If to City: City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
Attn: Director of Economic and Community
Development
If to Owner: 360 Gladstone LLC
3215 Santa Anita Ave.
13
El Monte, CA 91733
Attn: Agent for 360 Gladstone LLC
16.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more separate
counterparts, each of which, when so executed, shall be deemed to be an original.
Such counterparts shall, together, constitute and shall be one and the same instrument.
This Agreement shall not be effective until the execution and delivery by the Parties
of at least one set of counterparts. The Parties hereunder authorize each other to
detach and combine original signature pages and consolidate them into a single
identical original. Any one of such completely executed counterparts shall be
sufficient proof of this Agreement.
16.13 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with
and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in
the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the
conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either Party at any time, the other
Party shall promptly execute, file, or record such required instruments and writings
and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this
Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to
evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
16.14 Attorneys’ Fees and Cost. If either Party to this Agreement commences
an action against the other Party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement,
the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert
witness fees, costs of investigation, and cost of suit from the losing Party.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
1
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and
year set forth in the preamble above.
CITY OF AZUSA
By:
City Manager
Date:
360 GLADSTONE LLC
By:
Title:
Date:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
360 GLADSTONE LLC
By:
Title:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
1
EXHIBIT “A”
TO DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Property
Real property in the City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
follows:
Parcel: 8621-022-001
LOT COM E 76.29 FT FROM NE COR OF LOT 88 TR NO 19685 TH E 208.71 FT TH S 188.71 FT TH W
208.71 FT TH N TO BEG PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ OF LOT 2
Parcel: 8621-022-002
LOT COM AT NE COR OF LOT 88 TR NO 19685 TH E 76.29 FT TH S 188.71 FT TH W 76.29 FT TH N TO
BEG PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ of LOT 2
1
EXHIBIT “B”
TO DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
Map showing Property and its Location
1
EXHIBIT “C”
TO DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA
Attention: Planning Division
This document is exempt from recording fee
pursuant to Government Code § 27383.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT
For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, 360
GLADSTONE LLC, a California limited liability company (“Owner”), and the CITY OF
AZUSA (“City”) agree as follows with reference to the following facts:
A. Owner owns that certain real property legally described on Exhibit A (the “Site”).
B. City and Owner have entered into that certain Senior Citizen Housing
Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement dated _____________, 2018 (the “Density
Bonus Agreement”) with respect to the Site. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in
this Affordable Housing Covenant (this “Covenant”) shall have the meaning set forth in the
Density Bonus Agreement.
C. Owner and City agree that the Site shall be subject to the conditions and
restrictions, and the rights of City under this Covenant as specified below.
1. USE OF THE SITE.
Owner hereby covenants and agrees that during the term of this Covenant, Owner shall
use the Site in compliance with all of the following:
A. Development.
Owner shall construct, or cause to be constructed, on the Site a Senior Citizen
rental housing project (the “Housing Project”), consisting of approximately sixty (60) residential
housing units (each a “Unit”), and appurtenant amenities. As described below in subsection
B(1), six (6) of the Units shall be restricted to Senior Citizen of Low Income Households.
2
B. Rent and Income Restrictions.
(1) Income Restrictions. Six (6) of the Units constructed on the Site shall be
rent restricted (the “Affordable Units”). All of the Affordable Units shall be available to and
occupied by households whose gross income does not exceed the limits of Area Median Income
for Low Income Households. All Affordable Units shall be available at an Affordable Rent
(“Affordable Rent” shall mean rental rates for the Units, calculated as set forth in the Affordable
Housing Covenant, not to exceed “Affordable Rent” for Low Income Households as defined by
California Health & Safety Code Section 50053 or its successor. “Affordable Rent” shall
include a reasonable utility allowance for tenant-paid utilities based on the published utility
schedules.) Households that meet the income limits set forth in this subsection (1) are
hereinafter referred to as “Eligible Senior Households.”
(2) “Area Median Income” means the Los Angeles County, California area
median income, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit, as periodically published by the
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in section 6932 of
Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, or successor regulation.
(3) The income of all persons residing in an Affordable Unit shall be
considered for purposes of calculating the applicable income.
C. Reporting Requirements. Annual reports and annual income certifications or
recertifications must be submitted to the City. The reports, at a minimum, shall include:
(1) The size of unit
(2) The number of persons in unit
(3) Tenant name(s)
(4) Initial occupancy date
(5) Rent paid per month
(6) Gross income per year
(7) Percent of rent paid in relation to income
(8) Copies of those documents used by Owner to certify the tenant as an
Eligible Senior Household.
The first annual report and annual income certification (the “Initial Report”) shall be
submitted to the City within thirty (30) days of the date of the initial rental of all the Affordable
Units on the Site. Subsequent annual reports and annual income certifications or recertifications
shall be submitted to the City on or before April 1 of the year following the year covered by the
Annual Report. The reports shall be submitted in a form acceptable to the City.
3
The City may, from time to time during the term of this Covenant, request additional or
different information and Owner shall promptly supply such information in the reports required
hereunder. Owner shall maintain all necessary books and records, including property, personal
and financial records, in accordance with requirements prescribed by the City with respect to all
matters covered by this Covenant. Owner, at such time and in such forms as the City may
require, shall furnish to City statements, records, reports, data and information pertaining to
matters covered by this Covenant. Upon request for examination by the City, Owner, at any time
during normal business hours, shall make available all of its records with respect to all matters
covered by this Covenant. Owner shall permit the City to audit, examine and make excerpts or
transcripts from these records.
2. LIMITATIONS ON TRANSFER.
A. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of Owner shall acquire any
interest in the Site or the Housing Project except as expressly set forth herein. It is hereby
expressly stipulated and agreed that any assignment, sale, transfer or other disposition of the
Housing Project or the Site, or any portion(s) thereof or interest(s) therein, in violation of this
Section 2 shall be null, void and without effect, shall cause a reversion of title to Owner, and
shall be ineffective to relieve Owner of its obligations under this Covenant. Upon any
assignment, sale, transfer or other disposition of the Housing Project or the Site that complies
with the requirements of this Section 2, Owner shall be fully released from its obligations
hereunder to the extent such obligations have been fully assumed in writing by the transferee of
the Housing Project or the Site pursuant to an assignment and assumption agreement in a form
reasonably acceptable to the City’s legal counsel. No later than the date the assignment becomes
effective, Owner shall deliver to City a fully executed counterpart of the assignment and
assumption agreement. Owner shall request approval by written notice at least sixty (60) days
prior to any proposed assignment, sale, transfer or other disposition of the Housing Project or the
Site, or any portion(s) thereof or interest(s) therein.
B. Owner shall not assign, sell or transfer the Housing Project or the Site, or any
portion(s) thereof, or interest(s) therein without the prior written approval of the City Manager,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and shall be granted upon City’s
receipt of evidence acceptable to City that the following conditions have been satisfied:
(1) Owner is not in default hereunder or the purchaser or assignee agrees to
undertake to cure any defaults of Owner to the reasonable satisfaction of City;
(2) The continued operation of the Housing Project shall comply with the
provisions of the Density Bonus Agreement and this Covenant;
(3) Either (i) the purchaser or assignee or its property manager has at least
three years’ experience in the ownership, operation and management of similar size rental
housing projects, and at least two year's experience in the ownership, operation and management
of rental housing projects containing below-market-rate units, without any record of material
violations of discrimination restrictions or other state or federal laws or regulations or local
governmental requirements applicable to such projects, or (ii) the purchaser or assignee agrees to
retain a property management firm with the experience and record described in subclause (i)
4
above, or (iii) Owner or its management company will continue to manage the Housing Project
for at least one year following such transfer and during such period will provide training to the
transferee and its manager in the responsibilities relating to the Affordable Units;
(4) The person or entity which is to acquire the Housing Project does not have
pending against it, and does not have a history of significant and material building code
violations or complaints concerning the maintenance, upkeep, operation and regulatory
agreement compliance of any of its projects as identified by any local, state or federal regulatory
agencies; and
(5) The proposed purchaser or assignee enters into a written assignment and
assumption agreement in form and content reasonably satisfactory to City’s legal counsel, and, if
requested by City, an opinion of such purchaser or assignee's counsel to the effect that this
Covenant, the Density Bonus Agreement and the Agreement are valid, binding and enforceable
obligations of such purchaser or assignee, subject to bankruptcy and other standard limitations
affecting creditor's rights.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Covenant to the contrary, City
approval of an assignment, sale or transfer of the Housing Project or the Site or any interest
therein shall not be required in connection with any of the following:
(1) Subject to Owner submitting the assignment and assumption agreement
referred to above and the approval of such agreement by the City, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, any transfer or assignment of the Housing Project or any interest therein
to an entity or entities in which Owner retains more than fifty percent (50%) in the aggregate,
directly or indirectly, of the ownership or beneficial interest and retains full management and
control of the transferee entity or entities, either directly or indirectly through another entity,
subject only to certain major events requiring the consent or approval of the other owners of such
entity (“Affiliate of Owner”). (The term “control” as used herein shall mean the ability to direct
the operation and management of such corporation, partnership, limited liability or other entity.)
(2) Transfers resulting from the death or mental or physical incapacity of any
member or partner of Owner;
(3) The granting of temporary or permanent easements or permits to facilitate
development of the Housing Project;
(4) Any assignment for financing purposes, including the grant of a deed of
trust, assignment of rents and security agreement to secure the funds necessary for construction
and permanent financing of the Housing Project; provided, any such financing shall be
subordinate to the Density Bonus Agreement and this Covenant;
(5) Any transfer by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure under approved
financing or transfers by a lender as described in subparagraph (4) above subsequent to
foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure; and
5
(6) The rental, in the ordinary course of business, of the apartment units
within the Housing Project provided, with respect to the Affordable Units, such rental shall be in
accordance with the terms of this Covenant.
In the event of any assignment, sale or transfer by Owner under the above subparagraphs
2.C(1) through 2.C(6), inclusive, not requiring City’s prior approval, Owner nevertheless agrees
that it shall give at least fifteen (15) days prior written Notice to City of such assignment or
transfer. In addition, City shall be entitled to review such documentation as may be reasonably
required by the City Manager for the purpose of determining compliance of such assignment,
sale or transfer with the requirements of subparagraphs 2.C(1) through 2.C(6), inclusive.
D. Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to restrict Owner’s right to encumber
the Site for the benefit of lenders providing financing for the Site; provided, however, any such
financing shall be subject to review and approval by the City, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld; and provided, further, that any such financing shall be subordinate to the
Density Bonus Agreement and this Covenant.
E. Nothing in this Section 2 or elsewhere in this Covenant shall prohibit (i) sale or
transfer of all or any portion of the Site through foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust
approved by the City, (ii) transfer to the holder of such permitted mortgage or deed of trust by
deed in lieu of foreclosure or (iii) transfer of the Site by any such holder subsequent to
acquisition by foreclosure or deed in lieu.
3. NO DISCRIMINATION.
Owner herein covenants by and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns,
and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or
segregation of any person or group of persons on any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of
Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1,
subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of
the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment
of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the Owner himself or herself, or any person claiming
under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination
or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants,
lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants
shall run with the land.
4. MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT.
Owner shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, in accordance with the Maintenance
Standards (as hereinafter defined) the private improvements and public improvements (the
“Improvements”) and landscaping to the curbline(s) on and abutting the Site. The Improvements
shall include, but not be limited to, buildings, sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, landscaping,
irrigation of landscaping, architectural elements identifying the Site and any and all other
improvements on the Site and in the public right-of-way to the nearest curbline(s) abutting the
Site. To accomplish the maintenance, Owner shall either staff or contract with and hire licensed
and qualified personnel to perform the maintenance work, including the provision of labor,
6
equipment, materials, support facilities, and any and all other items necessary to comply with the
requirements of this Covenant. The maintenance covenants and obligations set forth in this
Section 4 shall remain in effect for the period of time specified in paragraph 6, below.
A. The following standards (collectively, “Maintenance Standards”) shall be
complied with by Owner and its maintenance staff, contractors and subcontractors but do not
require extraordinary expenditures or reconstruction after condemnation or the occurrence of a
substantial casualty event:
(1) Landscape maintenance shall include: watering/irrigation; fertilization;
mowing; edging; trimming of grass; tree and shrub pruning; trimming and shaping of trees and
shrubs to maintain a healthy, natural appearance, safe road conditions and visibility, and
irrigation coverage; replacement, as needed, of all plant materials; control of weeds in all
planters, shrubs, lawns, ground covers, or other planted areas; and staking for support of trees.
(2) Clean-up maintenance shall include: maintenance of all sidewalks, paths
and other paved areas in clean and weed-free condition; maintenance of all such areas clear of
dirt, mud, trash, debris or other matter which is unsafe or unsightly; removal of all trash, litter
and other debris from improvements and landscaping prior to mowing; clearance and cleaning of
all areas maintained prior to the end of the day on which the maintenance operations are
performed to ensure that all cuttings, weeds, leaves and other debris are properly disposed of by
maintenance workers.
(3) All maintenance work shall conform to all applicable federal and state
Occupation Safety and Health Act standards and regulations for the performance of maintenance.
(4) Any and all chemicals, unhealthful substances, and pesticides used in and
during maintenance shall be applied in strict accordance with all governmental requirements.
Precautionary measures shall be employed recognizing that all areas are open to public access.
(5) The Improvements shall be maintained in conformance with the custom
and practice generally applicable to comparable multi-family residential units located within
Azusa, California. The public right-of-way improvements to the curbline(s) on and abutting the
Site shall be maintained as required by this subsection A. in good condition and in accordance
with the custom and practice generally applicable to public rights-of-way within the City of
Azusa.
B. If Owner does not maintain the private and public improvements on the Site to the
curbline(s) on and abutting the Site in the manner set forth herein and in accordance with the
Maintenance Standards, City shall have the right to maintain such private and/or public
improvements, or to contract for the correction of such deficiencies, after written notice to
Owner. However, prior to taking any such action, City agrees to notify Owner in writing if the
condition of said improvements does not conform to the Maintenance Standards and to specify
the deficiencies and the actions required to be taken by Owner to cure the deficiencies. Upon
notification of any maintenance deficiency, Owner shall have thirty (30) days within which to
correct, remedy or cure the deficiency. If the written notification states that the problem is
7
urgent and relates to the public health and safety, then Owner shall have twenty-four (24) hours
to rectify the problem.
In the event Owner fails to correct, remedy, or cure or has not commenced
correcting, remedying or curing such maintenance deficiency after notification and after
expiration of any applicable cure period, including the notice and cure provisions for any holder
of record of any mortgage or deed of trust, then City shall have the right to maintain such
improvements. Owner agrees to pay City upon demand all charges and costs incurred by City
for such maintenance. Until so paid, the City shall have a lien on the Site for the amount of such
charges or costs, which lien shall be perfected by the recordation of a “Notice of Claim of Lien”
against the Site. Any lien in favor of the City created or claimed hereunder is expressly made
subject and subordinate to any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value,
recorded as of the date of the recordation of the Notice of Claim of Lien, and no such lien shall
in any way defeat, invalidate, or impair the obligation or priority of any such mortgage or deed
of trust, unless the mortgagee or beneficiary thereunder expressly subordinates his interest, of
record, to such lien. No lien in favor of the City created or claimed hereunder shall in any way
defeat, invalidate, or impair the obligation or priority of any lease, sublease or easement unless
such instrument is expressly subordinated to such lien. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the
City may also pursue any and all other remedies available in law or equity in the event of a
breach of the maintenance obligations and covenants set forth herein, subject to the limitations
set forth in Section 8, below.
5. NO IMPAIRMENT OF LIEN.
No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or limitations
contained in this Covenant shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge
of any mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or security instrument; provided, however, that
any successor of Owner to the Site shall be bound by such covenants, conditions, restrictions,
limitations and provisions, whether such successor's title was acquired by foreclosure, deed in
lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise.
6. DURATION.
The covenants set forth at Sections 1, 2, and 4 shall remain in effect until the date which
is fifty-five (55) years following the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any
Affordable Unit on the Site. Following the issuance of such Certificate of Occupancy, City and
Owner shall execute and record an Acknowledgment of Term of Regulatory Agreement, in form
and content satisfactory to the City, identifying the date issuance of such Certificate of
Occupancy, and the date fifty-five (55) years thereafter as the termination date for the covenants
hereunder.
The covenants set forth at Section 3 shall remain in effect in perpetuity.
7. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.
The covenants contained in this Covenant shall inure to the benefit of City and its
successors and assigns and shall be binding upon Owner and any successor in interest to the Site
and the Housing Project or any part thereof. The covenants shall run in favor of City and its
8
successors and assigns for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and
effect, without regard to whether City is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to
which such covenants relate. City, and its successors and assigns, in the event of any breach of
any such covenants, shall have the right to exercise all of the rights and remedies and to maintain
any actions at law or suits in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such
breach.
8. DEFAULT.
A. Any failure by Owner to perform, or cause to be performed, any term or provision
of this Covenant or the Density Bonus Agreement or the Fee Deferral Agreement shall constitute
an "Event of Default" (1) if Owner does not cure such failure within thirty (30) days following
written notice of default from City, including notice and opportunity to cure for lenders approved
by the City (“Approved Lenders”), or (2) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured
within such thirty- (30) day period, the Owner does not within such thirty (30) day period
commence substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time
prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure. City shall not
enforce any of its rights and remedies for breach by Owner except upon the occurrence of an
Event of Default.
B. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the
failure in performance which City claims constitutes the Event of Default and the manner in
which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Covenant. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure to
perform, including the opportunities to cure for lenders approved by the City, Owner shall not be
considered to be in default of this Covenant for any purposes.
C. Any failure or delay by City in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any
Event of Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Event of Default or of any such rights or
remedies or deprive City of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it
may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.
D. To protect the rights of lenders previously approved by the City, City shall not
have the right to file any involuntary petition seeking reorganization, arrangement, adjustment,
or composition of or in respect of Owner, respectively, under any liquidation, insolvency,
bankruptcy, rehabilitation, reorganization, conservation or other similar law in effect now or in
the future.
9. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE.
Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other
party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the current, actual knowledge of the
certifying party, (a) this Covenant is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the
parties, (b) this Covenant has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified,
identifying the amendments or modifications, and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the
performance of its obligations under this Covenant, or if in default, to describe therein the nature
and extent of any such defaults. Failure to provide such certificate, or provide written
9
explanation of why it will not do so within thirty (30) days, may, at the option of the requesting
party, be deemed a default hereunder.
10. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.
The covenants contained in this Covenant shall be binding for the benefit of the City and
its respective successors and assigns and any successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof,
and such covenants shall run in favor of City and such aforementioned parties for the entire
period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to whether City
is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate. City, and
such aforementioned parties, in the event of any breach of any such covenants, shall have the
right to exercise all of the rights and remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suits in
equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach. The covenants
contained in this Covenant shall be for the benefit of and shall be enforceable only by City, and
its respective successors and such aforementioned parties.
11. COUNTERPARTS.
This Covenant may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties,
shall constitute a binding agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have caused this Covenant to be executed on
their behalf by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.
Dated for reference purposes only as of ______________, 2018.
"CITY"
CITY OF AZUSA
By: ____________________________
City Manager
“OWNER”
360 GLADSTONE LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: _______________________________
_________________________
10
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On ______________________, 2018 before me, , Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On ______________________, 2018 before me, , Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
1
EXHIBIT A
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Real property in the City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
follows:
Parcel: 8621-022-001
LOT COM E 76.29 FT FROM NE COR OF LOT 88 TR NO 19685 TH E 208.71 FT TH S 188.71 FT TH W
208.71 FT TH N TO BEG PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ OF LOT 2
Parcel: 8621-022-002
LOT COM AT NE COR OF LOT 88 TR NO 19685 TH E 76.29 FT TH S 188.71 FT TH W 76.29 FT TH N TO
BEG PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ of LOT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVING A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS
PROJECT, LOCATED AT 360, 410, AND 416 W. GLADSTONE STREET, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA-2017-01,
ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-2016-01, MINOR USE PERMIT NO. MUP-2016-12,
DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR-2017-23, AND VARIANCE NO. V-2017-07
WHEREAS, 360 Gladstone LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application requesting
approval of the “Gladstone Senior Villa Project” (the “Project”), proposed at 360, 410, and 416
W. Gladstone Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, and recommended that the City Council
approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes the demolition of three existing single-family dwelling
units and the development of 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site (APNs 8621-022-001
and 8621-022-002); and
WHEREAS, to develop the Project, Applicant seeks several entitlements, including
General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2017-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Minor Use Permit
No. MUP-2016-12, Design Review No. DR-2017-23, and Variance No. V-2017-7; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a concession for stories/building height (3
stories/36 feet). In addition, the Applicant is seeking a density bonus in accordance with
Government Code Sections 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (f)(1). As shown in Table 4.10-1, the density
for the site is 40 units per gross acre, which equates to 49 units for the 1.23 acre site. Under
Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1), a developer may seek a density bonus if at least ten
percent of the units are for lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code
Section 50079.5. The proposed project includes six units for low-income residents, which is the
equivalent of twelve percent of the units. Thus, the proposed project qualifies for a 23 percent
density bonus under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (f)(1). The 23 percent
density bonus is applied to 49 units for a total of 60 units, which is the number of units proposed
for the project; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018 the City’s Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on this Resolution and the Project, at which time all persons wishing to
testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. XX- Affordable Housing Agreement
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Based on the information and analysis contained in the Senior Citizen
Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement prepared for the Project, the City
Council finds that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that there would be
a significant impact on the environment with mitigation measures imposed on the Project. SB
1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) amended the State density bonus program (Government Code
Section 65915) that took effect on January 1, 2005. The amendments addressed density bonus;
continued affordability; concessions and incentives; waivers and modifications of development
standards; land donation; and parking. Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88.32, Affordable
Housing Incentives, has codified the requirements of SB 1818. The City Council further finds
that the Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City.
SECTION 3: Based upon the findings made herein and its independent judgment and
analysis, the City Council of the City of Azusa recommends adoption of the Senior Citizen
Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement for the Gladstone Senior Villa
Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915
(b)(1) and 65915 (f)(1).
SECTION 4: The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Azusa City
Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The Director of Economic and Community
Development is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________, 2018
by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Resolution No. XX- Affordable Housing Agreement
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 3
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 2016-23 TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 60 SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT
360, 410, AND 416 W. GLADSTONE STREET.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, after having given notice thereof as
required by law, held a public hearing on the application for a 60-unit senior housing project; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the 60 unit senior housing project is located in the
City’s Neighborhood General 2 zone and requires approval of a General Plan Amendment No.
GPA-2016-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Design Review No. DR-2016-23, Minor Use
Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Variance No. V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction), and together these
approvals constitute “the proposed project”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, and recommended that the City Council
approve this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the
staff report presented during the public hearing for the requested Design Review.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to City Council Resolution XX, the City Council approved the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project. The MND addresses the
environmental impacts of the entire project, and hence for the purposes of approving the Design
Review DR 2016-23, no further review under the California Environmental Quality Act is
required.
SECTION 3: That in accordance with Section 88.51.032 of the Azusa Development
Code, the City Council hereby approves the proposed Design Review DR 2016-23 based on the
following findings:
1. The project provides architectural design, building massing and scale appropriate
to and compatible with the site surroundings and the community.
The project proposes to remove the three existing residences on-site and construct 60
senior apartment units on the site. The project seeks to implement the historic
architectural characters of the Spanish Style design that is displayed throughout the
traditional neighborhood sector of Azusa. The Edgewood shopping Center is directly
Resolution No. XX for DR-2016-23
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
North of the building and a Senior Housing development to the West. The scale is
appropriate and compatible with the site surrounding and the community.
2. The project provides attractive and desirable site layout and design, including, but
not limited to, building arrangement, exterior appearance and setbacks, drainage,
fences and walls, grading, landscaping, lighting, signs, etc.
The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-
bedroom units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first
floor and 21 units each on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated
as low-income units. The building will include a lobby area, community room, mail
room, security office, and storage areas. The building height is three stories/36 feet. The
Floor Area Ratio is 0.92 and the Lot Coverage is 31 percent. A proposed porte-cochere
was removed to include more parking spaces.
The proposed site layout and design, and meets the development standards of the City of
Azusa within the DE zone. Perimeter landscaping and building lighting will further
contribute to a project that will enhance the zone.
3. Provide efficient and safe public access, circulation and parking.
The proposed project includes a total of 48 parking spaces, which includes 42 parking
spaces for the units (assumes 0.7 parking stalls per unit) and 6 guest spaces (assumes one
space for every ten units). The City would require the Applicant through the variance
approval to prepare a parking study demonstrating that the proposed reduction in parking
standards is adequate for the proposed project based upon existing senior apartment
facilities in the City and in surrounding jurisdictions.
4. The project provides appropriate open space and landscaping, including the use of
water efficient landscaping.
Conditions of Approval have been included to require that the installed landscaping and
open space areas comply with the City’s Water Efficiency Ordinance and utilize drought
tolerant plan materials. The applicant is providing 163 square feet of open space per unit,
more than the required 125 square feet. The project exceeds the appropriate open space
and landscape requirements. The applicant has revised the landscape plans and has
indicated all the amenities within that plan. Exhibit O sets forth the revised landscape
plans.
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan,
development agreement, and/or any previously approved planning permit.
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M, and the
granting of the accompanying Variance application, the proposed project is consistent
Resolution No. XX for DR-2016-23
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
with the DE zone and, as well as the Azusa General Plan.
In accordance with the Azusa Housing Element, the development is in conformance with
the following Policies:
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for
Housing demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to
meet the needs of the community and establishes a balanced approach to meet housing
needs that includes the needs of both renter and owner households. Policy H2.3
facilitates development of affordable housing through the use of financial and or
regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3 concerns established partnerships with private
developers and non-profit housing corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its housing
goals. The project is intended to provide affordable housing and accommodations for low
to moderate income earning residents in line with the City’s Housing Elemet.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of
residential development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes,
moderate-density residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and
residential-commercial mixed use in order to address the City’s share of regional housing
needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental housing for large families, students, and
senior households. Policy H3.8 says to provide incentives to facilitate the development of
senior housing options. Policy H3.9 states the requirement that housing that constructed
expressly for low- and moderate-income households not be constructed in any single
portion of the City. The applicant is seeking to fulfill these policies through their
development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on
housing production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density
bonuses and reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The
applicant is requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has
recommended a parking analysis to justify the reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which provides
an alternative senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
There is no applicable specific plan or development agreement.
6. The project complies with all applicable requirements of the Development Code,
and any other adopted City design standards, guidelines, and policies.
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M (attached to
the staff report) and the granting of the accompanying Variance, the proposed project is
consistent with the Azusa’s General Plan and Housing Element which are consistent with
the Azusa Development Code.
Resolution No. XX for DR-2016-23
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4
SECTION 4: Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral
evidence presented to the City Council, and the findings made in this Resolution, the City
Council of the City of Azusa hereby approves Design Review No. DR 2016-23.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and materials
associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
are based are located at Azusa City Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The
Director of Economic and Community Development is the custodian of the record of
proceedings.
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________, 2018
by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVING MINOR USE PERMIT NO. MUP-2016-12 TO ALLOW SENIOR
HOUSING APARMENTS IN THE DE ZONE, LOCATED AT 360, 410, AND 416
W. GLADSTONE STREET.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, after having given notice thereof as
required by law, held a public hearing on the application for a 60-unit senior housing project; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the 60 unit senior housing project is located in
the City’s Neighborhood General 2 zone and requires approval of a General Plan Amendment
No. GPA-2016-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Design Review No. DR-2016-23, Minor Use
Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Variance No. V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction), and together these
approvals constitute “the proposed project”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, and recommended that the City Council
approve this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the
staff report presented during the public hearing for the requested Minor Use Permit.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to City Council Resolution XX, the City Council approved the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project. The MND addresses the
environmental impacts of the entire project, and hence for the purposes of approving the Design
Review DR 2016-23, no further review under the California Environmental Quality Act is
required.
SECTION 3: That in accordance with Section 88.51.040 of the Azusa Development
Code, the City Council hereby approves the proposed Minor Use Permit No. MUP- 2016-12
based on the following findings:
1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with
all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code.
The proposed use of Senior Housing Apartment is permitted use in the Edgewood
District, with approval of a Minor Use Permit. The proposed use is consistent with the
other uses in the area. The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan states goals
and policies encouraging Senior House Apartments in the City. Goal H2 describes a
provision for adequate housing to meet the needs of the community, and establishes a
Resolution No. XX for MUP-2016-12
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 4
balanced approach to meet housing needs that includes the needs of both renter and
owner households. Policy H2.3 facilitates development of affordable housing through
the use of financial and or regulatory incentives. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental
housing for large families, students, and senior households. Policy H3.8 provides
incentives to facilitate the development of senior housing options.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan.
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M, and the
granting of the accompanying Variance, the proposed project is consistent with the DE
zone and, as well as the Azusa General Plan.
In accordance with the Azusa Housing Element, the development is in conformance with
the following Policies:
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for
Housing demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to
meet the needs of the community and establishes a balanced approach to meet housing
needs that includes the needs of both renter and owner households. Policy H2.3
facilitates development of affordable housing through the use of financial and or
regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3 concerns established partnerships with private
developers and non-profit housing corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its housing
goals. The project is intended to provide affordable housing and accommodations for low
to moderate income earning residents in line with the City’s Housing Elements.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of
residential development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes,
moderate-density residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and
residential-commercial mixed use in order to address the City’s share of regional housing
needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental housing for large families, students, and
senior households. Policy H3.8 says to provide incentives to facilitate the development of
senior housing options. Policy H3.9 states the requirement that housing that constructed
expressly for low- and moderate-income households not be constructed in any single
portion of the City. The applicant is seeking to fulfill these policies through their
development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on
housing production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density
bonuses and reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The
applicant is requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has
recommended a parking analysis to justify the reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which provides
an alternative senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
Resolution No. XX for MUP-2016-12
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 4
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are
compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
The project proposes to remove the three existing residences on-site and construct 60
senior apartment units on the site. The project seeks to implement the historic
architectural characters of the Spanish Style design that is displayed throughout the
traditional neighborhood sector of Azusa. The Edgewood Shopping Center is directly
north of the building and a Senior Housing development to the West. The scale is
appropriate and compatible with the site surrounding and the community.
4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of use being
proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-
bedroom units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first
floor and 21 units each on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated
as low-income units. The building will include a lobby area, community room, mail
room, security office, and storage areas. The building height is three stories/36 feet. The
Floor Area Ratio is 0.92 and the Lot Coverage is 31 percent.
The proposed site layout and design, and meets the development standards of the City of
Azusa within the DE zone. Perimeter landscaping and building lighting will further
contribute to a project that will enhance the zone.
5. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or
improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.
Granting the permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare because the senior housing will be located within the City’s DE
zone. The proposed use will be consistent with the operational standards of the City of
Azusa Development Code.
SECTION 4: Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral
evidence presented to the City Council, and the findings made in this Resolution, the City
Council of the City of Azusa hereby approves Minor Use Permit No. MUP 2016-12.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and materials
associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
are based are located at Azusa City Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The
Director of Economic and Community Development is the custodian of the record of
proceedings.
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________, 2018
Resolution No. XX for MUP-2016-12
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 4 of 4
by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-C22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. V 2017-07 TO ALLOW A PARKING
REDUCTION FOR 60 SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENTS, LOCATED
AT 360, 410, AND 416 W. GLADSTONE STREET.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, after having given notice thereof as
required by law, held a public hearing on the application for a 60-unit senior housing project; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the 60 unit senior housing project is located in the
City’s Neighborhood General 2 zone and requires approval of a General Plan Amendment No.
GPA-2016-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01, Design Review No. DR-2016-23, Minor Use
Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Variance No. V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction), and together these
approvals constitute “the proposed project”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, and recommended that the City Council
approve this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the
staff report presented during the public hearing for the requested Variance to reduce the parking
requirement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to City Council Resolution XX, the City Council approved the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project. The MND addresses the
environmental impacts of the entire project, and hence for the purposes of approving the Design
Review DR 2016-23, no further review under the California Environmental Quality Act is
required.
SECTION 3: That in accordance with Section 88.51.050 and 88.36.080(B)-(C) of the
Azusa Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves said Variance V 2017-07 based on the
following findings:
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, so that the strict application of this Development
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
within the same zoning district.
The property has no special circumstances applicable to the property. Goal H4 of the
Housing Element recommends minimizing impacts of governmental constraints on housing
Resolution No. XX for V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction)
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 4
production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density bonuses and
reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The applicant is
requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has recommended a
parking analysis to justify the reduction.
Azusa Municipal Code Section 88.36.080 permits the reduction of parking for restricted
senior housing projects based on quantitative information provided by the applicant that
documents the need for fewer spaces for these types of residential development projects.
The applicant conducted a parking study on two senior apartments in the vicinity. The
locations of these two apartments are 200 E. Gladstone Street and 450 N. Soldano Avenue.
The study concluded that both sites have an approximate parking rate of 0.63 spaces per
dwelling unit. During the November 15, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended the applicant revise the site plan to incorporate more parking
spaces. The applicant has revised the site plan and added ten additional parking spaces. The
total number of parking spaces is 50. The applicant has changed its original number of
parking spaces to show 0.83 spaces per dwelling unit. See Exhibit N to the accompanying
staff report, incorporated herein by this reference, for the complete parking analysis.
2. The approval of the Variance includes conditions of approval as necessary to insure
that the adjustment granted does not constitute a grant of special privileges,
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and within the
same zoning district.
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit M to the accompanying Staff Report) have been included to
insure that the Variance does not grant special privileges. The site design of the project will
include additional landscaping, street trees/landscaping and enhanced architectural detailing
that was inspired by the historic Spanish Architecture similar to City Hall. The applicant
revised the landscape plan to include more amenities in the open space. Exhibit O details
those landscaping revisions.
3. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M, and the granting
of the accompanying Variance application, the proposed project is consistent with the DE
zone and, as well as the Azusa General Plan.
In accordance with the Azusa Housing Element, the development is in conformance with the
following Policies:
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for Housing
demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to meet the needs
of the community and establishes a balanced approach to meet housing needs that includes
the needs of both renter and owner households. Policy H2.3 facilitates development of
affordable housing through the use of financial and or regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3
concerns established partnerships with private developers and non-profit housing
Resolution No. XX for V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction)
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 4
corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its housing goals. The project is intended to provide
affordable housing and accommodations for low to moderate income earning residents.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of residential
development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes, moderate-density
residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and residential-commercial mixed
use in order to address the City’s share of regional housing needs. Policy 3.7 supports the
provision of high-quality rental housing for large families, students, and senior households.
Policy H3.8 says to provide incentives to facilitate the development of senior housing
options. Policy H3.9 states the requirement that housing that constructed expressly for low-
and moderate-income households not be constructed in any single portion of the City. The
applicant is seeking to fulfill these policies through their development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on housing
production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density bonuses and
reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The applicant is
requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has recommended a
parking analysis to justify the reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which provides an
alternative senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
SECTION 4: Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral
evidence presented to the City Council, and the findings made in this Resolution, the City
Council of the City of Azusa hereby approves Variance No. V 2017-07.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and materials
associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
are based are located at Azusa City Hall, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, California 91702. The
Director of Economic and Community Development is the custodian of the record of
proceedings.
MOVED, PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____th day of ___________, 2018
by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
Resolution No. XX for V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction)
Affordable Senior Housing – 360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 4 of 4
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marco Martinez
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Case No: GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
Address: 360-416 Gladstone Street
APN: 8621-022-001 & 8621-022-002
Project: Design Review request to allow the construction of 60 senior housing
apartments. Six of the 60 units are affordable housing units. A
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request is for the
reclassification of Neighborhood General 2- Low Density Residential
to Edgewood District zone. The Minor Use Permit is requested to
allow a senior apartment use. The Project includes a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and an affordable housing agreement.
These conditions of approval shall be printed on or attached to working drawings submitted
to the Building Division for approval.
A. All requirements of the Planning Division shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
1. The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change , Minor Use Permit, Variance and
Design Review shall be exercised within two years after its approval, or said
permit shall expire and be subject to revocation, unless an extension of time is
approved in compliance with Section 88.52.040 of the Development Code. The
permit shall not be deemed “exercised” until the applicant has obtained a building
permit.
2. All applicable Building Division and Fire Department requirements shall be met at all
times.
3. Within 10 calendar days from the date of approval the applican t/property owner
shall provide the following to the Planning Division:
a. Sign and return the “Owner’s Acceptance” form provided by the Planning
Division.
b. Submit a check for $75 payable to the Los Angeles County Clerk fo r filing
of a Notice of Exemption with the County of Los Angeles.
4. All construction and uses shall be in substantial conformance w ith the approved plot
plan and elevations pursuant to the conditions listed herein;
a. All roof and/or ground mounted equipment shall be screened by solid materials
from public view as determined by the review authority to be feasible.
b. The applicant shall comply with the City of Azusa’s allowable construction hours
as follows: Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
c. Applicant shall submit an address plan with proposed illuminated address
plaques
d. Applicant shall enhance the appearance of the large dr iveway with segments of
decorative stamped and stained concrete.
5. All necessary permits shall be obtained.
6. All signs must comply with those sign regulations set forth in Chapter 88, Article VIII.
Of the Azusa Municipal Code to include restrictions on sign area, sigh types, sign
materials, and sign height.
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01 MUP-2016-12, DR-2016-23, V-2017-07, and Affordable Housing Contract
360, 410, & 416 E. Gladstone Street
Page 2 of 9
i. A monument sign reflecting the City of Azusa historic sign shall be
constructed.
7. All illuminated signs and parking lot lighting shall be located, aimed and/or
shielded to prevent lights from shining or reflecting on adjacent property.
8. Signs shall not be placed on the public right-of-way. Those projections over the
existing or proposed public right-of-way shall meet the State of California
Encroachment requirements.
9. Portable signs on the property are prohibited.
10. Temporary signs on the property shall meet all requirements of Chapter 88.38
(Signs) of the Development Code.
11. Landscaping shall be adequately maintained at all times including, but not limited
to, irrigation, weeding, and/or replacement when necessary.
12. Three sets of Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval. Said plans shall be 24" by 36" and in compliance
with City of Azusa landscape design standards. Location and percentage of
landscaping, plant material and quantities of each, plant and planter box sizes, and
design of an automatic irrigation system with detailed cross -sections shall be clearly
indicated. [Note: Do not submit these plans with building plan check. Plans must be
submitted directly to the Planning Division. The applicant is made aware that the
Parks Division will be routed two sets of plans. Please allow 2 -3 weeks for review].
The number of parkway trees, if any, shall be determined by the Parks Division.
13. The submitted landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the Water Efficient
water efficient landscaping requirements of Section 88.34.050.D of the City
Municipal Code.
14. The City’s Operational Standards set forth in Chapter 88.31 of the Azusa
Development Code pertaining to noise standards, outdoor lighting, and property
maintenance, shall be adhered to at all times.
15. Existing chain-link shall be removed and replaced with a new six foot tall perimeter
block wall to ensure the proposed wall will be constructed of slump stone masonry
blocks with a decorative cap. Fences on the East and West shall be painted and
decorative match the proposed development; applicant shall coordinate with the
Planning Division.
16. Adequate trash enclosure(s) shall me maintained at all times. Su ch enclosure must
be fully screened from public view by means of decorative masonry walls served by
solid full height gates. Said gates shall also be maintained in good and operating
repair at all times. The storage of any and all trash other than the tras h storage area
or higher than the screened walls around said storage area is prohibited. Enclosure
location must be approved by the local trash contractor. Dumpster(s) to remain in
enclosure(s) at all times.
17. Outside storage of any and all materials, goods , etc., is absolutely prohibited.
18. The parking of recreational vehicles including but not limited to campers, motor
homes, trailers, boats, etc., is absolutely prohibited unless a designated storage area
is provided, which is fully enclosed and screened from public view. Any such space
cannot occupy any other required parking, driveway, or required usable open space
or area.
19. The premises shall be maintained in a clean and acceptable condition at all times.
All buildings and walls shall be maintained in good repair at all times. Any offensive
markings shall be removed immediately. Any graffiti shall be painted over within
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 3 of 9
forty-eight (48) hours to match existing wall in color and tone.
20. If it becomes necessary for the City to take any legal action or commence any
administrative proceedings against the applicant or any successor in interest in order
to enforce any of the conditions of approval set forth herein, the City shall recover
from the applicant or successor in interest reasonable attorney's fees and other
reasonable costs incurred in such action or proceeding, provided that the City
obtains a judgment in its favor in any portion of such action or proceeding.
21. The applicant or successor in interest shall be the real party in interest and shall
assume primary responsibility for the defense of any legal action or proceeding
commenced against the City to challenge the City's approval of Land Use
Entitlements and/or the City's approval related to such land use approval. The
applicant or successor in in terest shall reimburse the City for all reasonable
attorneys’ fees and other reasonable costs incurred by the City in defending such
action or proceeding.
22. By accepting approval of the Land Use Entitlements subject to the conditions set
forth herein, the applicant or successor in interest shall be deemed to have agreed to
the terms and conditions set forth herein and the City shall have the right to enforce
in its sole discretion such terms and conditions by pursuing any and all available
legal and equitable remedies.
23. Any changes to the conditions listed above must be approved by the Planning
Commission.
24. Any minor changes in the site plan or elevations may be approved by the Economic
and Community Development Director.
25. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the Planning Division showing the types
of light structures to be used on the property.
26. The project requires public art per Code Section 88.39. Applicant shall work with
staff to fulfill this requirement.
27. Transformers, water meters, electrical meters, etc., shall be properly screened and
not seen from any public right-of-way. Applicant shall submit a plan detailing location
and screening. The screening shall be proved by the Planning Division.
B. All requirements of the Building Division shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
1 Applicant shall conform to the 201 6 California Building Standards Code; including
the 2016 California Code, 2016 California Residential Code, 2016 California Green
Building Code, 2016 California Electrical Code, 2016 California Plumbing Code,
2016 California Mechanical Code, 201 6 California Energy Code and the City of
Azusa Municipal Code.
2 All plan check fees shall be paid at the time of plan check submittal. Once plan
check is completed and approved, applicant shall be responsible to pay in full all
other appropriate development fees (i.e. school district fees, water reimbursement
fees, and park fees) prior to the issuance of any building permit.
3 Electrical, mechanical, plumbing plan check fees are required for commercial
projects.
4 Energy plan check fees are required.
5 Applicant shall submit 3 copies of site plan, 3 copies of architectural plans including
floor, elevations, and architectural details, 3 copies of structural including foundation,
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 4 of 9
roof, wall structural elements and structural details, 3 copies of plumbing, electrical
and mechanical plans for plan check.
6 Applicant shall provide an additional copy of the building floor plan to be submitted to
the County Assessors.
7 Structural, architectural, electrical, mechanical, pluming plans shall be designed by a
State of California Registered Engineer, or a State of California Registered Architect.
8 Applicant shall submit 3 copies of structural calculations concurrently with the
constructions plans.
9 Applicant shall submit 3 copies of energy calculations concurrently with the
constructions plans.
10 Electrical, mechanical, plumbing plans shall be submitted for plan check concurrently
with the construction plans.
11 Residential Fire Sprinklers are required. Applicant shall submit 3 sets of Fire
Sprinkler plans for plan check. Fire Sprinkler plans must be designed by a licensed
C-16 Contractor to fire. 7=Fire Dept.
12 Applicant shall submit 3 copies of soil report concurrently with the construction plans.
13 Property shall be shall be surveyed by a State Of California Licensed Surveyor and
the Survey report shall be submitted concurrently with the construction plans.
14 Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall submit approval from the Los
Angeles County Health Department.
15 Plans as submitted are not acceptable for Building Division submittal.
Other: 3rd party review required for Geotechnical report.
C. All requirements of the Electric Division shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
1 Incoming electric utility facilities shall be underground. Developer to provide the
following: all conduits, pull boxes, transformer pads, street lights.
2 Prior to approval of proposed project, contact Electric Division as soon as possible
for details on specifications and requirements, meter spot, and method of service.
3 Extensive electrical line rebuilding may be necessary. Applicant is directed to contact
and make arrangement with the Electric Division immediately.
4 Special conditions for new or upgrade of electric service on commercial construction
projects:
A. Owner/Developer shall contact consumer service division for information on
the establishment of new or upgraded electric accounts.
B. Owner/Developer shall submit to Azusa Light & Water two (2) separate sets
of plans showing the following:
Site survey plan of building to include additions and remodeling foundation,
elevations, sections and location of existing electrical easements.
Electric service desired, electrical load calculation and single line diagram.
Transformer will not be ordered until this information is supplied.
Locations of electric meter panel and main switchgear on or in building and
drawings, if necessary.
Location of transformer pad and related substructures.
5 All existing electric service and facilities shall remain. Any relocation, modification,
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 5 of 9
alteration, or upgrade of existing electric service and facilities shall be at the sole
cost and expense of owner/applicant/developer.
6 Applicant/Developer shall grant easements to Azusa Light and Water for any
electric facilities installed on his/her private property. All easements shall be
recorded on a tract map in accordance to approved electric utility plan.
Applicant/developer shall pay for all costs of installations of electric facilities
necessary to serve this development.
D. All requirements of the Engineering Division shall be met, including but not limited to
the following:
1. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Division.
Prepare and submit 2 sets of grading/drainage plans per the City’s Grading
Guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The
plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer.
2. Prepare and submit 2 sets of geotec hnical reports, less than one year old. The
reports shall include information on the nature, distribution, physical, and engineering
properties of the soils onsite and/or soils to be used as fill, and include
recommendations on grading procedures.
3. Prepare and submit 2 sets of hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all
proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post-
development versus pre-development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall
be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared
per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrologic Method.
4. State law under the County of Los Angeles National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System: (NPDES) permit requires certain new development and redevelopment
projects/activities to incorporate post construction Bes Management Practices
(BMPs) into the grading/drainage plans to control pollutants. Please refer to the
City’s Standards Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Guidelines for specific
comments and requirements.
5. The contractor shall take every step necessary to contain all dirt, construction
materials, and construction run-off on site. No grading or construction-related debris,
either directly or indirectly carried by water, will be permitted to leave the construction
site.
6. All grading projects require an Erosion Control plan as part of the grading plans.
Grading permits will not be issued until an Erosion Control Plan is approved. For
projects with a disturbed area of one acre or greater, a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall also be filed with
the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the
City’s review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger Identification
(WDID) number.
7. Construct or reconstruct driveway apron(s) on Gladstone Street.
8. A City Encroachment Permit shall be obtained for all work undertaken in the public
right-of-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City of Azusa Standards and
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), latest edition
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee and shall be completed
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 6 of 9
before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
9. Prepare and submit 2 sets of improvement plans for work in the right of way per the
Improvement Plan Guidelines. Improvement plan for work in the right of way per the
Improvement Plan Guidelines. Improvement Plan Guidelines may be obtained from
the Engineering Division. The Improvement Plans shall be stamped and signed by a
California State Registered Civil Engineer.
10. Connect to LA County sanitation sewer.
E. All requirements of the Code Enforcement shall be met, including but not limited to
the following:
1. Require trash enclosures to be covered.
2. Knox boxes on gates required.
F. All requirements of the Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
The Fire Departments Comments were included in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Applicant has been given a copy of the comments.
For any questions regarding the report, please contact Inspec tor Claudia Soiza at (323)
890-4243 or at Claudia.Soiza@fire.lacounty.gov
G. All requirements of the Water Division shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Applicant shall apply for water service & meter and pay applicable associ ated
installation deposit and inspection fees.
2. Required to install new water services and meters per ALW standards. Owner is
required to size their own meter to meet their proposed needs. Each building will
require a new water meter and new water series. 2 required per ALW Standard W -1
through W -4.
3. Will require an approved backflow devices per ALW standards. Backflow devise
shall be field verified with ALW Water Inspector prior to placements (5) working days
prior to start of work. The backflow shall be installed by owner/applicant, tested by
LA County Certified backflow tester at owner’s expense. The reports shall be filed
with ALW immediately after the devices are in place and required prior to certificate
of occupancy. Recommend to install a cage.
4. All easements shall be identified on the water plans and on the Tract Maps. The
existing water main(s) shall be identified on improvement plans including any
easements within proposed development.
5. Plan Check is required. Required to submit a Water Plan for rev iew and approval by
Azusa Light & Water (ALW) using ALW latest title bloc. The plan approval is valid for
one year from the date the plans are signed by ALW.
6. The owner or project applicant shall take sole responsibility for cost incurred due to
any modification, relocation or alteration of existing water facilities caused by this
project to the satisfaction of the Light and Water Department.
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 7 of 9
7. This project is subject to Ordinance No. 96-08 City of Azusa Municipal Code Section
78-471 through 477 of Article VI, Division 5 entitled “Water System Development
Fee” of there is any change in floor footage. Fee must be paid to the Light and Water
Department following the final plan approval by Building Department.
8. This project is subject to Ordinance No. 07 -012, City of Azusa Municipal Code
Section 501 through 513 of Article VI, Division 6 entitled “Conservation Plan”. This
includes the installation of water saving devices, such as ultra -low-flow toilets (1.6
gallons), and participation in the retrofitting of e xisting house units either by installing
retrofits or providing funds to perform retrofits.
9. The owner/applicant is required to remove any unused water facilities, including
services, meters, fire services, irrigation meters, water vaults, etc. within proje ct
vicinity, abandon and completely severe from water main per ALW standard & shall
be inspected & approved by ALW Water Inspector. This shall be done along
property frontage on both Gladstone Street & Orkney Street
10. May required installation of a new water main. Public water mains shall be ductile
iron class 350 with a minimum size of 8-inches in diameter, sized & designed for
project needs. The public water mains shall be inspected & approved by ALW Water
Inspector prior to certificate of occupancy includ ing: trenching, bedding, shading,
placing of pipe, valves, fittings, thrust blocks, other underground utilities in place,
vertical & horizontal crossing separations, leakage testing, flushing, disinfection,
bacteriological, valve boxes raised to grade and lines flushed, final inspection, etc.
11. No public water facilities, including water mains, fire hydrants, and water meters are
allowed on private property or private drives. All proposed water meters, public fire
hydrants, public water mains shall be within the public right-of-way or within the
street.
12. The proposed development shall have new services and meters per ALW Water
Standards. If a fire service line is required for this project by the Fire Department it
shall be placed on the ALW Water P lan. A new fire hydrant is required to be installed
on the South Side of Gladstone Street per ALW Standards. The Fire Department
Connection(s) (FDC)(s) shall not be installed on the riser of the backflow device.
ALW is required to inspect the backflow devices.
13. The onsite domestic water system & onsite fire system shall be labeled private and
owned and maintained by the property owner.
14. The Water System Development fees are required to be paid in full for 70 dwelling
units prior to the Water Plan Approval.
15. The owner shall pay all current applicable fees and deposits required for this project.
ALW staff shall be consulted for current and applicable fees.
16. The developer shall submit proposed water meter sizes for the proposed dwelling
units.
17. Currently in Phase III of the Drought, recommended drought tolerant landscaping.
18. Contact Water Division for details on Specifications and Requirements.
The following estimated Water System Development Fee is based on Resolution No. 14-C41 and
will be changed to reflect the actual rate as of the day fees are paid.
Residential: $1.984/Dwelling Unit. $ 1,984X 60DU
Total: $119,040.
300 Corpora
Transportation Plann
Gladston
360, 410
site is bo
story apa
surround
be condu
the Proje
I. P
The conc
would co
with 6 of
commun
occupied
accommo
Project a
East Gla
site. Ad
Street, n
driveway
of the ex
Parking
proposed
provided
II. P
The City
for the pr
that the o
To deter
City has
living pro
ate Pointe, Suite
ning / Traffic Engineering
ne LLC (the
0-416 East G
ordered by E
artments to t
ding area is
ucted to det
ect parking d
PROJECT D
ceptual site
onsist of the
f these 60 un
ity room, la
d by three
odate the Pr
access/egres
dstone Stree
ditionally, a
near the so
ys onto East
isting homes
for the Proj
d to be prov
in that lot.
PARKING AN
Planning D
roposed Pro
on-site parki
rmine if the
requested t
oject sites to
470, Culver City
PA
GLADS
“Client”) pro
Gladstone St
East Gladsto
the east and
shown on F
termine if th
demand. Cra
ESCRIPTIO
plan for the
construction
nits being de
aundry room
single-fami
roject.
ss would be
et. This driv
secondary
utheast cor
Gladstone
s to be remo
ject would
vided in the
NALYSIS
ivision has d
oject parking
ng supply w
parking sup
that an emp
confirm the
y, CA 90230 T
ARKING D
STONE SE
CITY
oposes to d
treet (the “Pr
one Street t
d single-fami
Figure 1. Th
e parking s
ain & Assoc
ON
e Project is d
n of a three-
esignated as
m, office an
ily homes.
provided vi
veway would
emergency
rner of the
Street and o
oved). Thes
be provided
e lot on the
determined t
g supply. To
will adequate
pply will mee
pirical parkin
peak parkin
(310) 473-6508
1
EMAND AN
NIOR LIVIN
Y OF AZUSA
evelop a 60
roject”) in th
to the north
ly housing to
he City has r
upply provid
iates is assis
displayed on
story buildin
s Low Incom
nd other su
These ex
a a single d
d be located
vehicle acc
Project site
one driveway
se driveways
d in a surfa
Project site
that the Proj
o obtain this
ely accommo
et the propo
ng demand
ng generatio
F(310) 444-97
NALYSIS
NG PROJE
A
0-unit senior
e City of Az
, East Orkn
o the west.
requested a
ded onsite w
sting the Clie
n Figure 2.
ng with 60 se
me Units. Th
upport facilit
xisting hom
driveway loc
near the no
cess would b
e. Currently
y onto East
s would be c
ace parking
e. A total o
ject needs to
variance, th
odate the pa
osed Projec
analysis be
on rate for the
771 www.c
ECT
r citizen apa
zusa (the “Ci
ney Street to
The Project
parking dem
will be able
ent in this ef
The propos
enior citizen
he Project w
ties. Curre
mes would
cated along t
ortheast corn
be provided
y, the Proje
Orkney Stre
closed as pa
lot. All P
of 48 parkin
o receive a
he Project m
arking deman
ct peak park
e conducted
e proposed
November 21
D
crainandassociat
artment proje
ity”). The Pr
o the south,
t site location
mand analys
to accommo
ffort.
sed develop
apartment
will also inclu
ently, the s
be remove
the south si
ner of the Pr
via East Or
ect site has
eet (one for
rt of the Proj
roject parki
g spaces w
variance to
must demons
nd of the Pro
king demand
at similar s
Project.
1, 2017
DRAFT
tes.com
ect at
roject
one-
n and
sis to
odate
pment
units,
ude a
ite is
ed to
de of
roject
rkney
s two
each
ject.
ng is
will be
allow
strate
oject.
d, the
senior
300 Corpora
Transportation Plann
This par
required
parking
demand
Parking G
II.1 E
To deter
demand
housing.
Street (le
(approxim
one wee
time peri
confirme
periods,
The park
1.
Tot
Peak
Peak P
Ho
Tot
Peak
Peak P
Ho
The Clie
characte
location c
same de
using the
ate Pointe, Suite
ning / Traffic Engineering
rking analys
calculations
requirement
of the Proj
Generation,
Empirical Pa
rmine the pr
survey was
These two
ess than 1,00
mately one
ekday and o
ods were ch
d with the C
the cars pa
king demand
tal Dwelling U
k Parking Dem
Parking Rate (
ur of Peak D
tal Dwelling U
k Parking Dem
Parking Rate (
ur of Peak D
ent has no
ristics of the
contains sim
emographics
e empirical ra
470, Culver City
is is provid
s and findin
ts for the P
ect using ra
4th Edition (
arking Dema
roposed Pro
s conducted
o locations
00 feet west
mile north o
ne Saturday
hosen as the
Client and t
arked at the
d summary s
Em
Units (A)
m and (B)
(C = B ÷ A)
emand
Units (A)
m and (B)
(C = B ÷ A)
emand
oted that th
e proposed P
milar types a
s (seniors se
ates from th
y, CA 90230 T
ed below in
ngs from lo
Project. The
ates based
(the “ITE pa
and Survey
oject parking
d in Octobe
are located
t of the Proje
of the Projec
y hourly betw
ey contain th
the City as
two senior
sheets are p
mpirical Par
147 Dwellin
89 Spac e
0.61 Spac e
11:00P
147 Dwellin
86 Spac e
0.59 Spac e
12:00 A
200 E G
Weekda
Saturda
200 E G
he 200 Ea
Project, since
and sizes of
eeking afford
is 200 East
(310) 473-6508
2
n two subse
ocal empirica
e second s
on empirica
rking genera
y & Project P
g demand a
r 2017 at t
in the City
ect site) and
ct site). Par
ween 3:00-4
he typical res
being appro
living sites
provided in A
Table 1
rking Study
ng Units
es
es per Dwellin
PM and 12:00
ng Units
es
es per Dwellin
AM
Gladstone Stre
ay Parking Ra
ay Parking R a
Gladstone Stre
ast Gladston
e (1) this loc
units as the
dable units)
Gladstone S
F(310) 444-97
ections. Th
al studies t
section desc
al studies th
ation rates”)
Parking Dem
at the Projec
two nearby
y of Azusa,
d the other a
rking occupa
4:00 PM an
sidential pea
opriate for t
were docum
Attachment
Summary
16
10
ng Unit 0.6
0:00 AM
16
10
ng Unit 0.6
eet
ates
ates
eet
ne Street
cation is clos
e Project and
as the Proj
Street locatio
771 www.c
he first sect
to determine
cribes the e
hat were pu
.
mand Calcu
ct site, an e
similar site
one at 200
at 450 North
ancy data w
d Midnight-1
ak parking d
this site. D
mented hou
A and sum
8 Dwelling U
6Spaces
3 Spaces pe
12:00 AM
8 Dwelling U
9Spaces
5 Spaces pe
12:00 AM
450 N Solda
450 N Solda
location be
ser to the Pr
d (3) this loc
ject. As sh
on, the Proje
November 21
D
crainandassociat
tion provides
e the neces
expected pa
ublished in
ulation
empirical pa
s offering s
0 East Glads
Soldano Av
were collecte
1:00 AM. T
emand and
During these
rly by surve
marized in T
Units
er Dwelling Un
Units
er Dwelling Un
ano Avenue
ano Avenue
est matches
oject site, (2
cation target
own on Tab
ect is expect
1, 2017
DRAFT
tes.com
s the
ssary
arking
ITE’s
arking
senior
stone
venue
ed on
These
were
time
eyors.
Table
nit
nit
s the
2) this
ts the
ble 2,
ted to
300 Corpora
Transportation Plann
supply s
demand
(midnigh
units. Th
on this ra
to provid
Despite
purposes
used to
demand
occurred
109 park
units. T
unit. Ut
currently
Project
summari
ate Pointe, Suite
ning / Traffic Engineering
ufficient par
rate at this
t). During t
his equates t
ate, the Proj
e 48 parking
the congrue
s of a conse
calculate th
rate on the
on Saturda
king spaces
his equates
ilizing this r
proposes t
is projected
zed in Table
Parking
Peak Emp
Number o
Parking D
Parking S
Parking S
Peak Emp
Number o
Parking D
Parking S
Parking S
470, Culver City
rking to acc
location oc
his time per
to a parking
ect is anticip
g spaces, the
ency of the
ervative ana
e overall pa
e multiple d
ay, October
were utilize
s to a parkin
rate, the Pro
to supply 48
d to supply
e 2.
Supply and
pirical Parking
of Project Dwe
Demand (C = A
Supply (D)
Surplus (E =
pirical Parking
of Project Dwe
Demand (C = A
Supply (D)
Surplus (E =
y, CA 90230 T
commodate
ccurred duri
riod, 89 park
demand of
pated to req
e Project is
200 East G
lysis the hig
arking dema
ays of data
14, 2017 at
d on the 45
ng demand
oject is exp
8 parking sp
y a surplus
d Demand E
g Demand Rat
elling Units (B
A x B)
D - C)
g Demand Rat
elling Units (B
A x B)
D - C)
200 East
450 North
(310) 473-6508
3
the Project
ng the wee
king spaces
approximate
uire 37 park
projected to
Gladstone S
ghest observ
and for the
a collection
12:00 AM (
0 North Sol
of approxim
pected to re
paces. The
s of 9 park
Table 2
Estimates p
te (A)0
)
te (A)0
)
Gladstone S
h Soldano Av
F(310) 444-97
parking dem
kday survey
were utilize
ely 0.61 spa
king spaces.
supply a su
Street locati
ved parking
proposed P
at the 450
(midnight) to
dano Avenu
mately 0.65
equire 39 pa
erefore, usin
king spaces
er Empirica
0.61 Spaces p
60 Dwelling
37 Spaces
48 Spaces
11 Space
0.65 Spaces p
60 Dwelling
39 Spaces
48 Spaces
9Space
Street
venue
771 www.c
mand. The
y at 11:00 P
ed at a site w
ces per dwe
Since the
urplus of 11 p
on and the
demand at
Project. The
North Solda
o 1:00 AM.
ue site that h
parking spa
arking space
ng these em
s. These
al Parking R
per Dwelling U
Units
per Dwelling U
Units
November 21
D
crainandassociat
e highest pa
PM to 12:00
with 147 dw
elling unit. B
Project prop
parking spac
Project site
another site
e highest pa
ano Avenue
During this
has 168 dw
aces per dw
es. The Pr
mpirical rates
calculations
Rates
Unit
Unit
1, 2017
DRAFT
tes.com
arking
0 AM
welling
Based
poses
ces.
e, for
e was
arking
e site
time,
welling
welling
roject
s, the
s are
300 Corpora
Transportation Plann
II.2 ITE
In additio
analyzed
Generati
parking s
generally
Per the 4
demand
plans to
site park
sufficient
parking i
the ITE p
III.C
The futur
rates col
Land Use
data colle
weekday
Project w
rates ind
Project.
As reque
Project w
will satisf
ate Pointe, Suite
ning / Traffic Engineering
Parking Ra
on to the are
d using the
on, 4th Editio
studies cond
y recognized
4th edition of
a maximum
provide 48
king to meet
t parking to
mpact utilizi
parking gene
Parking Su
Land Use
60 du 2
CONCLUSIO
re parking de
lected at a s
e 252 – Sen
ected at a la
y and Saturd
would provide
icate that the
ested by the
will provide s
fy the parkin
470, Culver City
te & Projec
ea specific e
rates from
on. The ITE
ducted throu
d as the indu
f the ITE Pa
of 36 space
parking spa
t the ITE-es
meet that de
ng the ITE p
eration rates
pply and D
52Senior Hou
ON
emanded by
senior housin
ior Housing
arger numbe
ay parking d
e a nine to e
e Project wil
City, the em
sufficient par
ng demand o
y, CA 90230 T
ct Parking D
mpirical rate
m a larger n
E parking ge
ughout the U
ustry standar
rking Gener
es based on
ces. Theref
stimated pea
emand on-s
parking gene
are detailed
emand Esti
using
y the propos
ng site in the
Attached pe
r of sites. P
demand. Th
eleven space
ll provide tw
mpirically me
rking. On thi
of the propos
(310) 473-6508
4
Demand Cal
es described
number of
eneration rat
United States
rd for determ
ration manua
a rate of 0.5
fore, the Pro
ak parking d
site, the Proj
eration rates
d in Table 3.
Table 3
imates per I
ITE Rate
0.59 Spa
Parking S
Parking S
ed Project w
e City and (2
eak parking
Parking gene
he local emp
es parking s
elve spaces
asured dem
is basis, it w
sed Project d
F(310) 444-97
culation
d above, Pro
sites as pu
tes are deriv
s. The ITE
mining parkin
al, the propo
59 spaces p
oject is expe
demand. S
ject is not ex
s. The park
.
ITE Parking
aces/DU (A)
upply (B)
Surplus (C = B
Peak Parkin
was calculate
2) ITE Parkin
generation,
eration rates
pirical parking
surplus. The
s more than w
mand rates w
was determin
developmen
771 www.c
oject parking
ublished by
ved from a l
parking gen
ng demand.
osed Project
per dwelling
ected to sup
Since the Pr
xpected to c
king demand
g Generatio
Dema
36
48
B - A)12
ng Demand
ed using (1)
ng Generatio
that is base
were analyz
g survey est
e ITE parking
will be dema
were utilized
ned that the
nt.
November 21
D
crainandassociat
g supply was
y ITE in Pa
arge sampli
neration rate
t is anticipat
unit. The Pr
pply sufficien
roject will s
create a neg
d calculation
n Rates
and
6 Spaces
8 Spaces
2 Spaces
local empiri
on, 4th Editio
ed on empiric
zed for both
timated the
g generation
anded by the
to gauge if t
parking sup
1, 2017
DRAFT
tes.com
s also
arking
ing of
es are
ted to
roject
nt on-
upply
gative
ns per
ical
on
cal
n
e
the
ply
GRAPHICS
ATTACHMENT A
EMPIRICAL SITE PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY SHEETS
LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY:TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA: 11,829 SF. 15 SF. OF HIGH WATER USE ON TREE (0.1%) 1,129 SF. OF WST WATER USE ON TURF (9.5%) 6,518 SF. OF MEDIUM WATER USE PLANTS (55.1%) 3,200 SF. OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS (27.1%) 967 SF. OF NO WATER USE ON MULCH (8.2%)18 UNITSGLADSTONEORKNEYSTDUXFORD
AVE
STDATEREVISIONSSCALEDATEPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYCHECKED BYSHEET NO.OF 1 SHEETTWO TREES
DESIGN, INC.
626-278-2766
E-mail: prunus@gmail.com
www.houzz.com/pro/2treesdesign
GLADSTONE SENIOR VILLAS
360 E GLADSTONE ST
AZUSA, CA. 9170211-25-2017CPLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES
CALIFORNIA RLA#5840
1832 SAN DIEGO ST. WEST COVINA, CA. 91790AS SHOWNP1662CHIA
C
H
ENGPERNGNO.584012-31-201811-25-2017LANDSCAPE
PLANTING PLANL-1HOLLY OAKCRAPE MYRTLEWESTERN REDBUDSPANISH LAVENDERPURPLE FOUNTAINGRASSFEATHER REED GRASSBEAR'S BREECHESLILY OF THE NILENEW ZEALAND FLAXPINEAPPLE SAGEASSORTED ECHEVERIAFLAX LILYCORAL BELLSBLUE GRAMA GRASSPINK MUHLY GRASSFOXTAIL AGAVEEMERALD CARPETMANZANITASENIOR FITNESS EQUIPMENTSSENIOR FITNESS PAYGROUNDPUBLIC ART PILLARS AT ENTRANCETRASH RECEPTACLEPATIO UMBRELLAWOOD BENCHJAPANESE MAPLE
PARKING OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
CLIENT: CRAIN & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT: VILLA AZUSA SENIOR APARTMENTS ‐ 200 EAST GLADSTONE STREET, AZUSA
DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 05, 2017
PERIOD: 03:00 PM TO 12:00 AM
FILE: 1_OCC_AZUSA1
1‐HOUR
PERIOD: 118 SPACES %
0300‐0400 59 50%
0400‐0500 55 47%
0500‐0600 64 54%
0600‐0700 61 52%
0700‐0800 65 55%
0800‐0900 74 63%
0900‐1000 81 69%
1000‐1100 83 70%
1100‐1200 89 75%
1200‐0100 89 75%
PARKING OCCUPANCY
VILLA AZUSA LOT
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
9 ALTA STREET UNIT E
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.485.8048 PHONE
TRAFSOLUTN@AOL.COM
PARKING OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
CLIENT: CRAIN & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT: VILLA AZUSA SENIOR APARTMENTS ‐ 200 EAST GLADSTONE STREET, AZUSA
DATE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2017
PERIOD: 03:00 PM TO 12:00 AM
FILE: 2_OCC_AZUSA1
1‐HOUR
PERIOD: 118 SPACES %
0300‐0400 61 52%
0400‐0500 64 54%
0500‐0600 69 58%
0600‐0700 73 62%
0700‐0800 78 66%
0800‐0900 83 70%
0900‐1000 82 69%
1000‐1100 84 71%
1100‐1200 85 72%
1200‐0100 86 73%
PARKING OCCUPANCY
VILLA AZUSA LOT
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
9 ALTA STREET UNIT E
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.485.8048 PHONE
TRAFSOLUTN@AOL.COM
PARKING OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
CLIENT: CRAIN & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT: SOLDANO SENIOR LIVING ‐ 450 NORTH SOLDANO AVENUE, AZUSA
DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2017
PERIOD: 03:00 PM TO 12:00 AM
FILE: 4_OCC_AZUSA1
1‐HOUR
PERIOD: 122 SPACES %
0300‐0400 50 41%
0400‐0500 59 48%
0500‐0600 64 52%
0600‐0700 70 57%
0700‐0800 82 67%
0800‐0900 90 74%
0900‐1000 95 78%
1000‐1100 103 84%
1100‐1200 105 86%
1200‐0100 106 87%
PARKING OCCUPANCY
SOLDANO SENIOR LIVING
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
9 ALTA STREET UNIT E
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.485.8048 PHONE
TRAFSOLUTN@AOL.COM
PARKING OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
CLIENT: CRAIN & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT: SOLDANO SENIOR LIVING ‐ 450 NORTH SOLDANO AVENUE, AZUSA
DATE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2017
PERIOD: 03:00 PM TO 12:00 AM
FILE: 3_OCC_AZUSA1
1‐HOUR
PERIOD: 122 SPACES %
0300‐0400 56 46%
0400‐0500 58 48%
0500‐0600 65 53%
0600‐0700 70 57%
0700‐0800 77 63%
0800‐0900 80 66%
0900‐1000 83 68%
1000‐1100 101 83%
1100‐1200 107 88%
1200‐0100 109 89%
PARKING OCCUPANCY
SOLDANO SENIOR LIVING
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
9 ALTA STREET UNIT E
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.485.8048 PHONE
TRAFSOLUTN@AOL.COM
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 8 of 9
H. All requirements of the Police Department shall be met, including but not limited to
the following:
1. Install lighting systems that provide uniformed white light which provide night time
vision for motorists to increase the visibility of pedestrians, other vehicles and objects
(which should be seen and avoided).
2. Install lighting systems that provide uniformed white light whic h provide night time
vision for pedestrians and homeowners to permit pedestrians to see on another, to
see risks involved in walking at night and to reduce the risk of trip and fall accidents.
Moreover, provide lighting systems which will enhance police ab ility for surveillance,
patrol and pursuit.
3. Install lighting systems that provide uniformed white light that minimize glare, light
pollution and light trespass. Where necessary, provide light transition zones.
4. All lighting systems on public sidewalks and r oadways should be protected from
vandalism (e.g., unbreakable exterior, tamperproof hardware, non -corrosive design
components and shock absorbing bracket design).
5. Clear signs must be posted where parking is prohibited (e.g., red curbs, fire lanes).
These signs shall be minimally installed at points which are recommended by the
Building/Planning Divisions.
6. All planters should utilize materials and/or finishes on top caps that discourage
skateboarding.
7. Unobstructed pedestrian access and shelter, shade, and/or weather protection shall
be provided along streets, public right(s)-of-way and next to areas used by the public
through the use of shade trees, awnings, arcades, balconies, overhangs, etc.
8. Any exterior garbage receptacles, dumpsters, or mechanical equipme nt must be
placed on a suitable slab and screened from view of any public.
9. It is recommended that shrubbery be maintained to a height of no more than 2’ tall
and the canopy of trees to not fall below 6’ in height to allow for clear unobstructed
views. No more than thirty (30) percent of this visual clearance area shall be
obstructed by opaque materials.
10. Fire lanes shall be posted and marked in compliance with CVC 22500.1 .
11. It is recommended that graffiti resistant finishes be used whenever possible.
12. Consideration should be given to recommendations made by the Building
Department in regards to handicap accessibility provisions.
13. Numerical addresses of each business shall coincide with the addresses of existing
surrounding homes or businesses.
14. Each residence shall have electrical powered and internally illuminated numeric
address signs installed on the front side of the residence. These signs will assist
emergency responders in locating individual homes.
15. If audible or silent alarm system is installed, it shall be monitored by a reputable
alarm company and be in compliance with pertinent AMC requirements for alarm
systems.
16. Measures shall be taken to ensure that all applicable Azusa Municipal Codes related
to noise standards be adhered to. These codes can be fou nd in A.M.C sections 46-
401 through 46-415.
17. Handicap accessibility shall be considered and implemented. All applicable A.D.A.
GPA-2016-01, Z-2016-01, DR 2016-23, MUP 2016-12 & V-2017-07
360-416 Gladstone Street
Page 9 of 9
guidelines shall be adhered to.
18. Additional comments have been given to the applicant from the Police Department.
I. All requirements of the Parks Division shall be met, including but not limited to the
following:
1. If the proposed project includes construction of one or more bedrooms, Park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid in accordance with Azusa Municipal Code
Section 66-5.
2. 9 24” box trees shall be planted in parkway. Trees shall be located no closer than
30ft. nor greater than 65ft. apart and shall be irrigated per City specifications.
3. The City of Azusa Parks Division will plan parkway trees. Property owner or
developer shall pay $320.00 for each tree, for a total cost of $2, 880.00. Payment is
to be made at the office of the Recreation and Family Services located at 320 N
Orange Pl. Azusa, CA 91702. No final release will be given until payment is made.
4. This project shall comply with the City of Azusa’s Water Efficient Landscape
Regulations. Water Efficient Landscape Regulations can be found on the City of
Azusa’s website, www.ci.azusa.ca.us under Community Development Department.
5. Landscape and irrigation plan shall includ e parkways. If parkway is irregular shaped
or less than 8’ wide, drip irrigation or pop up heads with Rainbird XPCN nozzles will
be required.
6. It is recommended that a Smart Controller be installed with rain sensor.
7. Landscape and irrigation plan shall show location, quantities, size and type of plant
materials, landscape summary with total square footage, and a design of an
automatic irrigation system. No final release from Parks Division will be granted until
plans have been approved.
8. Special Conditions: Verify with Roy Chavez for parkway tree locations.
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE
NO. Z-2016-01 AND REVISING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP
(FIGURE 1 OF CHAPTER 88 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL
CODE) TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL
WHEREAS, 360 Gladstone LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application requesting
approval of the “Gladstone Senior Villa Project” (the “Project”), proposed at 360, 410,
and 416 W. Gladstone Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed project at a regular meeting on December 13, 2017, at which time all persons
wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered, and recommended
that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes the demolition of three existing single-family
dwelling units and the development of 60 senior apartment units on a 1.23-acre site
(APNs 8621-022-001 and 8621-022-002); and
WHEREAS, to develop the Project, Applicant seeks several entitlements,
including General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2017-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01,
Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Design Review No. DR-2017-23, Variance No. V-
2017-7, and an Affordable Housing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) section 21067 and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15367, the City of Azusa
(“City”) is the Lead Agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa, after giving notice
thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on December 13, 2017 for
amendments to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2017-01), Zone
Change No. Z-2016-01, Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2016-12, Design Review No. DR-
2017-23, Variance No. V-2017-7, and an Affordable Housing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fully considered, and recommended that
the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Zone
Change No. Z-2017-01 at a regular meeting on January 16, 2018, and conducted a first
reading of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred.
Attachment 16
Ordinance XXX
Page 2 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct
and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Zoning Map, which is incorporated in the Azusa Development Code
(Chapter 88 of the Azusa Municipal Code) as Figure 1 is hereby amended to reflect a
zone change for property located at 360, 410, and 416 W. Gladstone Street (APNs
8621-022-001 and 8621-022-002) from Neighborhood General 2 - NG2 Low to DE
Edgewood District.
SECTION 3: That in accordance with Section 88.51.060.E of the Azusa
Development Code, it is found that the proposed project would not unreasonably
interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity, and would not adversely
affect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. The City Council approves
Zone Change No. Z-2016-01 based on the following findings:
1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, development
agreement; and
With the implementation of conditions of approval presented in Exhibit M, and the
granting of the accompanying Variance, the proposed project is consistent with the
DE zone as well as the Azusa General Plan.
In accordance with the Azusa Housing Element, the development is in conformance
with the following Policies:
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for
Housing demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing
to meet the needs of the community and establishes a balanced approach to meet
housing needs that includes the needs of both renter and owner households. Policy
H2.3 facilitates development of affordable housing through the use of financial and
or regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3 concerns established partnerships with private
developers and non-profit housing corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its
housing goals. The project is intended to provide affordable housing and
accommodations for low to moderate income earning residents in line with the City’s
Housing Element.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of
residential development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes,
moderate-density residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and
residential-commercial mixed use in order to address the City’s share of regional
housing needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental housing for large families,
Ordinance XXX
Page 3 of 5
students, and senior households. Policy H3.8 provides incentives to facilitate the
development of senior housing options. Policy H3.9 states the requirement that
housing that constructed expressly for low- and moderate-income households not be
constructed in any single portion of the City. The applicant is seeking to fulfill these
policies through their development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on
housing production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density
bonuses and reduced parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing.
The applicant is requesting a variance on parking reduction based on Policy H4.1.
Staff has recommended a parking analysis to justify the reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which
provides an alternative senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
There are no development agreements with this amendment. There is no specific
plan associated with the development or the site.
2. That a proposed zone change will not adversely affect surrounding properties.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density
Residential to DE Edgewood District, and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE
Edgewood District. The proposed General Plan and Zoning designations allow a
maximum density of 27 dwelling units per acre; however, the Housing Element
allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre for senior housing.
The zone change will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. There is a
senior apartment to the west of the project and the use is consistent with similar
uses in the vicinity.
SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the
City Clerk’s office located at 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, CA 917025. The custodian of
these records is the City Clerk.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for
any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall
not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Azusa hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance XXX
Page 4 of 5
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30)
days following its adoption.
SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Not later than fifteen (15) days following the passage of this Ordinance, the
Ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members
voting for and against the Ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Azusa.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Azusa,
California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of
___________________, 20___, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City of Azusa
________________________________
Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
_______________________________
Marco Martinez, City Attorney
Ordinance XXX
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATION
I, Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk of the City of Azusa, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ____ is the actual Ordinance No. ____ that was introduced at
a regular meeting of said City Council on the _____ day of _______________, 20___
and was finally passed and adopted not less than five (5) days thereafter on the ____
day of _____________, 20___ by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk
Attachment 17
SCHEDULED ITEM/PUBLIC HEARING
D-1
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: DON PENMAN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
FROM: KURT CHRISTIANSEN, FAICP, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2018
SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-2016-01), FIRST READING FOR ZONE CHANGE (Z-2016-01), MINOR
USE PERMIT (MUP-2016-12), DESIGN REVIEW (DR-2016-23), VARIANCE
(V-2017-07), AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRACT APPLICATION TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIXTY (60) SENIOR HOUSING
APARTMENTS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM NG2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO DE
EDGEWOOD DISTRICT, AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM NG2 LOW TO DE
EDGEWOOD DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED PROJECT
INCLUDES A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR THE SENIOR APARTMENTS AND
A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. LASTLY, THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SEEKING DENSITY BONUS AND ONE
CONCESSION PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 69515 THROUGH
69518. SIX UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT 360, 410, AND 416 E. GLADSTONRE STREET
APPLICANT: 360 GLADSTONE LLC – CHAPLON MU
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
On December 13, 2017, the City of Azusa Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing and unanimously recommended to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a General Plan Amendment (GPA-2016-01), Zone Change (Z-2016-01), Minor Use
Permit (MUP-2016-12), Design Review (DR-2016-23), Variance (V-2017-07), and Affordable
Housing Contract application to allow the construction of sixty (60) Senior Housing apartments. This
action approves for first reading by title only for the construction of sixty Senior Housing apartments.
The City of Azusa Planning Commission had held an earlier public hearing on November 15, 2017,
Attachment 18
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 2 of 9
at which it requested the applicant revise the site plan to include additional parking. The applicant
complied with this request prior to the December 13 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1) Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2) Adopt the following Resolutions:
a) Resolution No. 2018-C01, Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Resolution No. 2018-C02, General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2016-01;
c) Resolution No. 2018-C03, Affordable Housing Agreement;
d) Resolution No. 2018-C04, Design Review No. DR-2016-23;
e) Resolution No. 2018-C05, Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2016-12;
f) Resolution No. 2018-C06, Variance No. V-2017-07;
3) Introduce for first reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No.
2018-01; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-2016-01 AND REVISING THE
CITY’S ZONING MAP (FIGURE 1 OF CHAPTER 88 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL
CODE) TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL
BACKGROUND:
On November 15, 2017 the project was presented before the Planning Commission. After testimony
from the general public and discussion among the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission
voted to continue the item and advised the applicant to work with City staff to provide more parking
spaces for the project. The applicant complied with the request and increased the parking available at
the site by ten (10) stalls.
On December 13, 2017 the project was presented before the Planning Commission. After testimony
from the general public and discussion among the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the project with the additional
parking spaces.
The Gladstone Senior Villas Project involves the removal of three existing single-family dwelling
units and the development of 60 senior apartment units. The project site is located on the south side
of East Gladstone Street between North Donna Beth Avenue to the west and South Pasadena Avenue
to the east within the City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles. The addresses associated with the
project site are 360, 410, and 416 East Gladstone Street.
The approximate 1.23-acre (53,579 square feet) project site is comprised of two parcels (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 8621-022-001 and 8621-022-002), and is currently occupied by three single-family
detached residences with chain link fencing and ornamental landscaping and trees. Access to the
three residences is from East Gladstone Street with secondary access from East Orkney Street.
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 3 of 9
The Applicant is seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet). In addition, because the
proposed project includes six units for low-income residents, the proposed project qualifies for a
density bonus under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (f)(1). The density bonus is
applied to 49 units for a total of 60 units, which is the number of units proposed for the project.
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was released for public review on
October 2, 2017, with a 20-day review period continuing until October 23, 2017. Copies of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for public review on the City’s website at
www.ci.azusa.ca.us" www.ci.azusa.ca.us; at the Azusa City Hall, Community Development
Department, 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa CA; and at the Azusa City Library, 729 N. Dalton
Avenue, CA.
On October 30, 2017, Notices were sent out to all owners of property located within 300 feet of the
site, notifying them of the proposal and providing 10 days for any interested person to file a written
statement prior to the hearing. The same public notice was also published in the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune, October 6, 2017.
On December 2, 2017, Notices were sent out to all owners of property located within 300 feet of the
site and all the addresses provided at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 15, 2017,
notifying them of the proposal and providing 10 days for any interested person to file a written
statement prior to the hearing on December 13, 2017.
On January 4, 2018, Notices were sent out to all owners of property located within 300 feet of the
site and all the addresses provided at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 15, 2017,
notifying them of the proposal and providing 10 days for any interested person to file a written
statement prior to the hearing on January 16, 2017.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project applicant, 360 Gladstone LLC, is proposing to remove the three existing residences on-
site and construct 60 senior apartment units on the site.
The proposed project will include five two-bedroom units (835 square feet) and 55 one-bedroom
units (550 square feet) for a total of 60 units. There will be 18 units on the first floor and 21 units
each on the second and third floors. Six of the units will be designated as low-income units. The
building will include a lobby area, community room, mail room, security office, and storage areas.
The building height is three stories/36 feet. The Floor Area Ratio is 0.92 and the Lot Coverage is 31
percent.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential to DE
Edgewood District, and a Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District. The proposed
General Plan and Zoning designations allow a maximum density of 27 dwelling units per acre;
however, the Housing Element allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre for senior housing. In
addition, the proposed project includes a Minor Use Permit for the senior apartments. Senior
apartments are subject to Municipal Code Section 88.42.200 requirements and standards for senior
citizen apartments, which permit a density of 40 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 4 of 9
seeking a variance for the reduction of parking. Lastly, the proposed project is seeking density
bonuses and a concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through 69518. The combinations
of the requested approvals provide the opportunity for the Applicant to propose 60 senior apartment
units on a 1.23-acre site, resulting in a density of 48.8 dwelling units per acre.
Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus
SB 1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) amended the State density bonus program (Government Code
Section 65915) and took effect on January 1, 2005. The amendments addressed density bonus;
continued affordability; concessions and incentives; waivers and modifications of development
standards; land donation; and parking. Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88.32, Affordable Housing
Incentives, has codified the requirements of SB 1818.
The Applicant is seeking a concession for building height (3 stories/36 feet). In addition, the
Applicant is seeking a density bonus per Government Code Sections 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 f)(1).
The density for the site is 40 units per gross acre, which equates to 49 units for the 1.23 acre site.
Under Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1), a developer may seek a density bonus if at least ten
percent of the units are for lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code Section
50079.5. The proposed project includes six units for low-income residents, which is the equivalent of
twelve percent of the units. Thus, the proposed project qualifies for a 23 percent density bonus under
Government Code Section 65915 (b)(1) and 65915 (f)(1). The 23 percent density bonus is applied to
49 units for a total of 60 units, which is the number of units proposed for the project.
OPEN SPACE
The proposed project is required to provide 3,600 square feet of private open space and 7,500 square
feet of common open space for a combined total of 11,100 square feet.
The proposed project includes a total of 2,100 square feet of private open space and 9,826 square feet
of common open space with the community garden. In total, the proposed project includes a total of
11,926 square feet of private and common open space. The proposed project does not meet the
private open space standard as only 35 square feet per unit was assumed, which is less than 60 square
feet requirement. However, the reduction in private open space by 1,500 square feet is accounted for
in the community garden area, which exceeds the standard by 2,326 square feet.
PARKING
Azusa Development Code Subsection 88.42.200 requires one space per unit and one guest space per
for every five units. Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 72 parking spaces. During the
Planning Commission Meeting on November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended the
applicant revise the site plan to include more parking spaces. The applicant revised the site plan and
increased the parking space by ten (10) stalls, with a total of 48 parking spaces. The 2014-2021
Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for Housing demands in the City.
Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to meet the needs of the community and
establishes a balanced approach to meet housing needs that includes the needs of both renter and
owner households. Policy H2.3 facilitates development of affordable housing through the use of
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 5 of 9
financial and or regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3 concerns established partnerships with private
developers and non-profit housing corporations to assist Azusa in meeting its housing goals. The
project is intended to provide affordable housing and accommodations for low to moderate income
earning residents in line with the City’s Housing Element.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of residential
development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes, moderate-density
residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and residential-commercial mixed use in
order to address the City’s share of regional housing needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental
housing for large families, students, and senior households. Policy H3.8 says to provide incentives to
facilitate the development of senior housing options.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning
LAND USE: ZONING:
SITE:
Senior Housing Apartments
Neighborhood General 2 – Low
Density Residential (Proposed: DE –
Edgewood Shopping Center)
NORTH:
Edgewood Shopping Center
DE –Edgewood Shopping Center
SOUTH:
Single-Family Residential
LA County
EAST:
Multi-Family Residential
Neighborhood General 2 – Moderate
Density Residential
WEST:
Single-Family Residential
LA County
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
The required permits for the project include:
• City of Azusa approval of General Plan Amendment from NG2 Low Density Residential
to DE Edgewood District
• City of Azusa approval of Zone Change from NG2 Low to DE Edgewood District
• City of Azusa approval of Minor Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment use
• City of Azusa approval of density bonuses per Government Code Sections 69515 through
69518
• City of Azusa approval of concession per Government Code Sections 69515 through
69518
36-foot building height/3 stories
• City of Azusa approval of Affording Housing Agreement
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 6 of 9
• City of Azusa approval of Variances to reduce parking requirements
• City of Azusa approval of Design Review
Environmental review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provide objectives, criteria and
procedures for the orderly evaluation of projects. The Guidelines include 16 categories that need to
be evaluated in order to identify and review the environment factors that could be potentially affected
by the proposed project. The categories are:
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services and
Utilities
Recreation
Traffic/Circulation
Impacts to these categories can be determined as: no impact; less than significant impact; potentially
significant; significant; and significant and unavoidable impacts.
The initial study found that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, all potentially significant
impacts of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, preparation and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. In order to implement the required
mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be adopted as a condition
of approval of the project.
The City circulated the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the project. As of the time of
preparation of this staff report, two comments have been received.
At the previous Planning Commission hearing held on this project, concerns were raised about the
project’s impact on historical resources. As explained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration,
there are three single-family residences located on the site, which are more than 50 years old.
However, these buildings are not identified as historically significant resources on any list of historic
landmarks, nor are they eligible for listing. This is because the structures do not have architecture
enhancements pertaining to a specific era and are not considered good examples of any particular
architectural style. Further, there are no indications that the structures possess any additional historic
value based on local history, past residents, or any other factors. Therefore, the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration’s determination that impacts to historic resources are less than significant is
correct.
After circulation of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for public review and comment, the
Planning Commission directed the applicant to increase the number of parking spaces located onsite.
As discussed above, the applicant revised the site plan to allow for 48 parking spaces – 10 additional
spaces above the number described in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. However, the
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 7 of 9
increased number of onsite parking spaces does not constitute a “substantial revision” to the project,
necessitating recirculation of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. This is because the addition
of 10 parking spaces does not result in a new, avoidable significant impact, does not result in the
need for new mitigation measures, and does not result in previously incorporated mitigation
measures becoming ineffective. In fact, the addition of 10 parking spaces further reduces the impacts
identified in the previously circulated environmental review, by further ensuring that parking demand
will be met onsite.
General Plan Conformance
The 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan sets out goals and policies for Housing
demands in the City. Goal H2 describes a provision for adequate housing to meet the needs of the
community and establishes a balanced approach to meet housing needs that includes the needs of
both renter and owner households. Policy H2.3 facilitates development of affordable housing
through the use of financial and or regulatory incentives. Policy H2.3 concerns established
partnerships with private developers and non-profit housing corporations to assist Azusa in meeting
its housing goals. The project is intended to provide affordable housing and accommodations for low
to moderate income earning residents.
Additionally Goal H3: Policy H3.1 states that the City should provide a range of residential
development types in Azusa, including low-density single-family homes, moderate-density
residential townhomes, higher-density multi-family units and residential-commercial mixed use in
order to address the City’s share of regional housing needs. Policy 3.7 supports high-quality rental
housing for large families, students, and senior households. Policy H3.8 says to provide incentives to
facilitate the development of senior housing options. Policy H3.9 states the requirement that housing
that constructed expressly for low- and moderate-income households not be constructed in any single
portion of the City. The applicant is seeking to fulfill these policies through their development.
Lastly, Goal H4 recommends minimizing the impact of governmental constraints on housing
production. Policy H.4.1 is to provide regulatory incentives, such as density bonuses and reduced
parking, to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. The applicant is requesting a variance on
parking reduction based on Policy H4.1. Staff has recommended a parking analysis to justify the
reduction.
The proposed development will provide a senior housing development, which provides an alternative
senior housing opportunity for residents of Azusa.
Development Code Compliance
The project complies with all Development Standards applicable to Senior Apartments. The specific
development standards are listed in the following Development Code Compliance Table:
Development Code
Requirements
Proposed Project
Complies with
Development Regulation
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 8 of 9
Site Area 10,000 sq.ft. 1.23 Acre Yes
Building Height
(Maximum)
2 Stories/35 feet 3 Stories/36 feet Yes – Concession per
Government Code Section
69515-69518
Density
(Maximum) 40 units per acre 48.8
Yes – Density Bonus per
Government Code Section
69515-69518
Lot Coverage 60% 31% Yes
Front Yard
Setbacks
(Minimum)
20 feet with minimum 15
feet between building and
any private patio wall
21 feet 6 inches Yes
Side Yard Setbacks
(Minimum) 10 feet 15 feet (West)
41 feet (East) Yes
Rear Yard Setbacks
(Minimum) 15 feet 15 feet Yes
Dwelling Unit Size
(Minimum)
1-bedroom, 1-
bathroom unit
2-bedroom, 1-
bathroom unit
550 Square Feet
600 Square Feet
550 Square Feet
835 Square Feet
(1 – ¾ bathrooms)
Yes
Common Open
Space 125 square feet per unit 163 square feet per unit
(9,826 square feet total) Yes
Off Street Parking
1 Cover Space per unit
and 1 guest space for each
five units
48 (0.70 spaces per unit
and 1 guest space per 10
units)
No – Variance Required
FINDINGS
The Finding of Facts for General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2016-01, Zone Change No. Z-2016-01,
Design Review No. DR-2016-23, Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2016-12, and Variance No. V-2017-
07 (Parking Reduction) can be found in the attached resolutions and ordinance.
Design Recommendations
Although the proposed design complies with the applicable development standards, staff believes
there are several items that may improve the appearance of the proposed structures. Conditions of
approval have been included in the attached Exhibit M to require more decorative light fixtures for
the units.
CONCLUSION
Senior Housing Project – 1/16/18
Page 9 of 9
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment (GPA-2016-01), Minor Use Permit (MUP-2016-12), Design
Review (DR-2016-23), Variance (V-2017-07), and the Affordable Housing Agreement required for
the project based on the findings of facts presented and based on the beneficial fiscal impact to the
City.
Staff recommends that the City Council also introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading
of Ordinance No. 2018-01 approving Zone Change (Z-2016-01).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
Edson Ibañez Kurt Christiansen, FAICP
Assistant Planner Economic and Community Development
Director
Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved:
Louie F. Lacasella Don Penman
Senior Management Analyst Interim City Manager
Attachments:
1) Aerial Map
2) Zoning Map
3) NOA and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) Colored Elevations – Rendering
5) Site Plan
6) Resolution No. 2018-C01 for MND
7) Resolution No. 2018-C02 for GPA-2016-01
8) Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus Housing Agreement
9) Resolution No. 2018-C03 for Senior Citizen Housing Development Density Bonus
Housing Agreement.
10) Resolution No. 2018-C04 for DR-2016-23
11) Resolution No. 2018-C05 for MUP-2017-12
12) Resolution No. 2018-C06 for V-2017-07 (Parking Reduction)
13) Conditions of Approval
14) Parking Analysis
15) Revised Landscape Plan
16) Ordinance No. 2018-01 for Z-2016-01