HomeMy WebLinkAbout5945
RESOLUTION 5945
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS
ADEQUATE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL
PLAN, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORlNG PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS, tht: City Council of the City of Arcadia ("City") has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for a comprehensive amendment of the Arcadia General
Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections
21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.) ("State Guidelines"), and
procedures adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia ("City CEQA Procedures"), relating
to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and
WHEREAS, the comprehensive amendment of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan (Exhibit C)
is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is also the Planning Agency in the consideration of such
matters; and
WHEREAS, agency consultation letters were sent to public agencies in July, 1995 to obtain
input as to whether an E1R should be prepared for the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation was distributed on December 26,
1995 indicating that a Draft EIR was required and inviting comments from Responsible Agencies,
public agencies and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Notice of Preparation was distributed on January 8, 1996
documenting revisions to the project description; and
WHEREAS, comments that were reviewed during the Notice of Preparation period have
been appropriately addressed as part of the Draft E1R; and
WHEREAS, a community workshop was held on the update of the General Plan on May
17,1995;and
-1-
5945
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1995, a joint public workshop with the Planning Commission and
City Council was held to discuss the formulation of alternatives to be addressed in the E1R, and
comments reviewed during the meeting were considered in formulating the alternatives that are
presented in the Draft ErR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft ErR (State Clearinghouse Number 95121059) was prepared in
compliance with CEQA to address the environmental effects of the comprehensive amendment of
the Arcadia General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of Ihe Draft E1R and
thereafter, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft E1R to the State
Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the
Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, requesting comments of such persons and
agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ErR has been publicly noticed for the required forty-five (45) day
public review period from February 21,1996 through AprilS, 1996, and was extended by the City
through April 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, response to comments were delivered to public agencies commenting on the
Draft E1R on August 9, 1996, at least ten (10) days prior to consideration of this Resolution by the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Final ErR, incorporating the City's responses to comments on the Draft ErR,
has been submitted to the City Council as part of the Report to the City Council, pertaining to the
1996 Arcadia General Plan; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on April 29, April 30,
May 14, May 16, May 30 and June 25, 1996 on the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and the ErR,
following duly and regularly given notice as required by law, and all interested persons expressing
a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the Final E1R and all comments
thereon and responses thereto have been considered; and
WHEREAS, after review of the Draft ErR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
1535 on June 25, 1996 recommending that the City Council adopt the 1996 Arcadia General Plan
with certain revisions and certify the ErR; and
-2-
5945
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the City Council on July 8 and July 10, 1996, on
the Arcadia General Plan EIR, following duly and regularly given notice as required by law, and
all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and EIR in public
session on July 16, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and evaluated the Final Environmental Impact
Report and all comments thereon and responses thereto and determined it to be adequate, complete,
and in compliance with CEQA, State Guidelines, and City CEQA Procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. The Final EIR for the Project consists of:
I. The Draft EIR. This document includes the complete text of the Draft EIR and
Appendices, Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and comments received on the proposed scope of
the Draft EIR from interested persons, organizations, and public agencies;
2. The Resoonse to Comments. This document includes comments and recommendations
received on the Draft EIR during the public review period; official City responses to all comments
and suggestions; and a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR.
3. The Julv 18. 1995 Alternatives Assessment Reoort. This document identifies three
strategies for managing the future of the City of Arcadia. The intent of the report was to document
existing community issUl:s which need to be addressed as part of the 1996 General Plan process;
provide general policy direction to City staff in the development of General Plan policies,
programs and implementation measures; and evaluate and discuss the range of potential
alternatives as required by CEQA.
Section 2. Review and Independent Judgement. The Final EIR reflects the independent
judgement and analysis of the City and that:
1. The Final EIR for the 1996 Arcadia General Plan has been completed in compliance
with CEQA as well as State Guidelines and City CEQA Procedures.
-3-
5945
2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the City
Council reviewed and considered the infonnation contained in the Final EIR prior to approving
said project; and
3. The City contracted with the environmental consulting firm ofLSA Associates, Inc. to
assist the City in preparing the EIR; that all work done by the consultant was reviewed and
analyzed by City staff, including the Community Development Division, City Attorney, and the
City's special legal counsel. In addition, the City's traffic consultant reviewed and analyzed all
consultant traffic work efforts.
4. All documents and records which constitute the records and proceedings, arc currently
located in the Community Development Division of Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia.
Section 3. Findings of Fact. . The City hereby makes the following findings set forth in
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated fully by this reference for each of the potential
significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and further approves the
Environmental Findings of Fact set forth in Exhibit "A." Based on such Environmental Findings
of Fact, the City Council hereby finds:
I. That, based upon the information set forth in the Final EIR and the findings set forth as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated fully by this reference, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the following
significant adverse environmental effects below a level of significance: land use and planning
considerations, population and housing; earth resources (partially); water resources; biological
resources; mineral resources (partially); cultural/scientific resources; aesthetics (partially); traffic
and circulation (partially); noise; public health; public services and facilities; and recreation; and
2. That, based upon the infonnation set forth in the Final EIR and the Environmental
Findings of Fact set forth as Exhibit "A" and incorporated fully by this reference, significant
unavoidable impacts will still rem.ain from: primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional
seismic activity, loss of access to significant mineral resources underlying the vacant parcel
adjacent to the Livingston-Grahm quarry; existing and projected traffic volumes on Michillinda
A venue between Sunset and Colorado Boulevards will exceed the Citywide Criteria of LOS D; Air
-4-
5945
pollutant emissions in excess of identified SCAQMD thresholds; significant localized visual
impacts to land uses adjacent to the Transition Area I and existing views from Huntington Drive;
and availability of water supply to accommodate projected growth within the City and region,
since the City cannot control implementation of all mitigation strategies outlined in the Upper San
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and MWD Urban Water Management Plans and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth on pages 65 through 71 of Exhibit "A" is
proposed for adoption in the Resolution approving adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan.
3. That the final 1996 Arcadia General Plan document as directed by the City Council does
not raise any environmental issues not addressed in the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit "A."
Section 4. The City hereby adopts as the official mitigation monitoring program for the
project the Mitigation Monitoring Program as set forth in Exhibit "8" and incorporated fully by
this reference.
Section 5. Upon approval and adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, the Community
Development Administrator is hereby instructed to file a Notice of Determination with the County
Clerk of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public
Resources Code and the State Guidelines and City CEQA Procedures adopted pursuant hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Arcadia at a regular meeting
held on the ~ day of Sept, 1996, by the following roll call vote.
c//~
ATTEST:
MayoIj'ofthe City of Arcadia
Pro tern
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
fr\~ V !fJ~
City Attorney oftheCity of Arcadia
-5-
5945
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5945 adopted by the City
Council of the City of Arcadia, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of
Sep tembeJ; 1996, by the following vote:
A YES: Councilmember Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
-6-
5945
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL
PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SlGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. FfNDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS. .-\'-'0
ST A TEMENT OF FACTS fN SUPPORT THEREOF. ALL WITH RESPECT
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public
Resources Code Section 21081.0. the City of Arcadia cannot approve a project for
which an environmental impact report has been certi.fied which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or
carried out unless both of the following occur:
I. The City makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each
significant effect:
a) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid lhe significant effects on the
environment J'2108l.(a)(l).
b) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been. or can and
should be. adopted by that other agency J2108Uaj(2).
c) Specific economic. legal, social, technological. or other consid-
erations, including considerations for the provisions of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible lhe
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report J21081.(a)(3).
2. Where a finding is made pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.( a)(3). the
City further finds that specific overriding economic, legal. social.
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects
on the environment.
EXHIBIT "A"
71 JO/9&(A,\EXHlBIT ,A)
EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
lant! Use ant! Planning Conside,ations
Confliets with Gene,al Plan Designations and Zoning
The primary purpose of the 1996 General Plan project is 10 assess the land use desi~-
nations of the existing General Plan. and to modify those designations as necessarv ~o
balance maintenance of existing levels of publi~ services \~ith environmental ~nd
community constraints. Due to the developed nature of the study area and the stable
nature of the community, the General Plan and zoning designations of the majority of
the City. including the single family residential neighborhoods. will nO! be moditied
by the 1996 General Plan. Moditications to the land use designations of the proposed
1996 General Plan will be primarily limited to: \) downtown. 2) the Santa Anila race
track's southerly parking area. and 3) multiple family land use designations to estab-
lish maximum allowable densities of 12 or 24 dwelling units per acre in the various
portions of the City currently designated for multifamily use. Modification of land
uses within these two areas is included in the 1996 General Plan. Where the 1996
General Plan will place more differing intensities of land use adjacent to each other.
performance standards and/or buffering requirements are established. Thus. conflicts
are not anticipated to occur.
Impacts on Ag,icuJtu,aJ Resources 0' Ope,ations
There are no known agricultural resources within the City of Arcadia and its sphere of
influence.
Direct Land Use Impacts: Santa Anita Race T,ack T,ansition A,ea
The 1996 General Plan would permit development of new commercial uses in the area
south of the racetrack grandstands and east of the mall. The Community Development
Chapter of the proposed 1996 General Plan permits commercial uses that "should add
to and enhance the range of existing retail (mall) and entertainment (racetrack) uses."
New development within this Transition Area is intended by the General Plan to
create vehicular and pedestrian links between the racetrack, new
commercial/entertainment uses, and the mall.
The potential development area identified in the 1996 General Plan for this Transition
Area is physically separated from existing residences by the Santa Anita Park race-
track. Fashion Park Mall, and the wide expanse of Huntington Drive. Required set-
backs from the roadway provide further buffering. As a result, disruption of residen-
tial uses arising from direct impacts from development within the Race Track Transi-
tion Area.
7IJO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
2
Di,ect and Indi,ect Land Use Impacts: Santa Clara St,utlHuntington Dri,'e
Transition A,ea
As identi't1ed in the 1996 General Plan. land use designations within lhis transilion
area are being modi tied to retlect the area's transition from industrial to commercial
land uses. The majority of lhe transilion area will be designated "-fixed Use,Cllio-
merciallMultiple Family Residential (C/MFR). land use designations within this
transition area will nOl substantially aller the existing land use panern within lhis
portion of the City. The potenlial for significant indirecl land use impacts has not
been identified in the other topical sections of the Final EIR. where implementation of
General Plan requirements is considered. Thus. land use impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan as they affect the Santa Clara SlreetlHuntington
Drive Transition Area are below the level of significance.
Di,ect and Indirect Land Use Impacts: Downtown Residential T,ansition A,ea
The 1996 General Plan continues lhe trend of land use conversion from single to
multiple family uses in the downtown area, which has been well established and was
recognized under the previous General Plan. The effect of the 1996 General Plan is 10
establish ma.ximum allowable intensities within the areas designated .for multiple
family use. replacing the previous 7+ du/ac land use designation. land use
designations within this transition area are consistent with existing zoning, and will
not substantially alter the area's existing land use. The potential for significant
indirect land use impacts has not been identified in the other topical sections of the
Final EIR. Thus, land use impacts associated with lhe implementation of the 1996
General Plan as it affects land use within the Downtown Residential Transition Area
are below the level of significance.
Di,ect Land Use Impacts: Lowe, Azusa Road T,ansition A,ea
The 1996 General Plan retains the existing Industrial land use designation and the
existing/past land use type that existed within 85 acres of this area from 1967, until the
cessation of mineral extraction activities in 1990. Reclamation of a depleted sand and
gravel quarry remaining from mineral extraction operations is an appropriate use
within the Industrial land use designation under both the previous General Plan and
the 1996 General Plan.
In order for industrial development to occur. the existing pit will need to be filled and
reclaimed. The City of Arcadia has approved CUP No. 92-003, including an
Operations Plan, and Reclamation Plan, and certified a final EIR (Rodeffer Final EIR)
for the fill operation. The inert landfill operation will occur over a relatively long
period (8-12 years), and was therefore analyzed in the final EIR as an interim land use
for the northern portion of the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area.
As identified in the proposed 1996 General Plan, the design concept for this transition
area requires access to be taken from lower Azusa Road; no direct access, is 10 be
permined from existing residential streets. A transition from the adjacent residential
7IJO/96(A, \EXHIIlIT.A>
3
,
uses would be achieved utilizing physical and visual buffers. such as inte~ralin~ a
system of building setbacks and landscaped berms located in sllch a man~er as-lo
visually shield the adjacent industrial development from adjacent residential. Thus.
direct land use impacts from lhe ultimale industrial use of this lransition Jrea are
anlicipated to be less than significant.
The direct impacts of an inert land/ill within the former Rodeffer quarry site in lhe
Lower Azusa Road Transition Area will be similar to the impacts allowed under the
approved CUP for the quarry operation occurring between 1967 and 1990. As noted
above. the 1996 General Plan requires that access to lhis transition area be taken from
Lower Azusa Road. and that no access be taken through residential neighborhoods.
This requirement is also incorporated into the approved CUP for the reclamation of
the quarry pit. In addition, the physical and visual buffers required in lhe 1996 Gen-
eral Plan (setbacks and berm) are also required for site reclamation. With implemen-
tation of these 1996 General Plan provisions. direct land use impacts are anticipated to
be less than significant.
Di,ect and Indirect Impacts: Balance of Inco,po,ated A,ea
Land use designations identified in the 1996 General Plan for the balance of lands
within the City of Arcadia correspond to, and are consistent with. existing land uses.
The only new development that is anticipated to occur within these areas will be
upgrading of commercial buildings, limited multiple family development within areas
already designated and planned for such uses. and approximately 12 new residential
dwellings in the hillsides of north Arcadia. Because new development within those
portions of the City that are outside of the four transition areas will consist of limited
infill development that has long been planned and is consistent with adjacent land
uses. the land use impacts of future development within these areas are considered to
be insignificant.
Direct and Indirect Impacts: Sphere of Influence
Land use designations identified in the 1996 General Plan for Arcadia's sphere of
influence correspond to, and are consistent with, existing land uses and the existing
General Plan designations of the County of Los Angeles. As a result of this consis-
tency, adoption of the proposed land use designations within the City's sphere of
influence will have no land use impacts.
The 1996 General Plan does not identitY any changes to land use designation within
the portions of the City adjacent to the sphere of influence; thus. there will be no
compatibility impacts to existing land uses within the sphere of influence as a result of
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
Population and Housing
Exceedence of Adopted Population and Housing Forecasts
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.A)
4
As evidenced by the comments of lhe Southern California Associalion of GO\ ern-
ments (SC::AG). the growth that would be permitted by lhe 1996 Arcadia General Pbn
is consistent Wilh regional growth forecasts.
Displacement of Existing Housing
The intensification of residential development intensities in the downtown area has the
potential to displace existing housing. However. the 1996 General Plan provides for
lhe replacement of existing affordable housing, as well as for new housing 10 meet the
needs of all economic segments of the com~unity. Thus. displacemen-t of exisling
housing is not considered to be a significant effect of the 1996 General Plan.
Earth Resources
Soil, Slope and Geologic Hazards
Although the 1996 General Plan will allow limited future hillside residential develop-
ment on currently undeveloped land located in the northernmost portion of the City,
below the San Gabriel Mountains, such hillside development would also occur in the
future under the existing General Plan. Grading and building requirements for hillside
areas are outlined within the City's Residential Mountainous Single family zone.
outlined in Article 9, Chapter 21, Part 5, Division 0, et seq, of the Arcadia Municipal
Code. Implementation of these standards will mitigate potential hazards.
The Water Resources Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix C of the final
ErR identifies the pumping of groundwater from local aquifers as the primary method
of obtaining potable water for the City. Although the depth of the groundwater table
ranges from approximately 150 to 300 feet below the surface, as pumping of water
from the San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins increases, the potential for
local subsidence to occur may increase. However, the Raymond Basin Management
Board and Main San Gabriel Basin Master Water Boards have established "safe yield"
for extraction that limits the total amount of water that can be pumped from the basins,
as well as lower limits of water table elevations. Compliance with the safe yield limit
prevents significant subsidence from occurring.
Compliance with Article 9, Chapter 2, Part 5, Division 0, et seq., the 1994 Uniform
Building Code and Development Perfonnance Standard 41 of the proposed 1996
Genera' Plan which requires site specific technical assessments and mitigation of soil.
slope and geologic hazards for new development to reduce potential effects of non-
seismic hazards to less than significant levels.
Known Slope Instability
The 1996 General Plan will allow for future industrial uses to be located within the
existing quarry site in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area. Prior to construction of
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
5
any structures on ~he site. the Rodeffer property will have 10 be completely tilled.
Additionally. future industrial structures construcled on lOp of the till material Cllllld
be subjected 10 the effects of senlemenl. which could porentiallv occur if the iJndlill
malerials are not properly compacted. However. proper slal1dards for cornpacliol1 are
provided in the approved Reclamation Plan for lhe site. Filling of the quarry pit has
previously been approved by lhe City (Conditional Use I'ermil No. 9c-003). al1d the
t:nvirol1menta1 effects of this operation have been evaluated in the Rodeffer Il1ert
Landfill FEIR (City of Arcadia. 1994.) Existing mitigation measures have been
identified in the Final Envi,onmentaJ Impact Report fo, the Rodeffer I/lert ["/ld/i/l
(City of Arcadia and Engineering-Science. 1993) to prevent slope failure. erosion. and
settlement from occurring during reclamation activities and are hereby incorporated
by reference. As outlined in the Rodeffer FEIR, implementation of these measures
will reduce the potential slope failure, erosion and senlement during reclamation of
the pit impacts to below a level of significance.
Seismic Haza,ds
The 1996 General Plan will allow development and redevelopment in close proximity
to the Raymond Hill Fault Zone. Structures built astride the surface traces of active
faults may experience various degrees of damage if there is further fault movement,
including damage resulting from surface rupture and ground failure. To assure that
homes, offices, business complexes, public buildings, and other structures for human
occupancy are not built on active faults, the Alquist Priolo Zone Act requires a geo-
logical investigation before a local government can approve most development pro-
jects in earthquake fault zones. Properties within 50 feet of an active fault are pro-
jected to be underlain by active branches; therefore, before any structure can be built
within the zone, a geologic investigation and submission of a report by a geologist
registered by the State of California are required with the exception of individual
single family residences. Through compliance with this Act during the permining
process for specific projects, as required by State law, primary seismic hazards associ-
ated with ground rupture are considered to be less than significant.
Water Resources
Changes in Currents, 0' the Coul'Se 0' Di,ection of Wale, Movements
Water bodies that exist within the study area consist mainly of regional flood control
facilities, the majority of which have been channelized. No changes will occur to
these regional facilities, and no alterations to currents or water movement in these
facilities will result from the proposed 1996 General Plan. Standing water resulting
from off-site drainage into the existing quarry pit adjacent to Lower Azusa Road
occurs and has created an artificial body of water. Reclamation of the quarry will fill
the pit and preclude future ponding on this property. Runoff from off site would be
accommodated on site utilizing a channel system. This alteration of existing runoff
flow patterns on this site is considered less than significant.
71l0/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
6
Biological Resou,ces
General Biological Resou,ces
The General Plan study area is nearly fully developed and. therefore. has relati\"eI\"
few significant biological resources. The proposed changes to the General Plan land
use designations are concentrated in lhe developed portions of the City. where no
significant biological resources occur. There will be no impacls to biological re-
sources within any of the transition areas. specificallv. The Los Angeles Countv
Arboretum, located west of Santa Anita Fashion Park and the Arcadia Wilderness Park
in the nor1hern section of the study area are designated as public facilities and are
protected from development. Similarly. the proposed 1996 General Plan does not
change the City's policies protecting significant oak tree species via the Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
Chapter 2.0 of the 1996 General Plan specifies preservation of lhe remaining natural
open space areas to protect important environmental resources. for public health and
safety purposes, for public recreation. and for the managed production of resources.
These areas include the Arcadia Wilderness Park, Los Angeles County Arboretum.
Arcadia County Park. local parks throughout the City, Santa Anita Golf Course, Par 3
Golf Course, Peck Road Spreading Basin and 197 acres of land for water conservation
purposes along the Santa Anita Creek Corridor, below the Santa Anita Dam. In
addition, the proposed 1996 General Plan states that 158 acres of natural hillside shall
remain as open space adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, northeast of Arcadia.
The designated open space areas include steep natural hillsides, natural canyons and
watersheds. and flood control channels and facilities. The 1996 General Plan stipu-
lates design criteria to provide a margin of safety and protection against slope failure.
A portion of the remaining natural hillside areas in the northeastern part of Arcadia
will be developed at, very low densities. The 1996 General Plan does not alter the
existing land use designation and/or development intensity of low density single
family residential for the undeveloped hillside areas in the northern portion of the
study area identified in the existing General Plan. The 1996 General Plan specifies
that high to moderately sensitive habitat areas (as identified in Figure 4.5.1) must be
protected in place unless certain criteria or conditions are necessary, such as improve-
ments for flood control or water conservation purposes. These areas will require site
specific biological studies/assessments prior to determination of potential impacts due
to proposed land development.
Development Performance Standards 31, 32 and 33 require that areas of high to
moderate value are to be protected in place (unless one of five conditions occur); that
proposed developments adjacent to biologically sensitive areas are designed with
adequate buffer or setback to avoid significant impacts to those areas; and that the
City and/or project proponents must comply with all required permitting procedures
for species categorized as either endangered, rare or threatened by USFWS and/or
CDFG. As part of the permitting procedures, surveys may be required at the appropri-
ate time of year prior to the development in or adjacent to these areas. to determine
whether sensitive species are present on such properties. After compliance with 1996
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
7
General Plan Performance Standards 3 I. 32 and 33. effects to sensitive biolo~ical
resources are considered less than signiticant -
- .
Sama Anita Wash
It is anticipated that the riparian and oak woodland zones along Santa Anita Wash that
are within the Public Facilities land use designation in the -northern portion of the
study area will not be impacted by increased development intensities resulting from
the 1996 General Plan. since lhose habitats are preserved as open space for -public
safety (flood control facilities) or as wildlife habitat. However. there could pOlemially
be additional public facilities proposed for these areas that would affect those habitat
areas. Should there be any future proposals for land development or facilities expan-
sion that would directly or indirectly affect the viability of these important habitats.
compliance with Performance Standards 31, 32 and J3 which have been designed to
maintain the integrity of the resources for wildlife usage and wildlife habitation, will
result in effects to sensitive biological resources that are considered less than signifi-
cant.
Lowe, Azusa Road r,ansition A,ea
Managed production of sand and gravel has occurred in the southern portion of the
study area near Lower Azusa Road. Industrial uses are designated for the area in the
proposed 1996 General Plan. The City of Arcadia has approved a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for the reclamation (landfill) on the Rodeffer property. Site reclamation
will occur prior to development with industrial uses.
No significant high value habitat or sensitive species have been observed during
several site surveys of the Rodeffer property. A site survey was undertaken specifi-
cally for the 1996 General Plan confirmed a lack of wetlands habitat in this Transition
Area. The 1995 biological survey is contained in Appendix J of the Final EIR. Thus.
site reclamation and future industrial development of the property will not cause
significant adverse impacts to biological resources.
Wildlife Dispersal or Migration Corridors
Wildlife within the study area is limited in distribution due to the developed nature of
the community. No migration corridors are known to exist within the study area,
although the potential for such areas exists within the Los Angeles County Arboretum
and the Arcadia Wilderness Park, both of which will be preserved. Thus, the 1996
General Plan does not include any policy or land use designation change that would
affect these potential resources.
Adopted Conservation Plans and Policie$
7IJO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
8
Areas of biological resources wilhin the General Plan study area exist primarily \\ ithin
the Arcadia Wilderness Park and the Los Aneeles Countv Arboretum OUlside these
designated areas. biological resources are li~ited due to'the develop~d naWre of the
community. The 1996 General Plan contains City policies relevant to resource
conservation: however. there are nO! any specific policy or land use changes that
would impact affect ado pled conservation plans and policies.
Mineral Resources
The land use designations and densities proposed in the 1996 General Plan do not alter
the availability or non-availability of the four sites determined to have sillniticanl
mineral resources. -
D,ainage A,eas
The spreading basin and flood control areas in Santa Anita Wash are planned to
remain in use for flood control purposes and, therefore. are not now available for
mineral extraction, nor will they be in the future. As such, no impacts to mineral
resources will occur in these areas from implementation of the 1996 General Plan.
Rodeffer P,ope,ry
The Rodeffer property is proposed to be filled and reclaimed to allow development of
future uses consistent with the site's current and proposed Industrial land designation.
Further aggregate extraction will not occur since the prior mining operations expended
the available mineral resources on site.
South East Industrial A,ea
The 1996 General Plan retains the previous Industrial land use designation for the
vacant portion of the Livingston-Graham Quarry within the City of Arcadia. The
1996 General Plan also allows aggregate resource extraction on this property. Thus.
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will allow continued access to
mineral resources on this property and will allow extraction in the future, subsequent
to approval of a Conditional use permit by the City. If the property remains vacant or
quarrying activities are undertaken, the potential effects to mineral resources are
considered less than significant.
Potential future mining activities west of the Livingston-Graham Quarry could cause
potentially significant environmental impacts. The Industrial designation for the
portion of the quarry within the City of Arcadia provides the most compatible use of
the site, assuming mineral extraction activities expand onto the adjacent site. Any
future extraction activities will be required to comply with Article 9, Chapter 5, of the
City of Arcadia Municipal Code (Ordinance 1678), which sets forth the procedure for
preparation and approval of mining and reclamation plans. With compliance with
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
9
Article 9. Chapter 5. of lhe Arcadia Municipal Code. pOlenlial secondary imp"<:ts
resulting from future mining activities are considered to be less lhan signiticant.
Cultural/Scientific Resou,ces
Physical Changes Wilich Mig/rt Affect Unique Ethnic Cultural Values
The Arcadia General Plan study area has existed as an urban area whose residents
have maintained a diverse spectrum of ethnic cultural values since the incorporation of
the City in 1903. While physical changes could occur with implementation of lhe
policies contained in the 1996 General Plan. the likelihood of these changes impacting
any unique ethnic cultural values is speculative and remote.
Rest,ictions on Existing Religious 0' Sacred Uses
The 1996 Genera) Plan does not contain any restrictions on existing religious or sacred
uses, nor would any provisions of the \ 996 General Plan have the result of restricting
known existing religious or sacred uses within the General Plan study area.
A,chaeological Resou,ces
Unknown archaeological resources may be encountered during grading activities for
new and redevelopment within the General study area. With compliance with Devel-
opment Performance Standards 37,38 and 39 of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
potential effects to unknown archaeological resources within the srudy area are con-
sidered less than significant.
Historic Resou,ces
Most of Arcadia's historic resources are within publicly owned properties (i.e., the
Los Angeles County Arboretum or U.S. Forest Service property). These protected
resources include the Queen Anne Cottage and Coach House, the Hugo Reid Adobe,
the Santa Anita Depot, and Historical Site CA-LAN-1868H. The proposed 1996
General Plan will not alter the existing land uses at the Los Angeles County Arbore-
tum or Forest Service property and, therefore, these resources will not be directly
affected and no impact will occur.
Future development proposals within privately owned historic sites could potentially
have indirect effects on historic strucrures if not designed with their protection in
mind. The provisions of the 1996 General Plan (Chapter 4.0. Culrural Resources
Approach), ensure that new development will not be permitted to adversely impact the
historic context of significant historic resources.
The Santa Anita race track, including the grandstand, paddock, circular receiving barn.
clubhouse, saddling stalls and stables, appears to be eligible for the California Regis-
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
10
Aesthetics
te,. The 1996 General Plan retains the Horse Racing land use designation for the ra<:e
lrack facility itself eliminating potential impacl;. Potential t~lure developmenl
proposals within the Commercial ponion of the race track could adverselv affe<t the
visual integrity of lhese facilities. although no direct physical impacts are "anticipated
from site development. Thus. the General Plan approach section outlinin~ Gel1eral
Plan requirements for future commercial development wilhin the southerly ;ace tra<k
parking area provides for the retention of view corridors to the race track grandstands.
and specifies that the architecture of future development is to be compatible with the
architecture of the grandstands.
Scientific Resou,ces
Based on a review of scientific (paleontological) resources. development within the
study area would have little or no effect on paleontological resources with future
development projects due to the lack of geological formations that are known to have
a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of proposed 1996
General Plan Development Performance Standards 37, 38 and 39 pertaining to
paleontological resources will further reduce any potential impacts to these resources.
if found.
Implementation of the 1996 General Plan will result in incremental development
throughout the City. Development opportunities outside of identified Transition Areas
are limited. and will be consistent with the existing character of the area: lherefore.
potential visual effects are considered less than significant. In addition.
implementation of the t 996 Geljeral Plan Strategies CD-1 through CD-22 and
Development Performance Standards I through 18 further reduce potentially visual
effects for the portions of the City outside the Transition Areas identified.
Santa Clara Stuet/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition A,eas
The land use designations for these Transition Areas reflect the development which
has already occurred, and provides for additional housing to meet identified needs.
Development of these areas will therefore be visually consistent with existing'sur-
rounding uses. Since implementation of the 1996 General Plan within these transition
areas will be consistent with the existing uses, potential visual impacts are considered
less than significant. In addition, implementation of 1996 General Plan Strategies
CO-I through CO-22 and Development Performance Standards I through 18 will
further reduce potential visual effects.
Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
Although this transition area is vacant. the quarry site detracts from its surroundings.
is visually incongruous with distant views, and is generally a negative visual element.
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
11
The site is barren of vegetation and has linle variation in colors to provide visual
interest. Future development has the pOlential for improving the visual character of
the site by transforming the site to a developable parcel.
Because industrial development sometimes results in large-scale buildings and site
designs lhat are out of scale and character with existing ~;sidential develo-pment. the
1996 General Plan contains specific provisions for industrial development wilhin lhis
Transition Area. including requirements for setbacks. landscaped berms. and site
design to achieve visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods to lhe \vest and
south. In addition, the 1996 General Plan recognizes lhat security lighting of
industrial uses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods has the pOlential to
introduce light into adjacent residential neighborhoods and provides performance
standards to ensure that light and glare from industrial developments do nol impact
residential neighborhoods.
Implementation of the General Plan Approach provisions for this Transition Area.
along with Performance Standards l. 2. 7, 9 will mitigate potential impacts to the
quality of existing viewsheds to a level that is less than significant.
T,affic and C;,culation
Waterborne and Ai, Traffic
No waterborne traffic currently exists within the study area. The General Plan study
area includes two rail lines (only one of which is currently operating), and the
southern portion of the General Plan study area is located within the planning area of
the EI Monte Airport. No increases in the amount of rail traffic are proposed in the
1996 General Plan. In addition, the traffic volumes which will result from
implementation of the 1996 General Plan will not impact or reduce the utility of
existing rail lines. The provisions of the 1996 General Plan are consistent with FAA
and State' Department of Transportation rules and land use compatibility guidelines;
therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
Pa,king
Current City ordinances outline off-site parking requirements for proposed
development. The land use changes contained in the 1996 General Plan will not
modify these requirements, which will be applied to subsequent development on a
project by project basis. Compliance with the City's Parking Ordinance will result in
potential parking impacts that are considered less than significant.
Congestion Management Plan
New, non-residential development or redevelopment projects of 25,000 or more gross
square feet are subject to the requirements outlined in the City's Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1984). In addition, all
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A>
12
,~i, Quality
development projects within the Cily requiring an EIR are subject 10 R~solulion '<0.
;780. which requires an analysis within lhe EIR that assesses impacls on the rel!ional
lransportation system. After compliance with Ordinance No. 1984 and Resolllti~n No,
;780. impacts related to implementation of the C7\IP will be less than sigl1iticant.
Roadway Levels of Service
A detai led analysis of the traffic impacts of the 1996 General Plan was undertaken as
part of the ElR, and is included in Appendix D oflhe Final EIR. The traftic study
demonstrates that. with the exception of Holly Avenue (between Huntington Drive
and Duarte Road) and Michillinda Avenue (between Colorado and Sunset boulevards).
all roadways will operate at Level of Service D or better. and thus. no signilicant
impacts will result.
Ai, Movement, Moist",e, and Tempe,atu,e
Based on the proposed revisions to General Plan land uses, building heights wilhin the
study area will remain below levels that could potentially affect subregional air move-
ment patterns. No uses are proposed to be allowed under the 1996 General Plan that
would have the capacity to significantly alter surrounding levels of moisture.
temperature, or climate.
Localized CO Hot Spots
Roadway links carrying the greatest volumes of vehicles were modeled for potential
CO hot spots, including Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Colorado
Boulevard and Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Avenue.
These links are projected to carry 3,072 and 3,074 vehicles, respectively during the
peak hour. If a CO "hot spot" were to occur, it would have its greatest likelihood of
happening along either of these routes. lfno hot spots occur here, the remainder of the
General Plan area would not be expected to generate hot spots, either.
The microscale worst case analysis, which is presented in Appendix E of the Final EIR
shows that a receptor would be exposed to a maximum one hour CO concentration of
5.1 ppm, with 3.7 ppm of this value due to background concentrations. The eight hour
value is 3.7 ppm, with 2.7 ppm contributed from the background. These values are
below the one hour standards (i.e.. greater than or equal to the CAAQS of 20 ppm or
NAAQS of35 ppm) and eight hour standards (greater than the CAAQS of9.0 ppm or
NAAQS of 9 ppm). Therefore, no CO hot spots will be produced along either
roadway. Other roadways carrying lesser volumes of traffic would realize even lower
CO concentrations, and thus no significant impacts are projected.
1994 Ai, Quality Management PIa" (AQMP)
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.A>
13
Chapter 4,0 of the 1996 General Plan outlines the City's approach to implementation
of AQl\IP strategies. 1996 General Plan Stralegies ER-l and ER-2 address Pllblic
information and community involvement ER-3 and ER-4 regarding coordinalion \\ ilh
regional planning efforts. ER-5 and ER-8 regarding identific;lion ;nd implementation
of transportation system management programs. ER-9 lhrough ER-13 re~arding
implementalion of transportation demand management strategies. ER-14 and- ER-IS
regarding local ion of new development and redevelopment \~ithin the City. All of
these strategies are geared to \) educate the citizens of Arcadia regarding opportuni-
ties for use of alternative modes of transportation. 2) identify physical improvements
and programs that result in reduced congestion and emission levels and 3)
development of a land use program and development standards that facilitate demand
for transit and other alternative modes of transportation through provision of increased
densities and clustered urban design.
Since Arcadia is a mature community with limited opportunities for substantial new
development, the land use program in the 1996 General Plan focusses on lhe
intensification of existing uses through redevelopment with multifamily and
commercial/industrial. In particular, the Mixed Use designation identifies locations
within the City that are appropriate for development of residential/commercial mixed
use projects. Although this intensification will result in increased population and
vehicle trips generated within the City. the growth projected in the 1996 General Plan
is less than SCAO projections utilized by SCAQMD in the AQMP, and is therefore
consistent with the AQMP. Further evidence of this consistency is provided in
SCAG's comment letter on the Draft EIR. Through implementation of the 1996
General Plan Strategies identified above, existing and projected traffic volumes.
vehicle miles traveled and pollutants will be minimized, consistent with the goals of
the AQMP and, therefore, the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the 1994 AQMP.
Regional Comp,ehensive Plan
G,owth Management Chapter. As evidenced by SCAG's comments on the Draft EIR,
the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the Growth Management Chapter. The
increase in population that would result from implementation of the 1996 General
Plan is less than and consistent with the SCAG projection. Intensification of
employment generating land use designations, particularly the creation of new
commercial development adjacent to the Santa Anita race track will generate
additional jobs within the City and will assist in achieving the six percent increase in
jobs from 1990 to 2015, projected by SCAG. Employment projections are also
consistent with SCAG projections, as evidenced in responses to SCAG's comments on
the Draft EIR.
Implementation of the strategies and the land use program included in the 1996
General Plan will minimize future projected traffic volumes, vehicle miles traveled,
and pollutant emissions by encouraging redevelopment of existing properties with
more intensive land uses. lnfill development and redevelopment utilize existing infra-
structure, and provide opportunities to facilitate use of alternative modes of
transportation, such as transit; they also eliminate the need to extend existing facilities
into undeveloped areas, consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Chapter.
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
14
Regional .\/obilitv Chapter. As evidenced by SCAG's comment letter on the Drati
EIR. the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the Regional Mobility Chapter.
According to SCAG. the 1996 General Plan contains an admirable transportation
program which incorporates transportation system management. transportation
demand management and land use policies. thereby minimizing projected lraftic \"01-
umes and vehicle miles traveled. consistent with the goals of the Regional \10bilil\"
Chapter. - - .
Congestion Management Plan
Although the 1996 General Plan itself is not subject to the provisions of the Los
Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), Arcadia has ,dopted ,
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Ordinance 1984), and has a land
use analysis program for development projects (Resolution 5780) as required by the
CountyeMP. With implementation of Ordinance 1984 and Resolution 5780, all
new development resulting from build out of the 1996 General Plan will be
consistent with the requirements of the Los Angeles County CMP.
Noise
Long-Term Effects
Noise levels for major roadways in the City were modeled for the following scenarios:
I) existing; 2) future background (i.e., no additional growth within the city); and 3)
implementation of the 1996 General Plan. The noise model was based upon the
fHW A noise model, and used project specific traffic volumes and speed charac-
teristics. future traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by LSA
(Appendix D of the final EIR). Noise calculations are provided in Appendix f of the
final EIR).
The results of the future noise modeling shows that noise levels 100 feet from the
roadway centerline will stay the same or increase one dBA to two dBA over the
existing and future background noise levels due to increases in future traffic volumes
for all roadway segments except one, Huntington Drive between Colorado Place and
Santa Anita Avenue. Noise level increases below three dBA are generally not
perceptible. Compliance with 1996 General Plan Performance Standards 44 lhrough
51 will further reduce any potential noise impacts. Therefore, potential noise level
increases associated with the 1996 General Plan are considered less than significant at
all locations modeled.
Public Health (Haza,dsj
Haza,dous Mate,iaJs
7IJO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
15
Asbestos. :>'lany of the buildings in lhe City. particularly wirhin the Santa l"lar~
Street/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition Are~s. were
constructed prior to the 1979 ban on the use of asbestos building: materials. The 19%
General Plan provides for increased residential densities and red~velopment within the
downlown area. which may spur the modification or replacement of older building:s.
Construction workers involved in such demolitions could be exposed to asbestos
containing materials. Prior to issuing demolilion pertnits. lhe Arcadia Building:
Section requires that all applicants submit a completed "Notitication of Demolitio~
and Asbestos Removal" form. per SCAQMD requirements. Also. pursuant 10 the
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 25915 to 25924). building owners must
post specified warning signs in areas where construction. maintenance. or remodeling:
work is conducted with a potential for employees to come in contact with asbesto~
containing materials. With implementation of California Health and Safety Code
requirements and demolition permit requirements, potential asbestos impacts resulting
from demolition activities are considered less than significant.
Haza,dous Materials Sto,ageIHaza,dous Waste Generation. Industrial facilities
typically use and generate significantly greater quantities of hazardous materials lhan
other types of land uses (i.e.. residential. commercial, etc.). Future reclamation of the
quarry site in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area would increase the city's total
acreage of land available for industrial development. The quantities of hazardous
materials being transponed into and out of the City could incrementally increase. and
the potential for spill or release incidents could increase, depending on the type of
industrial uses on site. The handling, transport. and cleanup of hazardous materials
are extensively regulated and enforced by California Health Department. Cal-EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, California
Highway Patrol, and the County of Los Angeles. Compliance with these regulations
(many are enforced and monitored by the City's Fire Department) will limit handling
and storage hazards, resulting in less than significant effects. (n addition, the City has
adopted a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the enforcement of which is identified
as Strategy EH-21 in the 1996 General Plan. Compliance with the existing regulatory
framework for hazardous materials/waste will result in a .public health risk that is
considered less than significant.
The City has also recognized that the residential sector is a major user of hazardous
materials. Implementation of the 1996 General Plan will allow for increased densities
of residential development, which may subsequently increase the amount of household
hazardous waste. Both the City and County have existing household hazardous waste
programs in place to ensure that wastes are collected and disposed of in a safe manner.
Continuation of these programs will prevent any significant public health impacts
related to household hazardous waste from occurring.
'de,ground Sto,age Tanks. The 1996 General Plan will result in intensification of
:1mercialland uses in the Santa Clara StreetlHuntington Drive Transition Area. Due
[he proximity of this area to two major thoroughfares, it is logical that gas stations
or other uses that maintain underground storage tanks were located or could be located
in the future within this transition area. Underground storage tanks associated with
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.A)
16
Public Services
historical. existing. and future uses have lhe potential for developing leaks thaI ,an
contaminate local groundwater if not properly installed and mai-ntained. \\'ith
compliance of existing and new development with federal and State rel!ulations
regarding installation. maintenance and repair of underground slorage tanks. -potential
effecls resulling from leaking tanks are considered less lhan significant.
Inut Landfill
The 1996 General Plan retains lhe industrial designation previously applied 10 the
abandoned quarry site located adjacent to Lower Azusa Road. The quarry is planned
to be fi lied with inert materials over approximately 8 10 10 years. as addressed in the
"Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill" (City of .-\rcadia.
1994). Reclamation of the site has the potential to introduce hazardous materials as
part of fill operations.
As discussed in the fElR, the Operations Plan for the planned landfill operation
outlines measures,to ensure that the inert material used to fill the quarry pit would be
limited to soils, rocks and other non-hazardous materials. Measures outlined in lhe
plan to reduce the potential for receiving contaminated landfill material are divided
into two categories: those occurring at the excavation site and those occurring at the
planned landfill site. Measures at excavation sites include: I) breaking of all material
into a maximum of 12 inch blocks (no crushing would occur at the landfill): 2)
inspectors visually checking all loads for the presence of non-inert or hazardous
materials and rejecting transfer of any loads with such materials; 3) completion of a
freight bill by inspectors that documents that the load was inspected. and its place of
origin: and 4) for larger excavations, laboratory testing of soils prior to excavation and
visual inspection prior to transportation of material. Measures to be completed at the
landfill site include: I) on-site inspectors reviewing lhe freight bill, and visual and gas
inspections on the load; and 2) secondary inspection after the material is unloaded and
spread in a special area, prior to final disposition within the landfill. In addition,
groundwater monitoring and periodic soil testing and field testing of waste materials
will be utilized to ensure that unexpected contamination of groundwater does not
occur from landfill operation. If contamination is detected, affected groundwater will
be extracted by wells and cleaned until State drinking water quality standards are
again achieved in the groundwater. With compliance of the fill operation with the
measures outlined in the Operations Plan, potential hazardous materials effects
associated with filling of the quarry are considered to be less than significant.
Fi,e Depa,hrrerrl
Currently, the Fire Department is able to provide fire protection service to all areas of
the City. In segments of the City that are located in deficient response time areas,
cities participating in mutual aid agreements with the City of Arcadia are able to
provide service to those areas within the established five minute response time
standard. The 1996 General Plan provides for intensification of existing land uses
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
17
throughout the City. primarily within the four identified transilion areas; ho"e,er.
these changes are nOl expected to increase demand for tire protection services. \\ ilh
the exception of new commercial development adjacent to 1l1e Sanla Anila race traek.
Any signiticant commercial development in this area will likelv generate an increase
in emergency medical services (EMS) for the City. and the E~is -leam at Fire Slation
:-.10. 32. located adjacent to the racetrack. will be fully oc:upied by calls from flllure
development within this area.
Because the EMS learn for Station No. 32 also covers medical emergencies wilhin the
response area of fire Station No. 33. an additional EMS trained team-will be needed at
Station No. 33, and there is a potential need for one additional EMS dispatcher. The
existing engine company at Fire Station No. 33 will be trained as an EMS unil.
providing paramedic services to the portion of the City serviced by this station.
Therefore. no additional staff will be required in the Fire Protection Bureau to meet
the EMS need. Ambulance service from this station would not be provided. The
timing of training of existing staff to fulfill the EMS need will assessed through the
Fire Department's annual budget and through lhe review process of new development
within the City (Performance Standard 26.) After implementation of Performance
Standard 26, potential effects on fire services are considered less than significant.
Compliance of new development with Performance Standards 24 and 25 will further
reduce potential effects on fire services.
Police Services
The City's existing police services are adequate to support build out of all land use
intensification outlined in the \996 General Plan; incremental expansion of patrols and
police staffing is equivalent to population and employment increases in the City, with
the exception of proposed commercial development adjacent tot he Santa Anita race
track.
[ncremental demand for patrol services and staffing and necessary resources wi II be
assessed through new development and redevelopment projects' compliance with
Performance Standards 27, 28 and 29 of the 1996 General Plan and as part of the
annual review of the Police Department budget. With implementation of Performance
Standards 27, 28 and 29, potential impacts to police services are reduced to below the
level of impact.
Due to the anticipated scope and scale of future commercial development adjacent to
the Santa Anita race track, additional demands on existing service and facilities at the
City's Police Department headquarters are expected. Depending on the level of on-site
private sec~rity, future development within this area may increase demand for police
services anywhere up to 4 to 15 percent. Exact figures of additional police labor needs
and additional capital improvements will be established lhrough the development
process for projects within Transition Area I, consistent with 1996 General Plan
Performance Standard 27. With implementation of Performance Standards 27, 28. and
29, potential impacts to police services are reduced to below the level of impact.
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
\8
Hospital Services
The 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentially result in
additional demand for medical and emergency services provided by lhe ~Ielhodis[
Hospital. As identified in the Final ElR. according to Dennis Linson. Vice Presidenl
of~!elhodist Hospital. implementation of the 1996 General Plan would not require the
expansion of facilities or addition of staff. beyond what is envisioned in the hospital's
current expansion plans. Based on the information provided by Methodist Hospital.
effects to hospital services resulting from implementation of lhe proposed 1996
General Plan would be incremental and are considered less than signiticant.
School Services
A,cadia Unified Sehool Dist,ict (AUSD). Existing elementary and middle schools
within the AUSD currently are approaching or are at capacity under existing land use
conditions. Arcadia High School is less impacted and is currently operating at 85
percent of capacity. Based on the number of residential dwelling units the 1996
General Plan would permit within the City (572), the Draft EIR determined that
General Plan build out would result in the generation of 229 new students. based on a
O.4/dwelling unit student generation factor. Because the Arcadia Unified School
District did not provide a student generation factor, this factor was derived from a
survey of student generation per dwelling unit in the Glendora. Glendale. and
Newport-Mesa Unified School Districts. These districts were used due to similar
student characteristics as the Arcadia Unified School District. The Final ElR also
found that an additional 35 students could be expected to register within the Arcadia
Unified School District by the place of employment of their parents as the result of
General Plan build out. The ElR's determination of the number of students that would
be registered by the place of employment of their parents was based on a student
generation factor derived from the current number of students registered in the District
by the place of employment of their parents and the existing square footage of
commercial and industrial development within the City.
According to existing enrollment figures provided by the Arcadia Unified School
District, there is adequate capacity at the elementary and high school levels to
accommodate the projected increase in enrollment, while middle school capacity
would need to be expanded by 34 students, equivalent to one or two classrooms.
Assuming an average of 1,500 square feet per new dwelling unit, build out of the 1996
General Plan would permit within the Arcadia Unified School District would generate
a total of approximately $2,095,755 in school fees, which is more that sufficient for
the addition of one or two new middle school classrooms. The provision of State
mandated developer fees, along with the concurrency policies of 1996 General Plan
Performance Standards 21 and 22, which require provision of expanded facilities
equivalent to the impacts created by individual development, will reduce school
impacts of the General Plan to a level of insignificance.
EI Monte City School Disl1'ict (EMCSD) and EI Monte High Sehool Dist,iet
(EMHSD). Current and proposed land uses for the portions of the City within the
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
19
boundaries of the E~(CSD and E7\IHSD. including lhe Lower Azusa Road Transition
Area. are designated industrial. As noted in lhe Final EIR. according to the E\ICSD.
commercial and industrial uses have been found to have an insigniticanl impacl on
EMCSD enrollment. and State mandated development fees have not been assessed on
past commercial and industrial development within the E7\KSD. The EMHSD
currently collects 40 percent of the standard fee for commerciaJ/industrial
development. with lhe remaining 60 percent going to the appropriate elementary
school district, of which EMCSD is one. No additional fees are levied. Payment of
applicable state mandated developer fees to the affected school districts would offset
potential impacts to EMCSD and EMHSD due to new development resulting from the
1996 General Plan.
Other Sehool Dist,icts. No changes in land use or land use designations are proposed
in the 1996 General Plan within the portions of the City located within the Monrovia.
Pasadena, or Temple City Unified School Districts. Nearly all of the existing land
uses within the boundaries of these Districts consist of nonresidential development.
and the potential for intensification of existing uses or the introduction of residential
uses is extremely low. Additional students generated by implementation of the
commerciaVindustrialland use designations in the 1996 General Plan would be very
small, and would be offset through payment of State mandated development fees.
Thus, effects are considered less than significant.
In addition, the 1996 General Plan requires that development projects not result in a
quantifiable reduction in the level of services provided to existing development and as
identified in Table 6-8 of the 1996 General Plan document. which establishes the
school facilities performance standard as "maintain adequate capacity to meet
projected annual enrollment." Further, the proposed 1996 General Plan requires that
"all development projects must demonstrate that they will:
a. construct and/or pay fair share for the new on-site capital improvements that
are required to support the project;
b. ensure that all new off-site capital improvements that are required by the pro-
ject are available prior to certificates of occupancy;
c. be phased. if necessary, so as to ensure that the capital facilities that will be
used by the new development are available prior to certificates of occupancy;
and
d. ensure that, in the event that public services or off-site capital facilities are
impacted prior to development. the level of service provided to existing devel-
opment will not be further impacted by the new development."
These General Plan requirements apply to school facilities and the school facilities
performance standard noted above. Thus, impacts on school facilities will be less than
significant.
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A)
20
Lib,ary Services
The 1996 General Plan wi II increase residential densities and an increased demand on
library services. The existing facility and programs at the Arcadia Public Librarv are
currently being expanded. refurbished. and updated. As noted in the Final 'EIR.
a~cording to Kent Ross. Librarian. the build out of the 1996 General Plan will not
signiticantly impact existing City library facilities. With the current facility
expansion. the Final EIR also notes that Mr. Ross also indicated that the library would
be able to service lhe needs of the City by responding to public requests and offering
computers for more technological capabilities. Therefore. lhe additional demand
resulting from build out of the 1996 General Plan is considered minor. and any effects
lu library services are considered less lhan significant.
The County of Los Angeles has indicated lhat its facility off Live Oak Avenue will not
be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
Wastewater
Appendix G of the Final EIR, Sewer System Technical Memorandum. documents the
analysis conducted to assess the potential impacts of the 1996 General Plan on the
existing sewer system operated and maintained by the City of Arcadia. Of the
232,000 linear feet of pipe that were evaluated, approximately 69,450 linear feet of
pipe are deficient. Deficient pipes were categorized into four priority groups: A
(critically deficient), B (deficient), C and D (marginally deficient). The results of the
deficiency evaluation concluded:
. Approximately 1.3 miles of pipe are ranked Priority A and require evaluation
with potential for near-term construction. Priority A deficiencies result from
wastewater discharge associated with existing land uses within lhe City of
Arcadia.
. Approximately 0.8 mile of pipe is ranked Priority B and requires evaluation in
the near term and construction within 5 to 10 years. Priority B deficiencies
are marginal conditions today but wi II be exacerbated by development and
redevelopment in the short term.
. The remainder of the deficient pipe is ranked Priority C and D. Priority C and
D deficiencies are not substantially affected by implementation of the
proposed General Plan.
All of the deficient pipes identified in Table 4-3 of Appendix G of the Final EIR,
except Huntington Drive, are located in areas of existing development where new or
redevelopment potential associated with build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan
will be limited. Since the 1996 General Plan will allow for increases in development
intensities near these areas, the storm drain improvements recommended in the Sewer
System Technical Memorandum or other facilIties deemed adequate through future
analyses will be implemented prior to or concurrent with development that may
increase the storm water runoff in these areas. With implementation of General Plan
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
21
Performance Standards ~2 and ~3 and Item d.. Coordination of Infrastructure.
Intergovernmental Coordination and Improvement Program of the 1996 General PIJI1.
potential localized flooding impacts resulling from implementation of the 1996
General Plan are considered less than significant.
As discussed in the Final EIR. projected growth with implemenlation of the 1996
General Plan will be less than projected by SCAG in lhe Regional Comprehensive
Plan (RCP). Since capacity for wastewater treatment facilities owned and operaled by
the Consolidated Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Count\" is based on lhe growth
projections outlined in the RCP and since implementatio~ of lhe proposed 1996
General Plan will be within these projections. impacts to regional wastewater
treatment facilities are considered less than significant.
Recreation
Conflicts with Adopted Recreational Plans and Policies
The 1996 General Plan contains the City's policies relevant to recreation issues;
therefore no conflicts with City plans and policies will occur. In addition. the General
Plan includes programs to coordinate the activities of the various agencies providing
services, including recreational services within the City. Thus, Arcadia will continue
to cooperate with the planning efforts of regional and subregional agencies. such as
lhe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MT A. which
authored the San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Master Plan). and the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Provision of Pa,k Land
Currently, active and passive parks are located throughout the City within a one mile
radius of all existing and proposed residential development. Therefore, additional
residents of the City will reside will have adequate park facilities within a one mile
radius. Potential effects to recreational resources associated with build out of the
proposed 1996 General Plan are considered less than significant.
Although no additional recreational facilities are necessary for build out of the 1996
General Plan, Performance Standard 23 requires that all new residential development
shall be required to pay development fees to be established by the City in the future
for adequate provision of parks and recreational facilities; implementation of this
standard would reduce any potential effects.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following list corresponds to the impact sections of the Arcadia 1996 General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), for each adverse environmental im-
pact, a specific finding is made with a statement offacts supporting each finding.
7!JO/96(^, \EXHIBIT.A)
22
The City of Arcadia proposes to adopt an amendment and comprehensi\'e lIpdate of
lhe Arcadia General Plan. Due 10 the pOlenlial impacts to lhe .;ommunilY and be.;ause
the proposed action constitules a project under CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines. and
City CEQA Procedures. the City of Arcadia has prepared an EIR. The EIR identitied
certain significant effects that may occur as a result of the implementation of the
updated General Plan. Further. the Cily Council has determined that lhe EIR is
complete and adequate. and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. Slate
Guidelines. and City CEQA Procedures. Therefore. the following findings are set forth
. - -
herein pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of
lhe CEQA Guidelines.
LAND USE AND PUNNING CONSIDERA TlONS
Significant Effect Numbe, 1
The build out of land uses within Transition Area I (Santa Anita Race Track area) for
General Plan Scenarios A. B. and C (1.5 million, 975,000 and 600.000 square feet of
new commercial entertainment development, respectively) has a potentially
significant indirect impact on adjacent land uses and land use compatibility.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. These include lhe
standards of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, which states:
4.1-1 Prior to any discretionary approval of any development within the Santa Anita
Race Track or Lower Azusa Road Transition Areas. the project applicant shall
provide evidence to the City, for review and approval by the Development
Services Director (or designee), that the proposed development:
. Provides transitions and buffers between new development and
existing uses such that the bulk, massing, and architectural design of
new uses are compatible with existing development;
. Avoids placing new activities or creating nuisance conditions that
would disrupt the intended activities of adjacent existing and planned
land uses, make the intended use of adjacent lands undesirable, or
disrupt the physical arrangement of established neighborhoods and
non-residential land uses;
. Maintains roadway levels of service at or better than level of service
D, except along Michillinda Avenue between Colorado and Sunset
boulevards where level of service E is to be maintained;
. Does not cause an exceedence of applicable noise or air quality
standards, or a significant adverse impact to existing viewsheds; and
71 JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
23
.
Is consistent with applicable General Plan public facility performance
standards. and does not cause a reduction in the level of services and
facililies provided 10 existing development.
Facts in Suppo,t of Finding
Depending upon the configuration of future developmenl wilhin Transition Area I.
there is potential for massing of buildings in a manner incompatible with the low
intensity residential character of lhe community. The potential developmenl area in
Transition Area I has long been used as an open parking area. 1996 General Plan
requirements mandate that the architecture of future development within this
Transition Area be compatible with the existing architectural style of the racetrack
grandstands. The application of the design guidelines identified in the 1996 General
Plan, I, along with the Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 ensure that the height, bulk.
massing, and architectural design of new buildings within Transition Area I will be
compatible with both the racetrack grandstands and with residential uses across
Huntington Drive. Thus, significant indirect land use impacts related to land use
compatibility are not anticipated.
All significant land use effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided or
substantially lessened by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1.
POPUUTlON AND HOUSING
No potentially significant or significant population or housing impacts have been
identified resulting from the proposed amendment and comprehensive update of the
Arcadia General Plan.
EARTH RESOURCES
Significant Effect Numbe, 2
The proposed 1996 General Plan would allow for approximately 1,743 additional
people from 1990 to 2015, and development of commercial and industrial uses.
Consequently, the population present in the City of Arcadia during the time of a large
earthquake would be greater than that present under existing land uses.
Finding
Compliance with Ordinances 2033 and 1924 and 1996 General Plan Development
Performance Standards 40 and 41 in the proposed 1996 General Plan will reduce
potential primary and secondary seismic impacts; however, the effects of a major
earthquake within the region will remain significant. These conditions exist today,
and the proposed General Plan provides additional residential and employment
opportunities that will increase the population in this seismically active region.
7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A>
H
Specitic economic. legal. social. technological. or other consideralions, incllldin~
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities tor highly trJined
workers.. make infeasible the reduction of seismic impacts to a level of insi!!niticance.
Facts in Support of Finding
In lhe study area, seismic shaking that could occur as a result of a large re~ional
earthquake or a great. relatively distant earthquake is considered potentially highly
destructive. There is currently no way to prevent or predict earthquakes with a high
degree of accuracy. The severity of the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCEs) tor
the local and regional faults located near Arcadia range from an estimated 6.5 to 8.}
on the Richter scale. These MCEs correspond to ratings of VII to XII on the Modified
Mercalli Scale. indicating a potential for moderate to major damage to buildings and
infrastructure to occur.
The City's Multi.Hazard Functional Plan outlines the potential consequences of a
large earthquake. These consequences include the presence of displaced and injured
persons who could be caught by the earthquake and who cannot get out of the City due
to infrastructure damage. Hospitals and other emergency service providers could
potentially be overtaxed, depending on the severity of the earthquake and number of
injuries.
Effects of seismic shaking can best be prevented by either replacing or strengthening
existing structures, and by restricting new construction within known fault zones.
pursuant to requirements set forth in the Alquist Priolo Act. Damage to new buildings
caused by a major earthquake will be partially offset through compliance with the
Uniform Building Code design standards in new building construction. Since
construction under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1988) generally
takes into account shaking of up to approximately O.5g, no additional seismic
requirements would be necessary. Maximum bedrock acceleration values are
applicable to design or analysis of one-story and two-story residential structures. and
most commercial and industrial construction on bedrock sites or sites underlain by
relatively thin, firm alluvium (most of the General Plan study area). For medium
height or high-rise structures (four to ten stories and ten stories, respectively),
including all critical use or high cost facilities, development of a seismic response
program may be necessary for the specific site under consideration,
Future development associated with implementation of the proposed \996 General
Plan may be affected by the following secondary seismic impacts: liquefaction,
differential settlement, landslides/slope instability, and seiching. Potential secondary
seismic impacts to future development within the City are discussed below.
. Liquefaction. Due to regional seismic activity, liquefaction may occur in
portions of the City located within unconsolidated alluvium, depending on
the depth to groundwater, Liquefaction has been identified in portions of the
City near the Los Angeles County Arboretum. This condition exists today
and, although implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add
7/JO/96(A,\EXHlIllT.A)
25
WATER RESOURCES
incremental development. no increase in the exposure risk within the Cit\"
would occur. .
.
Diffe,ential Settlement. Due to regional seismic activity. differenlial
settlement may occur within a majority of the City due to the presence of
thick alluvial deposits that underlie the study area. This potential exists today;
and although implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add
incremental development. it will not substantially increase lhe exposure risk
within the City.
.
Landslides/Slope Instability. Due to regional seismic activity. future
residential and habitable structures within the portion of the study area along
the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern portion of the City may
be affected by landslides/slope instability. The potential exists for landslides;
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan does not propose
development within the identified area. Therefore, the risk does not increase
with implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
.
Seiching. Seiching may occur in existing reservoirs, dams and water tanks as
a result of regional seismic activity and damage to these facilities or
downstream development. This potential exists today; although
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add incremental
development, this additional development will not substantially increase the
exposure risk.
These conditions exist today, and the proposed General Plan provides additional
residential and employment opportunities that will increase lhe population in this
seismically active region. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations
addresses primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional seismic activity that
cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against the
facts set forth and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Effect Number J
Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan could potentially result in an
incremental increase in the quantities of these urban pollutants draining into the City's
storm drain system. Increased automobile traffic, use of landscaping chemicals. and
industrial chemical use will incrementally increase with the increase in land use
intensity proposed by the 1996 General Plan.
Finding
7/JO/96(A,\EXHlBIT.A)
26
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the proj<ct \\ hich
mitigate or avoid the signilicant effects 011 the environment. With implementation of
Ordinance No. 20 I 0 and lhe miligation measure identitied below. potential storm
water qllaliry impacts associated with construclion projecls of less than tive acres \\ ill
be reduced to below lhe level of signiticance. :vi itigation :-'leasure -lA-I stales:
-1.-1-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for construdion projects less lhan live
acres. the project applicant shall subm it to the Development Services Director
(or designee) for review and approval. a Drainage/Erosion Control Plan that
identifies site specific measures for the retention of siltation. sedimentalion.
and other pollutants on site during construction. Measures identitied in the
Plan shall be imposed as conditions of approval or otherwise incorporated into
the project. Such a plan shall be consistent with the requirements of
Ordinance No. 20 \ O. and include instructions for preparation prior to and
during storm events. normal and emergency procedures. and procedures
following storm events.
Facts in Suppon of Finding
Future development is required to comply with the requirements of lhe National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm water Permit as
outlined in the Los Angeles River Watershed Management Plan and City Ordinance
No. 2010. Compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Management
Plan and City Ordinance No. 2010 will result in impacts to long-term storm water
quality that are considered less than significant.
Temporary impacts may occur during the construction of large-scale developments.
The disturbance of surface soils and construction materials usage can result in
temporary increases in the quantities of sediments and hydrocarbons contained in the
storm water runoff. Implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMPS).
required as part of the NPDES Statewide Industrial Storm water Permit for General
Construction Activities, will result in impacts from urban runoff pollutants associated
with construction projects greater than five acres being considered less than
significant.
In addition, the Final EIR includes mitigation measures that require that prior to
issuance of grading permits for construction projects less than five acres. the project
applicant must submit to the Development Services Director (or designee) for review
and approval, a Drainage/Erosion Control Plan that identifies site specific measures
for the retention of siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants on site during
construction. Measures identified in the Plan must be imposed as conditions of
approval or otherwise incorporated into the project. Such a plan must also be
consistent with the requirements of City Ordinance No. 20 I O. and include instructions
for preparation prior to and during storm events, normal and emergency procedures,
and procedures following storm events.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
7/JO/96(A,\EXHlllIT.A)
27
BIOLOG1C.J.L RESOURCES
No potentially significant or significant impacts to biological resources have been
identified resulting from the proposed amendment and comprehensive update of lhe
Arcadia General Plan.
JIlNERAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect Numbe, <I
Loss of lhe availability of known significant mineral resources that would pOlemially
be of future value 10 the region and the residents of the State. as detined by lhe Slate
of Cali fomi a Division of Mines and Geology.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly (rained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Suppo,t of Finding
Although the Industrial designation proposed for the Lower Outsize Road Transition
Area would permit mining on the vacant properties known to contain commercial
grade mineral resources, other types of industrial use would also be allowed for
consideration by the City of Arcadia. If the City approves applications for non-mining
uses in the area west of the Livingston-Graham Quarry, the mineral resources wilhin
the property could not be excavated for contribution to the local (and/or regional) need
for aggregate materials. Given the statewide importance of MRZ-2 mineral resources,
the loss of access to the resources at this location would be significant to the
community. Mineral resources extracted within a given region will generally be
utilized for aggregate needs in that region, prior to being exported to other regions.
The reduction of available resources in Arcadia will expedite the eventual need to
import resource materials from other regions, which in turn will increase the cost of
building construction.
As such. th~ potential loss of access to the mineral resources in the western portion of
the Livingston-Graham Quarry, through potential future approval of non-mining
industrial uses, represents a significant, unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated.
CULTURAVSCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
,
Significant Effect Numbe, 5
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A)
28
Although it is not anticipated that General Plan build out will signiticantly impact any
historic. archeological. or paleontological resource in the General Plan sltld\" area.
individual development projects will be required to comply with City De\el~pmel1t
Performance Slandards of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project which
mitigate or avoid the signiticant effects on the environmenl.
Facts in Support of Finding
Most of Arcadia's historic resources are within publicly owned properties (i.e.. the
Los Angeles County Arboretum or U.S. Forest Service property). These protected
resources include the Queen Anne Cottage and Coach House, the Hugo Reid Adobe.
the Santa Anita Depot. and Historical Site CA-LAN-1868H. The proposed 1996
General Plan will not alter the existing land uses at the Los Angeles County
Arboretum or Forest Service property and, therefore. lhese resources will not be
directly affected and no impact will occur.
Future development proposals within privately owned historic sites could potentially
have indirect effects on historic structures if not designed with their protection in
mind. According to the proposed 1996 General Plan (Chapter 4.0 of the General
Plan. Cultural Resources Approach), new development will not be permitted to
adversely impact the historic context of significant historic resources.
The Santa Anita Park racetrack and its associated features, including the grandstand.
paddock. circular receiving barn, clubhouse, saddling stalls and stables, appear to be
eligible for the California Registe,. Potential future development proposals within the
portion of the race track designated Commercial could adversely affect the historic
and/or visual integrity of these facilities, although no direct physical impacts are
anticipated from site development. Each of the three development scenarios are
considered to have equal potential for disturbance of the historic setting and/or
visibility of the sites.
Outside of the Santa Anita racetrack, the remaining physical examples of the City's
history and cultural heritage, other than those identified above, are located on
individual parcels throughout the City (such as the Anoakia School).
An evaluation of the significance of such sites and potential effects of new and
redevelopment would need to be conducted on a site by site basis using the City's
development review process. Significant historic and cultural sites that show merit for
preservation will be judged using the criteria provided in Development Performance
Standards 37, 38 and 39 of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Compliance with
Development Performance Standards 37, 38, and 39 in the proposed 1996 General
Plan will reduce any potential future project specific impacts to cultural and scientific
resources thllt are considered less than significant.
7IJO/96(A,\EX~UBIT,A)
29
Based on a review of scientific (paleontological) resources. development within the
study area would have little or no effect on paleontolo\!ical resources with future
development projects due to the lack of geological formations that are known to have
a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of proposed 1996
General Plan Development Performance Standards 37. 38 and 39 pertainin\! to
paleontological resources will further reduce any potentia: impacts to these resou;ces.
if found.
AESTHETICS
Environmental Effect Numher 6
Implementation of development within Transition Area \ will result in a signiticant
localized visual impact to land uses adjacent to the transition area and existing views
from Huntington Drive.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers. make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
. environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
The visual character of lands within Transition Area I from adjacent off-site uses will
be significantly changed with development consistent with the proposed 1996 General
Plan. Overall, the open visual character of this area will be permanently altered and
the visual predominance of the grandstand structure will be lost as the open parking
areas, south of the existing racetrack grandstands, east of the mall, are filled with
commercial uses. Existing views of the racetrack grandstands from Huntington Drive.
and panoramic views of the San Gabriel Mountains from areas adjacent to the
transition area and Huntington Drive, will be limited due to the size of the land uses
proposed under any of the Development Scenarios identified in Chapter 3.0 of the
Final EIR. In addition, development of commercial uses has the potential for
introducing substantial new lighting sources into the area, including security lighting
of parking areas and signage for new uses. The significance of these impacts is
localized and will be less noticeable from the remainder of the City due to distance
from the area and the existence of intervening structures such as the Santa Anita
Fashion Park mall and residential and commercial uses.
Implementation of development within Transition Area I will result in a significant
localized visual impact to land uses adjacent to the transition area and existing views
from Huntington Drive. Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan programs
7/JO/96(A.\EXHlBlT.A)
30
included in General Plan Approach and Stratel!ies CD-I throu\!h CD-I] alld CD-I 7
through CD-22 identified in Chapter 2.0. and Development Performance Standards I
through Ill. will reduce potential effects on the existing viewshed adjacent to Transi-
tion Area I: however. residual impacts to localized views of the ~randstands \vill
remain signiticant and unavoidable. :"40 mitigation measures have be;n identitied that
can reduce this signiticant. unavoidable. adverse impact.
The remaining. unavoidable signiticant effect is acceptable when balanced a~ainst
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made b;(ow.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUL-lTION
Significant Effect Numher 7
Potential traffic related impacts from the planned Rodeffer Inert Landfill project on
Lower Azusa Road were addressed in the Rodeffer final EIR. City of Arcadia, \994.
The FEIR analysis projected that intersection levels of service would exceed threshold
levels of significance for Lower Azusa Roadll-60SIRivergrade Road northbound
ramps for all three peak hour periods, as well as one peak period of the southbound
ramp intersection. The remaining two peak hour periods for the southbound ramp
intersection would opi:rate at LOS D.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Rodeffer EIR traffic analysis concluded that no significant impacts would Occur at
the intersection of the site access and Lower Azusa Road, in that only \ 5 trucks per
hour would utilize the access for each of the 10 operating hours on the majority (72
percent) of the operating days. Therefore, the gaps in flow created by nearby
signalized intersections would allow truck egress even though the peak hour traffic on
Lower Azusa Road will be high. Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer FEIR
included 1) construction of an exclusive right turn lane and maintenance of two
through lanes at the Lower Azusa Road/I-605/Rivergrade Road, westbound approach;
and 2) construction of an exclusive right turn lane and maintenance of two through
lanes at the intersection of Lower Azusa Road/and I-605/Rivergrade Road, eastbound
approach. Based on the analysis conducted for the Rodeffer and General Plan FEIRs,
. with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, potential construction
traffic impacts are reduced to below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Numher 8
7/lC/%(A.\E){HlBlT.Al
31
As outlined in Appendix D of the proposed 1996 General Plan EIR. Hol1v .-\ \ ~lllIe
between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road is projected to operate at LOS F \\ ith
implementation of the proposed \ 996 General Plan. with any of the Development
Scenarios.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
As described under General Plan Analysis Methodology contained in the Traffic and
Circulation section of the Final EIR. a general screening level analysis was applied.
based on the forecast traffic volumes and distribution of traffic. to determine which
roadways may have unsatisfactory operational conditions under any of the
Development Scenarios. For those roadway segments that indicated unsatisfactory
conditions under the General Plan capacity criteria, a more refined evaluation was
conducted, utilizing roadway capacities. projected conditions. and directional assump-
tions that are more specific to the locations under review. For each of the
Development Scenarios. the refined analyses concluded that the levels of service for
all but two roadway segments would be acceptable and considered less than
significant. The roadways at unacceptable levels are Holly Avenue between
Huntington Drive, and Duarte Road and Michillinda A venue between Colorado and
Sunset Boulevards.
Mitigation is required to offset impacts resulting from traffic generated by future
development within the adjacent Transition Area I. Improvement of operations along
this section of Holly Avenue to LOS D or better would require mitigating the impacts
of traffic generated by future development within this designation through
intersection lane closures and directional traffic control, or widening the roadway
segment to four lanes.
With implementation of the EIR's Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, below. potential impacts
at Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road would be reduced to
below the level of significance as the result of either reducing the intensity of
development contributing traffic to this portion of Holly Avenue and/or by diverting
traffic from such development away from this portion of Holly Avenue.
4.9-1 Prior to any discretionary action within the Transition Area I, the project
applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Development Services
Director (or designee), a traffic study, prepared by a qualified traffic
engineering consultant, that analyzes the project's effect on level of service on
Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road. Where the study
indicates trip generation for the proposed development results in an
unacceptable level of service on this segment of Holly Avenue on a project
level, or contributes cumulatively to greater than LOS D, the traffic study
7/JO/96(A.\EXHlBlT.A)
32
shall identify appropriate measures to achieve acceptable levels of service:
these measures either will become conditions of approval of the project or \\ ill
be incorporated into the project. These measures mav include. but are not
limited to. the tollowing: .
.
Provision of neighborhood traffic control measures at Hollv Avenue/
Huntington Drive. such as turn lane restrictions. traftic di;erters "nd
lane closures to divert traffic awav from the roadwav se~ment. or
. . -
.
Designate Holly Avenue as a four lane roadway between Huntington
Drive and Duarte Road. and reserve right-ot~way at such time as
redevelopment of adjacent properties takes place.
Significant Effect Numher 9
Michillinda Avenue between Colorado Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard currently
operates at LOS E. and will continue to operate at LOS E with implementation of the
proposed 1996 General Plan and any of the Development Scenarios.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportUnities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As discussed previously, a more refined traffic evaluation was conducted. utilizing
roadway capacities, projected conditions, and directional assumptions that are more
specific to the locations under review. For each of the Development Scenarios, the re-
tined analyses concluded that the levels of service for all but two roadway segments
would be tlcceptable and considered less than significant. The roadways at
unacceptable levels are Holly A venue between Huntington Drive, and Duarte Road
and Michillinda Avenue between Colorado and Sunset Boulevards. As a result of this
analysis, it was concluded that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to
reduce the forecast levels of service on this roadway segment to acceptable levels and
resultant traffic impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses traffic impacts that cannot be
feasibly avoided. .
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
AIR QUALITY
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT.A)
33
Significant Effect Numher 10
Emissions from construction equipment from grading activities. construction activities
and building materials deliveries related to the build out of the General Plan will result
in short term increases in significant air quality emissions in the General Plan studv
area and within the South Coast Air Basin. -
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. includinl!
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers. make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction equipment will create exhaust pollutants from grading actiVities.
construction activities and building materials deliveries. Quantification of pollutant
emissions associated with construction of the development identified in the proposed
\996 General Plan would be speculative at this time. Since estimates of construction
emissions are highly dependent on the location. size and construction schedule of a
project. any attempt to quantify construction emissions at this level of planning may
lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the significance of potential impacts. It is
appropriate to require planned developments or individual projects to assess the
potential significance of their construction emissions.
Depending on the level of construction performed at anyone time. potentially
significant impacts may be generated due to the use of heavy equipment and
associated equipment and construction vehicle trips. Depending upon the extent to
which these measures are applicable and actually applied. the proposed mitigation can
reduce construction equipment emissions by as much as 40 percent. With phasing of
construction and equipment selection, these impacts may be mitigated to a level that is
less than significant. The proposed dust mitigation measures would control
approximately 50 percent of expected dust generation. The Final EIR includes
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, which requires that:
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. project applicants
shall submit a mitigation plan for both constrUction equipment exhaust and
fugitive dust impacts to the Development Services Director (or designee), for
review and approval. No construction will be conducted prior to approval of
this plan. This Plan shall be included as a condition of approval for the
project or incorporated into the project design. The Plan shall include but not
be limited to the following (the City shall verify use of the plan measures
during regular site inspections):
7/JO/%(A.\EXHlllIT.A)
34
. Trucks used for hauling excess material shall be covered to minimize
loss of material. and nagmen will be utilized to assist construction
trucks moving into traffic.
. The contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rules -IO~. -103. which
restricts fugitive dust emissions. Measures outlined in the plan shall
include. but not be limited to: dailv watering of graded areas. washinn
of equipment tires before leavin'g the co;stru~tion site. and use o~'
SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers or soil binders.
. During construction. the contractor shall discontinue all construction
activities on the project site during first and second stage smog alerts.
or when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour.
. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly serviced
so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor will ensure that
all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained
through written documentation to the Development Services Director
(or designee.)
. The contractor shall provide evidence that low emission mobile con-
struction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated
and found to be infeasible for the project.
Since the City cannot control the amount of concurrent construction occurring at any
given time. there is potential for pollutant emissions associated with construction
activities within the City to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria and result in
significant, unavoidable adverse short-tenn air quality impacts. Therefore. the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term air quality impacts that
cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Effect Number 11
Emissions resulting from the implementation of a proposed inert landfill within a
former quarry site (Rodeffer property) at the southern end of the srudy area, will
generate PM" emissions which exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
7IJOI96(A,\EXl-llBIT .A)
35
Facts in Support of Finding
Regardin"g the potential impacts from implementation of the planned inert landtil\ un
the Rodeffer property in the southeast section of the General Plan stud v area. the
Rodeffer Final EIR (Engineering Science. 1994) concluded that th~ ti\'e dav
construction period of that project (site preparation and mad paving) would generat~
emissions from CO. ROG. NO,. and So, that would be below the threshold levels.
Levels of PM" over two of those days. however. would exceed threshold levels.
Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer EIR will reduce the significant
emissions to below threshold levels for all emissions with exception of PM,..
The operational phases of the project (8 to 12 years of filling of the existing quarry pit
with a total of 10 million cubic yards of inert material) would generate emissions from
mobile sources (truck trips to and from the property and off-site source locations. and
truck trips within the site to move the material around). Stationary source emissions
and PM" were also projected for the landfill period. Concentrations of CO at live
receptors were also modeled, and determined to be less than SCAQMD threshold
levels. The total projected daily emissions exceeded the SCAQMD's thresholds of
significance for ROG, NO, and p~o on worst case (600 truck trips per day) and
average (300 truck trips per day) days and were identified as significant impacts.
Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer EIR to reduce emissions impacts
include: 1) discontinuation of operations during Stage 1I smog alert conditions: 2)
maintenance of all construction vehicles and equipment in proper tune: and 3) use of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on construction equipment, including
retarding the ignition timing of diesel engines and would reduce potential impacts.
Remaining air pollutant emissions were identified as significant. unavoidable impacts.
Therefore. the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term air quality
impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Eff~ct Numher 12
Long-term operational emissions related to motor vehicles, on-site combustion (space
and water heating) as well as off-site generation of electrical power will increase air
quality emissions in the General Plan study area and within the Air Basin.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
7/JO/%(A.\EXHlBlT.^l
36
While long-term emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor vehicles [0
access a site. nominal emissions are also I!enerated indirectlv with on-site combustion
" - .
involved in both space and water heating and off-site generation of electrical po\\" er.
Emissions associated with build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan includinlZ
Development Scenarios A. B. and C are identified in Tables 4.10.0 throul!h 4.1 O.F or'
the Final EIR. The breakdown of emissions for the existing General P';n build out
scenario is provided in Appendix H of the Final EIR. Implementation of the proposed
1996 General Plan will result in total daily emissions that exceed SCAQMD threshold
criteria. To identify t~e incremental increase associated with build out of the proposed
\ 996 General Plan. potential air quality impacts are based on a comparison of the
differential emission levels between the existing and the proposed 1996 General Plans
and SCAQMD criteria.
As outlined in Tables 4.10.D, E and F, in the absence of mitigation. emissions from
each identified source will exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for all General Plan
scenarios. resulting in significant air quality impacts. Compliance with the City's
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and Title 24 of the Uniform Building
Code. and implementation of General Plan Strategies ER-S through ER-S regarding
Transportation Improvements and System Management. ER-9 through ER-13
regarding Transportation Demand Management, ER-14 through ER-1S regarding land
use planning, ER-16 regarding waste recycling, and ER-21 through 30 and
Development Performance Standard 34 regarding energy conservation will reduce
potential emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Remaining emissions are expected
to continue to exceed the criteria, and would be significant unavoidable adverse
impacts resulting from build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Therefore. the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses long-term air quality impacts that
cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
NOISE
Significant Effect Numh~r 11
Although the City is largely built out, implementation of the 1996 General Plan may
result in short-term noise impacts during construction.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
.
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT.A>
37
Facts iti Support of Finding
Some noise.disturbance in adjacent existing noise sensitive areas is expected during
construction of any development. These disturbances may result from demolition. site
preparation and construction of new buildings. Construction typically requires the use
of a number of pieces of heavy equipment. such as bulldozers. backhoes. loaders.
concrete mixers. etc. In addition. trucks. both heavy an(j light. are otien required to
move excavated material and to deliver gravel. concrete. lumber and other materials.
Typical noise impacts associated with construction activities are described in section
4.1 I of the Final EIR.'
Although construction noise is generally a short-term impact. there is a potential tor
disruption of nearby sensitive receptors ifsteps are not taken to '.imit the intensity and
duration of their noise exposure. The City of Arcadia's Building Code limits any
construction related activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday, and prohibits construction work on Sundays and federal holidays.
Compliance with the City of Arcadia Building Code and Mitigation Measure 4.11-1
described below and contained in the Final EIR will reduce potential short-term con-
struction impacts resulting from general development within the study area to below
the level of significance.
4.11-1 Prior to issuance of any entire structure demolition. grading or building
permit, the permit applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan to
the Development Services Director (or designee). for review and approval.
The Plan shall describe the measures that will be implemented during
demolition/construction activities to reduce off-site noise impacts from
construction equipment to within the instantaneous noise standards identitied
in the City's Noise Ordinance. These measures shall become conditions of
project approval or incorporated into the project design. These measures shall
include but not be limited to the following:
. Use of quieter machinery
. Use of noise mufflers/silencers, hush kits. or other mechanical
methods to muffle external noise
. Locating stockpiling, vehicle staging areas, and other noisy activities
away from noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, schools, day-
care, and recreational facilities).
The Plan shall also provide for periodic monitoring reports, to the approval of
the Director, documenting Plan implementation.
The Final EIR (Arcadia. 1994) for the Rodeffer landfill project found that significant
noise impacts at nearby residences would result from the filling operation itself and
from trucks entering the site with fill material. Mitigation measures identitied in the
FEIR include: limiting the allowable noise levels emitted from construction
equipment to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; limiting hours of operation and access
on site; construction of six foot high walls at adjacent residences for those residences
that do not currently have solid walls; and increasing the existing wall height rom 6 to
7/JO/96(A.\EXHlBIT.A)
38
12 feet at adjacent residences as the tilling operation moves .:loser to the residences
(approximately in the seventh year of the operation). It \\ as determined in the FE I R
that. with implementation of these mitigation measures. potentiallv signiticant noise
impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance. .-
PCBllC HEAL TH rHAZ-tRDSj
Significant Effect Numha U
Build out of the General Plan will have the potential to increase the demand tor
emergency services and facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identitied in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan will allow additional incremental development
throughout the City, and particularly in designated transition areas. The total number
of persons within the City at anyone time that could be subjected to injury from one
of these catastrophic events would be greater than under the existing General Plan.
Depending on the nature and scale of the event. the total number of emergency
personnel needed for adequate emergency response would vary substantially. When
the City's resources are committed to an emergency response and when additional
materials and/or personnel are required to' respond to the emergency, requests for
mutual aid would be initiated. These requests would be directed to nearby cities. the
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and, ultimately, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The presence of an incrementally greater
number of injured persons within the City would result in the City's emergency
personnel being overtaxed. In such a case, it is expected that surrounding jurisdictions
would also be impacted and unable to provide sufficient emergency personnel backup;
in these events, mutual aid assistance is provided from outside the immediate area.
Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan may result in additional
congestion along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, the main evacuation
routes out of Arcadia identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, during a
large-scale evacuation from the central portion of the City. Wi!h implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.12-2, the potential for increased evacuation delays
from the incremental increase in permanent residents, daytime work force and
nighttime patrons is reduced to below the level of significance.
7/JO/96(A.\EXHIBIT.A)
39
.\.11- I Prior to issuance of building permits for any development of .\00.000 ,qUJre
feet or greater. the Emergency Services Ofticer shall modi(v the City's
emergency response protocol and available emergency response resources.
outlined in the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. to accommodate the additional
increment of development allowed by the proposed 1996 General Plan. Such
moditications shall ensure that the existing leve! of service is maintained.
.\.12-2 Prior to issuance of building permits. project proponents shall demonstrate
that the proposed development will have a neutral effect on the City's ability
to implement the emergency evacuation procedures and routes identitied in
the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. If a negative effect is identitied.
alternative procedures for evacuation of new residents. employees. or patrons
shall be identified and documented for review and approval by the
Development Services Director (or designee). Alternative evacuation
procedures shall be conditions of project approval or shall be incorporated
into the design of the proposed development.
Significant Effut Numhu 15
[mplementation of the 1996 General Plan may result in additional congestion along
Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, the main evacuation routes out of Arcadia
identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, during a large-scale evacuation
from the central portion of the City.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The 1996 General Plan will allow additional incremental development throughout the
City, and particularly in designated transition areas. As a result, traffic will be
increased along the evacuation routes identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional
Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.[2-2, identified
above, the potential for increased evacuation delays from the incremental increase in
permanent residents, daytime work force and nighttime patrons will be reduced to
below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Numher 16
Build out of the General Plan will increase the demand for fire prevention and
suppression services.
7 /lO/96(A.\EXHIllIT .AI
40
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project \\ hich
mitigate or avoid the signiticant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
Conditions in the Angeles National Forest. located just nonh of the northern-most
portions of Arcadia. pose a high fire danger risk. The existing residences adjacent to
the mouth of Santa Anita Canyon are located in an area topographically conducive to
rapid spreading of wildland tires. Fires staning down slope from homes could quickly
travel up the steep slopes. engulfing residences. Fires started up slope of residences
within Santa Anita Canyon could be pushed down the canyon by strong Santa Ana
winds. Due to the high fire potential in this area. measures to protect existing and
future residences are necessary. According to the local office of the U.S. Forest
Service. one oflhe primary lines of defense for fighting fires in these areas of the City
is the maintenance of Chantry Flats Road. which. runs through three jurisdictions
(cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, and the Angeles National Forest). and must
remain clear and in good condition so as to offer adequate access to slopes above the
City.
The existing and proposed 1996 General Plan designations for the nonhernmost
ponion of the City are for residential uses with a density of 0-4 units per acre.
Presently. much of this area is vacant and undeveloped. Compounding this problem.
the Arcadia Fire Department has identified most of the area north of Elkins Avenue to
be a Deficient Zone due to slower response times of more than five or six minutes to
reach this ponion of the City ("Fire Station Location Study," City of Arcadia Fire
Department. See Figure 4.13.2).
The proposed 1996 General Plan includes several wildland fire management strategies
to reduce potential fire risks. Compliance with Development Performance Standards
24 through 26 and 30, Municipal Facilities and Services Performance Standards
outlined in Table 6-B, and Mitigation Measure 4.12.-3 will result in fire hazard effects
that are considered less than significant.
4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for projects located in designated fire
hazard zones, proposed site plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshall (or
designee) and Development Services Director (or designee) for review and
approval demonstrating that sufficient evacuation routes and adequate water
pressure or fire flows exist. Grading perrnits will not be issued until sufficient
evacuation routes, water pressure, or fire flow facilities can be reliably
provided.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Significant Effect Numher /7
7 /JO/96(A. \EX~UBlT.A)
41
Due to the existing local and regional transit opportunities in the Cit\'. the land use
changes provided in the proposed 1996 General Plan potentially gen;rate additional
incremental demand on transit services in the City.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project \\hich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
This increased demand may require expansion of existing services. including
increased frequency of service or addition of new transit lines. In addition. General
Plan Strategies FS-Il and IJ regarding pursuing shuttle service between major
destinations within the City and a station along the MT A light rail line and promoting
use of public transit through development of convenient and attractive facilities will
also contribute to increased demand for transit facilities and services. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 outlined below. potential additional
demands to transit facilities and services will be reduced to below the level of
significance.
4.13-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit. the permit applicant shall provide
written evidence to the Development Services Director (or designee) tor
review and approval that the Metropolitan Transit Authority and/or Foothill
Transit as applicable has been contacted regarding potential construction and
operational effects to existing and planned facilities. Where potential
construction and/or operational impacts would affect transit facilities or
routes, mitigation shall be identified in writing by the permit applicant. and
shall include but not be limited to:
. Provision and maintenance of acceptable clearance between construc-
tion activities and transit facilities.
. Transit purveyors must be notified a minimum of two weeks prior to
any roadway closure adjacent to existing transit facilities.
. Incorporation of bus stops, shelters, park and ride lots or other types
of facilities into project design.
This document must include documentation that the transit provider agrees
with the mitigation proposed by the permit applicant. Identified
improvements shall be conditions of project approval or incorporated into
project design.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
7 IJO/96(A.\EXHIBlT.A)
42
Significant Effect Numher 18
The proposed 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentiall\'
result in additional demand tor telephone and cable television services. .
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Master EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The expected increase in demand may result in the extension of existing facilities or
may impact facilities during construction. Implementation of General Plan Strategy
FS-20. which identifies ongoing coordination with utility providers to ensure long-
term provision of services. and Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 below will reduce potential
impacts to telephone and cable television services to below the level of signiticance.
4.13-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit. the permit applicant shall provide
written evidence for review and approval of the Development Services
Director (or designee) that affected utility purveyors. including telephone.
cable television. natural gas, electricity. water, wastewater and solid waste.
have been contacted regarding potential construction and operational effects
to existing and planned facilities. Where potential construction and/or
operational impacts would affect existing facilities or system capacity.
specific mitigation shall be identified in writing by the permit applicant. This
document must include a statement that the utility provider agrees with the
mitigation proposed by the permit applicant. Identified improvements shall
be conditions of project approval or incorporated into project design.
Significant Effect Numher./9
The estimated increase in demand for electricity and natural gas may require the
extension or expansion of existing facilities or may impact facilities during
construction.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
7/l0/96(A.\EXHllllT.A)
43
Facts in Support of Finding
Daily natural gas and electricity consumption will increase by approximately 310. -169
cubic feet and 121.323 kilowatt hours under build out of the proposed 1996 General
Plan with Development Scenario A. Build out with Development Scenarios Band C
would have reduced levels of consumption. as illustrated in Table -I.13.C.
Development Scenario B build out is estimated to consume an additional 2-13.786
cubic feet and 76.971 kilowatt hours per day. Development Scenario C build out is
estimated to consume an additional 285.153 cubic feet and 94.215 kilowatt hours per
day.
Implementation of General Plan Strategy FS-20. which identifies ongoing
coordination with utility providers to ensure long-term provision of services. and
Mitigation Measure 4.13-2. outlined above, will reduce potential impacts to natural
gas and electricity services to below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Numher 20
Potentially significant impacts to solid waste service may result with implementation
of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Specifically, build out of any of the proposed
General Plan Scenarios may require additional solid waste service facilities to
supplement the e)(isting facilities at the Puente Hills Landfill and the Bradley Landfill.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Master EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed General Plan approach for solid waste management is to implement the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The SRRE was prepared by
the City in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
commonly referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 939. AB 939 requires that all California
cities prepare and implement a plan to reduce the amount of waste going to regional
landfills by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.
According to the City's SRRE, the remaining landfill capacity in the entire County is
projected to be exhausted by the year 1999, or possibly as soon as 1996 given specific
limitations associated with certain landfills. The City's SRRE plans waste reduction
measures that are expected to achieve a diversion rate of nearly 56 percent by the year
2000. Measures implemented to date include mandatory residential and nonresidential
recycling. The actual waste diversion realized under build out of the proposed 1996
General Plan. and the additional development intensities therewith, may be slightly
7/JO/96(A:\EXHlBlT.A)
44
less than 56 percent since the estimates in Ihe SRRE were based on ll)ql) W3Sle
generation data. However. the City will be required 10 comply with .-\B 93'J and meet
the minimum 50 percent diversion. through the implementation of its SRRE as
included in Table 6-B of the proposed 1996 General Plan development performance
standards. The City will monitor Ihe level of waste diversion throul!hoUI build out of
the proposed 1996 General Plan in order to ascertain compliance with the 50 percent
reduction mandate. As a result. no significant impact 10 solid waste facilities will be
generated by the proposed 1996 General Plan.
RECREATION
Significant Effect Numher 21
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase of residents to
the City, and an increase in the demand for recreational facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
Currently. active and passive parks are located throughout the City within a one mile
radius of all residential development. Since all potential residential areas of the City
have already been designated for residential uses, land use transitions provided for in
the proposed 1996 General Plan only intensify existing residential areas, and do not
propose changes of nonresidential uses to residential uses. Therefore, additional
residents of the City will reside in existing residential areas and will have park
facilities within a one mile radius. Any potential effects will be further reduced
through implementation of Development Performance Standard 23 of the proposed
1996 General Plan, which requires all new residential development to pay
development fees to be established by the City for the provision of parks and
recreational facilities. Potential effects to recreational resources associated with build
out of the proposed 1996 General Plan are thus considered to be less than significant.
CUMUU T/VE IMPACTS
Significant Cumulative Effect Numher I
The build out of the proposed General Plan would allow intensified development in
the transition areas, in combination with other future incremental development in
underdeveloped parcels throughout the remainder of the City and, as such. would
incrementally contribute to increased exposure of people, structures and property to
ground shaking and surface rupture as a result of earthquakes.
7/JO/96(A:\EXH[JllT.A)
45
Finding
Specific economic. legal. social. technological. or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities tor hi~hlv trained
workers. make infeasible the mitil!ation measures or :;Itematives ideniiti~d in the
environmental impact report.
. Facts in Support of Finding
Additional residents in the City and its sphere of influence would potentially be
exposed to primary and secondary seismic hazards under the proposed 1996 General
Plan due to the relatively close proximity of the Raymond Hill and Sierra Madre Fault
Zones. At a more regional level. seismic activity along the San Andreas Fault. which
traverses Los Angeles. San Bernardino. Riverside, Ventura and Imperial Counties.
will likely affect a larger population with these impacts.
Standards and procedures required by the Alquist-Priolo Act will be required for
development projects in the City during application plan check and permitting phases.
In addition, General Plan mitigation measures specified in Section 4.3 relative to re-
placement or strengthening of existing structures per City code, restriction of
construction in known fault zones. adherence of construction of new buildings to the
Uniform Building Code, and geologic monitoring and implementation of soil
techniques to reduce the potential for liquefaction in prone areas shall be
implemented. and will reduce these impacts to below significant levels. However.
even with implementation of the standards and mitigation measures described above,
these potential primary seismic impacts are considered to be significant, since seismic
events cannot be prevented but are known to be an imminent danger. The:'dore. the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses primary and secondary cumulative
seismic hazard effects that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulative Effect Numher Z
Build our of the General Plan study area will increase the demand for water from
underlying regional water basins. Since this impact to water supply is regionally
significant without successful provision of additional sources, the City of Arcadia's
incremental demand for water supply remains a cumulatively significant unavoidable
adverse impact.
Finding uti"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
7/ JO/96(A.\EXHIIllT.A)
46
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan land uses would contribute towards the cumulative
draw on the East and West Units of the Raymond Groundwater Basin and the \'lain
San Gabriel Basin. Safe yields for City of Arcadia established for each basin bv the
adjudication proceedings are as follows: .
Raymond Basin (East Unit) - 3.526 acre. feet per year
Raymond Basin (West Unit) - 2.118 acre-feet per year
Main San Gabriel Basin - 9.308 acre-feet per year
Any amount of water used over the safe yield must be replaced by purchasing
replenishment water either from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) or other
jurisdictions' groundwater supplies.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (RCP FEIR) divided the
poteritial regional water supply impacts into MWD and Non-MWD areas. MWD
forecasts that, for their service areas, a 29.2 percent increase in water demand will
result by the year 20 I 0' due to the projected population growth. A water supply
shortfall of 54.000 acre feet (average rainfall years) is projected for the MWD areas in
the year 20 I 0 due to the constraints affecting future water sources combined with the
projected growth trends. This potential shortfall was identified as a significant impact
to the MWD service areas prior to mitigation.
In accordance with the Upper District's Urban Water Management Plan, the State
Water Project (SWP) may not be able to fulfill all of its contractual water delivery
requirements in the future. Sources and quality ofSWP water directly affect its ability
to meet the contractual commitment; for example, as local use of water in northern
California increases, supply to the SWP may be reduced. Currently, the SWP can
deliver approximately 2.1 million acre-feet per year on a firm yield basis. whereas the
Project's contractual commitment is about 4.2 million acre-feet. As such, additional
supplies must be developed. The Monterey Agreement, finalized in 1994. is a
separate agreement reached by SWP contractors and is the basis for an amendment to
MWD's water supply contract with the State of California. The Agreement prescribes
actions by which water management can be improved through more flexible use by
the contractors of existing SWP storage and water conveyance facilities and through
the opportunity for urban contractors to purchase agricultural water entitlements
( Urban Water Management Plan, Chapter III).
Data was not available for 2015; however, the SCAG RCP FEIR states that
the population of the SCAG Region will increase by 1.5 million people
between the years 2010 and 2015 and that, if no additional water sources are
found by 2010, the significance of the impact will be worsened (RCP FEIR,
Vol. II, page 7.7).
7/JO/96(A.\EXHllllT.A)
47
The Regional Urban Water .\lanagemelll P/anfor the .\lelropaiilan Waler District a{
SOlllhern California (M\VD. October. 1995) projects water demand tor the municip~1
and industrial uses in :l.1WD's service area u{ilizin~ t"orecasted lon~-term
demographics (population. housing and employment) from -adopted regional grow th
management plans provided by SCAG and San Die\!? Association of Governments
(SANDAG). specifically the 1993 Regional CcJmpreh~nsi,'e Plan and Gaide (adopted
June. 19(4) and the Preliminary Series 8 Forecasls issued by SANDAG (September.
1993). MWD's water demand forecasts also incorporate current and future water
conservation measures. The forecasts indicate a projected increase in demand of one
million acre-feet between 1994 and 20 I O. or an increase of 31 percent.
Mitigation measures specified in the RCP FEIR included development of incentives.
educational programs and policies for private and public areas to encourage water
conservation, thereby reducing water demand: obtaining 0.45 million acre feet (MAF)
of Colorado River water through implementation of certain programs (specitic pro-
grams listed in FEIR Mitigation Measure 7.1 b); obtaining 0.20 MAF of additional
water in an average year, and 1.13 MAF in a minimum year from the SWP through
specifically identified new water facilities and transfers (listed in RCP FEIR
Mitigation Measure 7.1c); implementation of water transfer programs to increase
water supplies; expansion and implementation of wastewater reclamation programs by
0.27 MAF per year; expansion and implementation of groundwater recovery programs
by 0.10 MAF per year; obtaining conservation of 0.56 MAF per year through
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPS) in combination with existing
conservation practices; making optimum use of desalinization technology; optimizing
use of groundwater and surface water storage and conveyance facilities though
conjunctive use programs and approved and proposed capital improvement projects to
increase distribution system flexibility and reliability; improvement of water
distribution reliability and flexibility through the implementation of new conveyance.
treatment and storage facilities; and other processes and drought management
programs.
MWD has developed a water conservation program to achieve and maintain a high
level of water use efficiency in its service area. The primary components of the
conservation program include active participation in the statewide implementation of
BOPS; water conservation research and development to define the reliable yield from
existing conservation programs and to improve the design and targeting of future
programs; economic and financial incentives to encourage efficient use of water in
MWD's service area; and public information and education activities to spread
knowledge of water and techniques for its efficient use (Regional Urban Waler
Management Plan, Demand Side Management (Conservalion) and Public Affairs
Programs chapter). In the Memorandum of Underslanding (MOU) Regarding Urban
Waler CO'lservalion Desl Managemenl Praclices signed by MWD, other water
agencies, environmental and other public interest groups, commitments were made to
the implementation of the current BOPS (Table III-2 of the Water Management Plan)
and development of other, improved management practices.
The RCP FEIR concluded that the above measures will reduce the regional impact on
water supplies to below the level of significance. The City of Arcadia is responsible
for implementation of the General Plan Strategies prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this
7 IJO/96(A. \EXHIBlT.A)
48
EIR and the Development Performance Standards outlined in Chapter 6.0 of the
proposed 1996 General Plan. Theretore. all si~niticant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been avoided or- substantiallv lessened bv miti~ation
measures identitied in the Final EIR. '. -
Finding "h"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been. or can and should be. adopted by that other agency
Facts in Support of Finding
Although the City's demand for water supply incrementally contributes to the regional
demand, the City's growth projections are well below those of SCAG and accounted
for by MWD forecasts. However. the reduction of cumulative impacts to the regional
water supply is dependent upon successful implementation of the RCP and member
agency mitigation measures. In that the City of Arcadia does not have complete
control or responsibility for successful implementation of the SCAG RCP mitigation
measures, and that the impact to water supply is regionally significant without
successful provision of additional sources, the City of Arcadia's incremental demand
for water supply remains a cumulatively significant unavoidable adverse impact.
Therefore. the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses cumulative water
supply impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulative Effect Numher J
Increased storm water pollutants generated in the General Plan study area would po-
tentially flow downstream into drainage in other jurisdictions, combining with
pollutants there to create a cumulative pollutant loading in surface waters downstream.
Finding "a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Suppon of Finding
The RCP FEIR provides water quality data on regional surface water bodies: for the
San Gabriel River, water quality problems were identified as including threat of
elevated fish tissue levels, threat of toxic bioassay results. and threat of drinking water
impairment (Table 7-\3, RCP FEIR, Volume I, State of the Region Report). The San
7/JO/96(A,\EXHIIllT.A)
49
Gabriel Valley contains major groundwater basins that serve Arcadia and vicinitv.
Regionally, groundwater quality is commonly impaired with salinity. nitrates al;d
sulfates. .
Primary pollutants ofconcem ....ithin the cumulative study area are nitrogen and phos-
phorus compounds from urban lawns and plant bed fertil;zers: pesticides. herbicides,
trace metals from street surfaces and urban products; and detergents and petro-
chemicals from vehicle and building maintenance. Future development allowed under
the proposed 1996 General Plan will increase the quantities of these pollutants in
storm water. Increased vehicular traffic, use of landscaping chemicals. and industrial
chemical uses will all contribute an incremental increase in the cumulative levels of
pollutants. Increased storm water pollutants generated in the General Plan studv area
would potentially flow downstream into drainage in other jurisdictions. combining
with pollutants there to create a cumulative pollutant loading in surface waters
downstream.
BMPS and other water qua(ity mitigation measures (including preparation of erosion
control plans as part of permits for specific development proposals) will reduce the
levels of pollutants carried in the storm water flow; however. the measures would not
completely eliminate the additional pollutants resulting from the increases in develop-
ment intensities allowed by the proposed 1996 General Plan.
The RCP FEIR concluded that, prior to implementation of regional mitigation
measures, there would be a significant impact of degradation of surface water qua(ity
as a result of short-term construction impacts and long-term development and
additional highway runoff impacts. Both point and non-point source discharges will
be increased because of population growth and associated development projected tor
the SCAG region. The RCP FEIR identified that surface water bodies that could be
potentially affected by generated pollutants include the west fork of the San Gabriel
River, approximately eight to ten miles south of Arcadia. Mitigation measures
prescribed in the RCP FEIR included SCAG's encouragement of watershed
management programs with local governments in the primary role; SCAG to playa
coordinating role in watershed management efforts at the subregional level; SCAG to
develop a priority listing of water quality projects and actively pursue federal and
State grants to obtain funding for these projects; and SCAG to work with jurisdictions
that have NPDES permits for storm water to prepare an evaluation of feasible BOPS
for use by member local jurisdictions. SCAG determined that implementation of these
mitigation measures would reduce the potential degradation of surface water quality.
groundwater quality, and decreased groundwater recharge (the latter two impacts were
also determined significant before mitigation> to below levels of significance at the
regional level. It is noted that SCAG is responsible for the successful implementation
of these RCP mitigation measures pertaining to water quality.
Implementation of the General Plan mitigation measures prescribed in See
combination with the Development Performance Standards contained in
of the proposed 1996 General Plan, will reduce the cumulative COnt
potential water quality impacts of the proposed 1996 General Plan to belc'
significance.
'n 4.4, in
ter 6.0
ion of
ovels of
7/JO/96(A.\EXHlBlT.A)
50
All significant environmental effects that can feasiblv be avoided have been avoiJed
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures iden'titied in the Final EI R.
Finding "b"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been. or can and should be. adopted by that other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated above, SCAG is responsible for the successful implementation of these RCP
mitigation measures pertaining to water quality.
Significant Cumulative Effect Numher-l
The potential construction of flood control facilities in the Santa Anita Wash could
involve removal of portions of the existing oak woodland and riparian plant com-
munities in the upper end of that flood zone. Removal of these sensitive habitats,
identified as at-risk habitats in the RCP, would create a significant cumulative
biological impact within the region and State.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan (Environmental Resources Chapter, Biological
Resources) specifies that sensitive habitat such as oak woodland and riparian/wetlands
must be protected in place unless certain criteria or conditions are met (e.g.,
improvements necessary for water conservation or flood control). Project specific
mitigation (Section 4.5) and Development Performance Standards 31, 32, and 33 in
Chapter 6.0 of the proposed 1996 General Plan require that any future flood control
facilities constructed in this zone must maintain the value ofthe area of wildlife usage
and habitation. The mitigation specifies that a qualified biologist will be engaged to
study any proposed developments of flood facility improvements and to specify
measures to ensure the retention of the habitat value.
Proposals for land development adjacent to biologically sensitive areas must consider
sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors. There is a potential cumulative biological
impact from future development adjacent to Arcadia Wilderness Park due to
disruption of wildlife movement through the Park to and from existing open space in
the City. (The same impact would occur under the existing General Plan.) Biological
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT.A)
51
habitat studies and permit requirements are specitied as miti!,\ation for future dev'e1op-
ment proposals. These mitigation measures and proposed 1996 General Plan
Development Perlormance Standards will reduce the potential impact to a level kss
than significant.
All signiticant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
Significant Cumulative Effect Numher 5
The potential development of non-mining industrial uses in the area west of the
Livingston-Graham quarry would represent an incremental significant cumulative ad-
verse impact to the regional goals for mineral access and use.
Finding
Specific economic. legal. social, technological, or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan retains the existing General Plan designation of
Industrial uses on the western portion of the Livingston-Graham quarry resource area
that is in Arcadia (Clark Street and vicinity). However, the Industrial use designation
for this area does not guarantee mining of the known mineral resources within
Arcadia's portion of the Livingston-Graham site. If mineral extraction on this site
were to occur, that use would contribute beneficially towards the goals of the SCAG
region and State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act for provision of mineral
resources to the aggregate industry and development of policies for long-term
management of mineral resources. If other industrial uses were approved for the area
around Clark Street, the significant MRZ-2 resources in this area would not be
accessible to future extraction, and this portion of the regional resource would be lost
for production-consumption uses.
At the General Plan level, it cannot be ascertained absolutely whether the removal of
access to the resources contained within the subject property would or would not be
significant to the region. Future development applications for the property will
require separate environmental analysis, which will include specific investigations to
determine whether non-mining uses would be significant in relation to the San Gabriel
P-C Region and State reserves and non-permitted resources. Although the vacant area
potentially available for mining adjacent to the existing Livingston-Graham sand and
gravel operation is relatively small (approximately 6.8 acres),.the potential cumulative
impact of implementing other industrial development (non-mining) of this property is
determined to be significant, given the regional significance of the aggregate
7/JO/96(A.\EXHlBlT.A)
52
resources. Therefore. the Statement of Overridinl! Considerations addresses
cumulativt: mineral use and access impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining. unavoidable signiticant effect is acceptable when balanced a~ainst
facts set torth above and in the Statement of Overridinl! Considerations made b;low
- .
Sil:nijicant Cumulative Effect Numher 6
Short.term cumulative impacts will result in impacts to local areas \\ ithin the
cumulative study area from exhaust emissions generated by grading equipment.
construction activities. and building material deliveries.
Finding ~'a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
All future approved projects within the cumulative study area must reduce emissions
to the extent feasible. since the region is an area of non-attainment for ozone and
PM,.. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 in Section 4.10 for construction
activities within the City requires preparation of a mitigation plan to control
construction vehicle/equipment emissions and dust. Implementation of the plan
components will reduce project construction air quality impacts to the degree feasible:
however, since the City cannot control the amount of concurrent construction activity
in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). nor the application of mitigation for all region-
wide constrUction work. the potential exists for pollutant emissions to exceed
established threshold criteria, resulting in a significant cumulative unavoidable
adverse impact.
The proposed mitigation measures included in the Arcadia 1996 General Plan EIR
Section 4.10 can reduce emissions from construction equipment up to 40 percent.
There is the potential to reduce these short-term emissions to below a level of signifi-
cance, depending on the type of construction equipment used and the phasing of the
work. Yet, the potential remains for exceedance of construction emissions over the
threshold criteria, causing a significant, adverse short-term cumulative impact.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
Finding "h"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be. adopted by that other agency.
7 /JO/96(A.\EXHllllT .A)
53
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated previously. all future approved projects within the cumulative studv area
must reduce emissions to the extent feasible pursuant to the re~ional Air r)ualitv
\Ianagement Plan (AQMPl. since the region is an area of non-a;ainment tor ozon~
and PM II)' Although the General Plan includes air quality mitigation measure 4.\ 0-1
in Section 4.10 tor construction activities within the Citv. the Citv cannot control the
amount of concurrent construction activity in the SCAB. nor'the application of
mitigation for all region-wide construction work. Therefore. the potential exists tor
pollutant emissions to exceed established threshold criteria. resulting in a signiticant
cumulative unavoidable adverse impact.
Finding He,t
Specific economic, legal, social. technological, or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As is concluded in the previous findings, the potential exists for pollutant emissions to
exceed established threshold criteria, resulting in a significant cumulative unavoidable
adverse impact. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses
short-term air quality impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulativ~ E.ff~ct Numbu 7
The AQMP EIR concluded that regional long-term air quality conditions will be
significant in the build out year 20 I 5 for NO" CO, and ROG.
Finding "a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
The FEIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures specified in the
AQMP EIR would reduce the potential long-term emissions to below levels of
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT.A)
54
significance. However. successful implementation of the re~ional measures IS
dependant upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specitied in the FEIR. The
City of Arcadia. however. is responsible only tor its fair share of those rec:ional
measures. including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4. \ O. and ;annot
guarantee the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP required
mitigation. Theretore. the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by build
Ollt of the City's General Plan will remain signiticant. given the signiticant. baseline
condition.
Finding "h"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated above, successful implementation of the regional measures is dependant
upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specified in ttle FEIR. The City of
Arcadia. however, is responsible only for its fair share of those regional measures.
including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4.10. and cannot guarantee
the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP required mitigation.
Therefore, the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by build out of the
City's General Plan will remain significant. given the significant, baseline condition.
Finding "c"
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated in the previous findings, successful implementation of the regional measures
is dependant upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specified in the FEIR.
The City of Arcadia. however, is responsible only for its fair share of those regional
measures, including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4.10. and cannot
guarantee the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP required
mitigation. Therefore, the potentiatlong-term air quality impacts generated by build
out of the City's General Plan will remain significant. given the significant. baseline
condition. Therefore. the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term
air quality impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHlBIT.A)
55
Sir:nificant Cumulative Effect Numher 8
The ambient noise level will be increased incrementally due to the proposed 1996
General Plan land use intensitication.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project \\l1ich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
The noise model for the General Plan noise analysis incorporated the forecast traffic
volumes contained in the traffic analysis (Appendix D of the FEIR) for regional and
local arterials. The noise analysis projected noise levels for the baseline year 2015. as
well as the baseline with the proposed 1996 General Plan. including three alternative
development scenarios for Transition Area I. The projected noise levels within the
proposed 1996 General Plan represent the cumulative noise condition as described
above under "Cumulative Study Area."
The noise analysis determined that most of the additional traffic that could be gen-
erated by build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan would not raise ambient noise
levels above significant levels (65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior).
Only one roadway segment, Huntington Drive between Colorado Boulevard and Santa
Anita Avenue. would potentially have traffic noise levels of three dBA CNEL or
above (the threshold of audible noise) over existing noise levels. The noise level is
projected to be 68 dBA CNEL with the proposed 1996 General Plan compared to 65
dBA CNEL with the future no project baseline. Mitigation prescribed in Section 4.11
will reduce the potential noise level to below the interior and exterior noise standards
for existing and/or proposed residential development. The. specific mitigation for
future development applications under the proposed General Plan includes detailed
site specific noise analyses and resulting noise reduction mitigation measures;
adherence of residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour adjacent to
roadways or transit lines to California Noise Insulation Standards; and compliance of
commercial and industrial development applications with maximum noise level
standards at the property line of adjacent uses.
Although the majority of the roadways are not projected to generate traffic noise
levels above the perceptible level (three dBA CNEL), increases of one or two dBA
will incrementally add to the ambient community noise, contributing to th'e cumulative
noise environment. Based on the cumulative thresholds of significance, the project's
contribution will not be significant; the majority of the cumulative study area is
already developed, experiencing typical urban noise levels from traffic and commerce
sources. In addition, sound walls have been incorporated along the north side of [-210
between Santa Anita Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, and additionaL walls are planned
for other sections on the north side of [-210. These existing and planned barriers will
help reduce the cumulative noise impacts to residences along the freeway.
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT.A)
56
The reciJmation process for transition of the abandoned quarrY alonu Lo\\er ..\lUsa
Road will generate signiticant noise levels that will affect nearb~: resid;nces (R"Jdt',:r
Inert Landtill FEIR. \larch. 1994,) The process. \\hich will involve operation of
construction equipment to fill the existing pit. is projected to last between Sand 12
years. Without implementation of mitigation measures. the noise generated by the
reclamation work would be significant upon the adjacent sensitive receptors. The E I R
for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill (City of Arcadia. March. 1994) prescribes standard
noise construction mitigation measures. such as limitations on the tit11in~ of
construction activities, in addition to construction of six foot walls at adjacent ~esi-
dences that currently do not have solid walls separating them from the Rodeffer site
and. subsequently. construction of 12 foot walls along adjacent properties as the
reclamation work expands closer to the residences (approximately the seventh year of
work). The Rodeffer EIR concluded that. with implementation of these mitigation
measures, which have been incorporated into the 1996 General Plan and General Plan
EIR there would be no significant adverse noise impacts to the surrounding sensitive
land uses.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The 1996 General Plan Alternatives are based on different views of how to manage
the community's future. These different views represent a menu of potentially feasible
alternatives the City could employ when making decisions about future growth. land
use changes, circulation improvements, infrastructure improvements or housing
programs. The three alternatives provide a reasonable range of alternatives.
formulated to address concerns identified in community workshops and meetings with
the City staff, and to address opportunities, constraints and issues identified during
initial General Plan research and issues identification. The initial formulation of
General Plan alternatives was described in a report entitled Alternatives Assessment
Report, dated July 18, 1995, which is part of the Final EIR. and was presented to the
Arcadia Planning Commission and City Council at a workshop. Based on comments
that were received from the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as on
initial results of the environmental analysis of the proposed 1996 General Plan. the
initial alternatives were refined to achieve the basic objectives of the 1996 General
Plan, while offering opportunities to reduce the impacts of the proposed 1996 General
Plan.
No Project Alternative
CEQA requires discussion of the No Project Alternative. State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15 I 26(d)(4) sets forth the following discussion of the No Project Alternative.
"The specific alternative of "no project" shall also he evaluated along with its impact.
The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions. as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved. hased on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and
7/ JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT,A)
57
communilV 5ervice5. If Ihe en"ironmenlally 5uperior a/lemalire is Ihe "lIa "mieel
alternati\'e, the EIR shall also identify an el1\'ironmentall.v superior alternclli\'c! among
Ihe olher "hemali"e5. ..
For the General Plan EIR. build out of the land uses as specitied in the ..\istin~
Arcadia General Plan for property within the City and build out of land i~
unincorporated County areas within the City's sphere of intluence according to the
Los Angeles County General Plan are the No Project Alternative. Anal\Zil1~ this
alternative provided a comparison of the 1996 General Plan with develop";ent ~nder
the status quo. with no change to the applicable plans. programs and policies currently
in place.
The No Project Alternative would, in general. result in the same impacts that are
identified for the proposed 1996 General Plan, but to a similar or reduced degree.
Implementation of the existing General Plan would involve some reasonable level of
new development, redevelopment and continued operation of existing uses throughout
the City. Incremental intensification of commercial uses. demolition of lower density
residential uses and replacement with higher density uses, along with greater
utilization of underdeveloped and underutilized property has been the historical trend
in Arcadia. and can reasonably be expected to continue. Compared to the proposed
1996 General Plan. the No Project Alternative would reasonably build out at a
somewhat lower residential density, and with somewhat lower commercial intensity.
This results from the absence of policies, programs and land use reservations thaI: I)
promote higher density near the downtown, 2) allow mixed uses, 3) allow
intensification of development on the Santa Anita Park property, and 4) provide
incentives for elderly and/or affordable housing.
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer and reduced impacts, compared with
the proposed 1996 General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not increase the
opportunity for additional multifamily residences, commercial and mixed use
development in the Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive Transition Area, commercial
and mixed use development in the Downtown Residential Transition Area, or
additional commercial development and residences in Transition Area l. Industrial
uses in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area could still be developed. Specifically,
the No Project Alternative would allow continued growth according to the current
General Plan. The current General Plan would allow development of the following: I)
385 additional dwelling units; 2) 182,589 square feet of additional commercial use;
and 3) 1,196,971 square feet of additional industrial use. This is development beyond
the existing land uses present in the Study Area.
Due to the increase in development allowed by this alternative, the impacts expected
would be similar to, but less than, the proposed 1996 General Plan. The number of
vehicle trips for the transition areas are expected to increase by 27,406 average daily
trips (ADT) under the current General Plan (no project). In contrast, the increase in
total vehicle trips in the transition areas for the proposed 1996 General Plan is 89,134
ADT. These trips are over a 24 hour period. and are generated in the transition areas,
but are spread out throughout the community. In order to have a significant increase
in air pollution, noise effects and traffic, the thresholds reported in Chapter 4.0 must
be exceeded. As reported in Chapter 4.0, the only significant impact is to Michillinda
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHlBIT.A)
58
Avenue. and occurs with or without the project. Theretore. the increase in lrat'tic. anJ
the resultant air quality and noise effects under the :"40 Project .-\Iternative. "ill
incrementally increase impacts. The potential impacts would be proportional to the
proposed 1996 General Plan. roughly causing 30 percent of the projected traftic and
air pollution increase. Noise. however. does not increase in direct proportion to lraftic
increases. Because of existing traffic on area roadwavs. the increased traftic volumes
resulting from General Plan implementation would ;'ield only minor. inaudible (less
than 3 dB) increases in noise levels. As a rule of thumb. traffic at the levels reported
in the General Plan traffic analysis in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIR would have to nearlv
double before the increase in noise would be perceptible to the average person. -
Other areas of potential impact include land use. housing, population. recreation and
public services. The incremental increases in housing. population and lhe
employment base resulting from the No Project Alternative will not bring about
significant impacts in the aforementioned areas due to the relatively slow pace of
current development occurring in small disconnected infill sites. which is assumed to
continue to produce a small proportional increase spread out through the City. As
with the proposed \996 General Plan, Development Performance Standards included
within the General Plan and the EIR mitigation measures, if applied to the No Project
Alternative, would reduce potential impacts in these areas. For the areas of risk to
additional daytime and nighttime population, loss of access to mineral resources, and
aesthetic impacts. there are no effects anticipated for the No Project Alternative, due
to the infill nature of possible development allowed by the current General Plan and
the built out condition of these potential growth areas.
The No Project Alternative, however, would not satisfy the basic project objectives. It
would not provide the additional sales tax revenue that could be generated by
additional commercial, and mixed use uses allowed at greater intensity by the
proposed 1996 General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not contribute
towards meeting the City of Arcadia's objectives for additional housing opportunities
made possible by the proposed 1996 General Plan increases in density and housing
incentives. With the No Project Alternative, the existing pattern of slow conversion of
single family residential to multifamily residential housing would continue. Thus,
although continued development under the No Project Alternative incrementally
reduces impacts compared to the proposed 1996 General Plan, this alternative does not
achieve the objectives of the proposed 1996 General Plan, i.e.. to increase housing
opportunities, revitalize the downtown, and provide a sufficient tax base to support
projected City service requirements.
In summary, the No Project Alternative causes incrementally fewer impacts compared
to the proposed 1996 General Plan, and is considered environmentally superior to the
proposed project. However, economic, social, legal, and technological considerations
make acceptance of the No Project Alternative infeasible. Retention of the City's
previous General Plan would create a long-term "break-even" fiscal picture for the
City, resulting in substantial deficits in times of economic downturns. and making
replacement of capital facilities difficult. In addition, it would be difficult to maintain
the high level of services now enjoyed by Arcadia residents and businesses. Because
(I) the previous General Plan rests on an aging data base, (2) State Housing Element
law requires modifications to the 1990 Housing Element, and (3) changes in State law
7/IQ/9<;(A.\EXHlllIT.A)
59
regarding the provisions of maximum development intensities in the land use el~rn~nt.
the No Project Alternative would be infeasible. Finally. the :-.10 Project alternati\"~ is
infeasible since it would not permit the incorporation of the transportation and air
quality management programs into the General Plan.
So Project/No Build Alternative
The No ProjectINo Build Alternative assumes that no additional development would
occur within the City and its sphere of influence. even that which might be permitted
under the previous General Plan. This alternative is a subset of the No Project
Alternative described above. This alternative assumes no growth or change from the
existing condition. and reflects conditions being essentially the same as the existing
conditions at the time of drafting the EIR in both the City of Arcadia and its sphere of
influence (e.g., areas within the County of Los Angeles proposed for eventual
annexation). This alternative would create a static downtown commercial area, not
allow new growth in residential population in Transition Areas 2 and 3. and leave the
Rodeffer property in its present condition, without reclamation of the open pit.
The No ProjectINo Build Alternative would result in fewer or no impacts to the
environment in the study area, as compared to the proposed 1996 General Plan. Under
the No ProjectINo Build Alternative, there would be fewer/no potential impacts to bio-
logical, cultural and scientific, water, earth and mineral resources. There would be
fewer impacts to traffic levels of service, air quality degradation and noise generation,
which directly reflect the absence of growth through the number of employees and
, residents utilizing the City's roadways. The incremental increases in demand tor
public services and facilities that would be expected with the proposed project or the
project alternatives would not occur under the No ProjectINo Build Alternative. The
total population (full-time residents) and housing supply would be static, not changing
from the existing baseline. This would lead to fewer impacts than those projected for
the 1996 General Plan or any of the project alternatives, since the No ProjectINo Build
Alternative would not involve construction of any additional dwelling units over the
existing supply. The Rodeffer property would continue to remain in a vacated state.
would not be reclaimed, and would not be available for industrial or any other useful
purpose.
Impacts related to the projected population level increases with the proposed 1996
General Plan would remain static, since the population level would not be increased.
The No ProjectINo Build Alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed
1996 General Plan in terms of the City's intentions to accommodate a diversity of
residential types, employment opportunities, commercial, recreational, educational.
civic and cultural activities, which contribute to the community vitality and well-being
of existing and future residents. The No projectINo Build Alternative would not
ensure an adequate municipal revenue stream, which furnishes the City with the long-
term ability to continue providing the level of services demanded by its residents and
businesses. Implementation of the No ProjectINo Build Alternative would not allow
any new development or redevelopment of existing land uses and. therefore, would
not change and not improve the land use opportunities to provide for in the revised
7/JO/96(A.\EXHIBIT.A)
,60
Alternative 1
Housing Element. This alternative may have physical and economic effects within the
City by promoting a stagnant economy. Without additional re\'enues from sales tax
and property tax sources. the City. faced with rising costs tar services. would be
forced to cut back services or curtail some services altogether. This would. in turn.
potentially lead to physical blight.
The No ProjectINo Build Alternative avoids or substantially lessens all of the impacts
of the proposed 1996 General Plan. and is environmentally superior. However.
economic. social. legal. and technological considerations make acceptance of the No
ProjectINo Build Alternative infeasible. Elimination of all future development would
create a long-term negative tiscal picture for the City, resulting in substantial deticits
in times of economic downturns. and making replacement of capital facilities difficult.
In addition. it would be impossible to maintain the high level of services now enjoyed
by Arcadia residents and businesses. Because (I) State Housing Element law requires
cities to provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community
and (2) SMARA requires reclamation of mineral extraction sites. the No ProjectINo
Build Alternative would be infeasible.
Within the southerly parking area of the Santa Anita Park racetrack, this alternative
would permit the development of up to 500,000 square feet of
commercial/entertainment uses and up to 350 multifamily residential dwelling units.
Within the area east of Santa Anita Avenue, between Huntington Drive and Duarte
Road, Alternative I would facilitate conversion of existing lands zoned for residential
use (both single and multifamily types) to multifamily residential development at a
maximum density of 30 units per acre. Alternative I would allow development of up
to 600 multifamily dwelling units within the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
located in the extreme southerly portion of the City. The balance of the study area
(City incorporated area and City sphere of inlluence unincorporated area) would not
be affected, lInd would be developed according to the designations in the 1996 General
Plan.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to the
existing condition: I) increase of 1,939 dwelling units; 2) increase of 820,963 square
feet of commercial; and 3) decrease of 30,000 square feet of industrial.
Alternative I was rejected because although it had fewer aesthetic and air quality
impacts, the alternative had greater land use and planning consideration impacts,
population and housing impacts, and school (public facility) impacts. This alternative
would extend school impacts beyond the Arcadia Unified School District, and into El
Monte City School District and the EI Monte High School District. In particular, the
EI Monte School District is incapable of accommodating new students in the area near
the southernmost portion of Arcadia. Thus, a new school or new school facilities
would need to be available prior to the occupancy of new residential development in
Transition Area 4. This would place a significant burden on the tin'ancing of such
school facilities. Also, Alternative I would result in significant land use compatibility
impacts, for which overriding considerations are not available, particularly in light of
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHlBIT.A)
61
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
the fact that General Plan project objectives can be achieved without such land use
compatibility impacts.
Alternative 2 would permit the development of up to 1.5 million square feet of
commercial/entertainment development within the southerly parking area of Santa
Anita Park racetrack. Within the area east of Santa Anita Avenue. between Hun-
tington Drive and Dart Road, Alternative 2 would facilitate conversion of existinl!
lands zoned for residential use to multifamily development at a maximum density oi'
30 units per acre west of Third Avenue and up to 24 units per acre east of Third
Avenue. North of the light rail line in the eastern portion of the City, Alternative 2
would expand opportunities for commercial, business park and office uses. In
addition, Alternative 2 would permit development of up to 300 multifamily residential
units on the former quarry site on the Rodeffer property. following filling of the pit
and completion of other site preparation requirements. The balance of the study area
would not be affected.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to the
existing condition: I) increase of 869 dwelling units; 2) increase of \ ,872.098 square
feet of commercial; and 3) decrease of 12,543 square feet of industrial.
Alternative 2 is infeasible, and was rejected because it had greater land use and
planning consideration impacts, and school (public facility) impacts than that of the
proposed project. This alternative would extend school impacts beyond the Arcadia
Unified School District, and into EI Monte City School District and the EI Monte High
School District. In particular, the EI Monte School District is incapable of
accommodating new students in the area near the southernmost portion of Arcadia.
Thus, a new school or new school facilities would need to be available prior to the
occupancy of new residential development in Transition Area 4. This would place a
significant burden on the financing of such school facilities. Also, Alternative 2
would result in significant land use compatibility impacts. for which overriding
considerations are not available, particularly in light of the fact that General Plan
project objectives can be achieved without such land use compatibility impacts.
CEQA will not permit the adoption of such an alternative without overriding
considerations.
Alternative 3 would permit development of up to \.S million square feet of
commercial/entertainment uses within the southerly parking area of the Santa Anita
Park racetrack. East of Santa Anita Avenue. between Huntington Drive and Dart
Road, Alternative 3 would facilitate conversion of existing lands zoned for residential
use to multifamily residential at a maximum density of 30 units per acre west of Third
Avenue and commercial uses along and east of Third Avenue. North of the Metrolink
rail line in the eastern portion of the City, Alternative 3 would expand opportunities
for mixed use commercial and commercial uses. In addition. Alternative 3 would
7/l0/96(A.\EXHIBIT.A>
62
permit development of 35 single family dwelling units and a park on the tanner
Rodeffer quarry site. following tilling of the existing pit and completion of other ,ite
preparation requirements. The balance of the study area would not be at"fected.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to the
e.\isting condition: I) increase of 631 dwelling units with development of a major
regional park; 2) increase of 1.907.011 square feet of commercial; and 3) decrease of
30.000 square feet of industrial.
Alternative 3 is infeasible. and was rejected from further consideration because
although it had similar impacts in most categories. the alternative had greater land use
impacts than that of the 1996 General Plan. Overriding considerations tor the
significant land use compatibility impacts of Alternative 3 are not available in light of
the fact that General Plan project objectives can be achieved without such land use
compatibility impacts. CEQA will not permit the adoption of such an alternative
without overriding considerations.
APPLICABILITY OF THE FINAL EIR TO THE 1996 GENERAL PUN AS DIRECTED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL
In its ultimate configuration, the 1996 General Plan differs slightly from the project
description contained in the Final EIR; however, the modifications made to the 1996
General Plan document do not change any of the findings of the Final EIR. and the
analysis of the Final EIR adequately addresses the 1996 General Plan as it is proposed
for adoption. The modifications referred to above are described below, along with the
reasons that no EIR findings are changed and the final EIR adequately addresses the
change.
. Elimination of the Commercial Entertainment designation proposed for
Transition Area J. As originally analyzed (Scenario A), the 1996 General
Plan proposed 1.5 million square feet of new commercial entertainment
development south of the Santa Anita race track grandstands, east of the Santa
Anita Fashion Park mall. As proposed for adoption, the 1996 General Plan
proposes approximately 1.2 million square feet of commercial development in
the same general location. The text of the 1996 General Plan document was
also revised to retlect this land use proposal.
Because the traffic analysis prepared for the 1996 General Plan (Final EIR
Appendix 0) used the same traffic generation factors for retail and
entertainment uses, this modification will not substantially affect the traffic
analysis. Also, since General Plan noise and air quality analyses are based on
traffic generation, this modification will also not substantially affect noise or
air quality analyses. As proposed for adoption. the traffic, noise, and air
quality impacts of the 1996 General Plan have been slightly reduced from
those identified for General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR. Also, because
employment figures for the 1996 General Plan as analyzed in the Final EIR
and as proposed for adoption are similar, other quantitative impact will be
similar to, and slightly less than General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR.
7/JO/96(A.\EXHIBIT.A)
63
Finally. because the physical extent of proposed development for the \9<J6
General Plan as proposed for adoption is similar to and sli~htlv smaller than
that analyzed in the Final EIR. impacts which are dependent 'up;n the physical
extent of the proposed development area (such as earth resource impacts) will
be similar to and slightly less than that which was analyzed in the Draft ErR.
. Redllclion ofJlatimllm General Plan Densilies in Ihe Downlown Residell/ial
Transilion Area and Designmion of a POrlion of Ihe Frolllage. of Second
Avenlle as Mixed Use (CIMFR). As analyzed in the EIR. the maximum
allowable residential development intensity in this Transition Area was 30
dwelling units per acre. The General Plan. as proposed for adoption. perm its
30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) only for senior housing projects in areas
designated for a maximum intensity of 24 du/ac for other types of residential
development. In addition. the 1996 General Plan as proposed lor adoption
permits up to 18 du/ac for senior projects within the Multiple Family (12
du/ac) land use designation.
In addition. the 1996 General Plan, as proposed for adoption. designates a
portion of the frontage of Second Avenue south of the downtown area for
mixed use development. Because the overall intensity of development along
this street will not be increased, and because of General Plan requirements for
architectural compatibility, no new impacts are anticipated. The net effect of
this modification is a reduction in the maximum development yield of the
Downtown Residential Transition Area. However. this reduction is not of a
sufficient size to reduce any significant impacts to a level of insignificance.
In addition, this reduction in the residential development south of the
downtown area did not impact the ability of the City to meet its housing
production objectives, as demonstrated by the analysis contained in Appendix
A of the 1996 General Plan document.
. Expansion of Ihe Mixed Use (CIMFR) Land Use Designalion in Ihe Sallla
Clara Slreet Transition Area. As a means of expanding residential
development opportunities and meeting identified housing objectives, the
Mixed Use (C/MFR) land use designation was expanded in this Transition
Area. Because the overall intensity of development along this street will not
be increased, and because of General Plan requirements for architectural
compatibility, no new impacts are anticipated.
. Minor Modifications to the 1996 General Plan Text. Several modifications
were made to the text of the 1996 General Plan document. as it is proposed to
be adopted. These modifications are intended to clarify the intent and policies
of the General Plan document, and do substantively alter the policies of the
General Plan or affect any of the mitigation measures contained in the Final
EIR as they are incorporated into the 1996 General Plan document.
In addition, as the result of comments received on the Draft EIR. three EIR mitigation
measures have been slightly modified for the Final EIR. These modifications affect
Mitigation Measures 4.1-1, 4.9-1, and 4.9-2, but do not add any new mitigation
measures, and are not significant.
7/JC/96(A.\EXHIBIT.A)
64
I-Iodifications to 1-1 itigation \Ieasure 4.1-1 c1aritied an existing provision of the IlJ'l6
General Plan document. Whereas the General Plan provision related to land use
compatibility affected Transition Areas I and 4. the EIR mitigation measure. JS
contained in the Draft EIR. only applied to Transition Area i. It \~'as modi tied in the
Final EIR to apply to both Transition Area I and Transition Area 4 as it was ori~inallv
intended. In addition. the portion of Mitigation \Ieasure 4.1-1 addressing ro~d\\'a~'
level of service was modi lied to recognize the EIR's conclusion re~;rdin~ th~
signiticant unavoidable impact of traffic along Michillinda Avenue bet\~een S~,nset
and Colorado boulevards. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 was also modified to recognize
this significant unavoidable impact.
Finally Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 was also modified. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2
establishes a performance standard for traffic along Holly Avenue south of Huntington
Drive that must be met by any future development' within the Commercial land use
designation to the north. Two options for meeting this performance standard are noted
in the mitigation measure. The modification to the Mitigation Measure made clear
that either of the options provided in the measure could be used to achieve the
performance standard established in the main body of Mitigation Measure.
Because (I) the modifications to the 1996 General Plan document do not change any
of the conclusions of the Final EIR. and because the impacts of the 1996 General Plan
document, as proposed for adoption, are effectively addressed by, and slightly less
than those identified in. the analysis of General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR. and
(2) modifications to EIR mitigation measures are insignificant. additional public
review or a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TlONS
Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations (as amended), of the
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). specifies
requirements for making a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as follows:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the un-
avoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be consid-
ered 'acceptable.'
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence ofsignifi-
cant effects which are identified in the Final Master EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the Final Master EIR and/or other information in
the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) Ifan agency makes a statement of overriding considerations. the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be men-
tioned in the notice of determination."
7/ JO/96(A.\EXHlBIT.A)
65
The City of Arcadia hereby adopts the tollowing Statement of Overridinl! C,,"sider-
ations to~ the amendment and comprehensive update of the Cit\"s General Plan. The
Final EIR identities signiticant unavoidable effects including: .
.
Primary and secondary hazards resulting from re~ional seismic activit\'
(Section 4.3. Earth Resources; Chapter 6.0. Cumulativ~ Impacts section of th~
Final EIR).
.
Loss.of access to significant mineral resources underlying the vacant parcel
adjacent to the Livingston-Graham quarry (Section 4.6. Mineral Resources:
Chapter 6.0. Cumulative Impacts section ofthe Final EIR).
.
Existing and projected traffic volumes on Michillinda Avenue between Sunset
and Colorado Boulevards will exceed the Citywide Criteria of LOS D
(Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation section of the Final EIR).
.
Operational air pollutant emissions for each emissions sources in each
General Plan Scenario (Section 4.10, Air Quality; Chapter 6.0. Cumulative
Impacts section of the Final EIR).
.
Significant localized visual impacts to land uses adjacent to Transition Area I
and existing views from Huntington Drive (Section 4.8. Aesthetics section of
the Final EIR).
.
Availability of water supply to accommodate projected growth within the City
and region. since the City cannot control implementation of all mitigation
strategies outlined in the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
and MWD Urban Water Management Plans (Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts
section of the Final EIR).
The City Council of Arcadia adopts and makes this statement of overriding
considerations concerning the 1996 General Plan's unavoidable significant impacts to
explain why the 1996 General Plan's benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable
impacts.
Benefits of the 1996 General Plan
The 1996 General Plan will bring substantial benefits to the City of Arcadia, including
diversity in the City's economic growth, expanded employment opportunities,
enhanced ability to continue maintaining a high level of public services and facilities.
and the provision of opportunities for housing for all economic segments of the
community.
Diversity in the City's Economic Growth
Currently, the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall is the City's largest revenue generator.
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan will facilitate the economic vitality of other
7 IJO/96(A.\EXHlBIT.A)
66
commercial uses within the City. and will add 85 acres of land for new commercial
development adjacent to the Fashion Park mall and the Santa Anita race track. Thi,
new development provides the opportunity to contribute new customers to both the
adjacent mall and race track. thereby enhancing the economic vitalitv of both uses.
and. in turn. increasing municipal revenues. .
Expanded Employment Opportuniti~s
At General Plan build out. 6.275 additional full and part-time job opportunities will
have been created within the General Plan study area. It is projected that. due to the
proposed diversity of land uses, job opportunities will be available for all segments of
the work torce. Industrial areas will also be expanded allowing for the movement of
both industrial and corporate based businesses close to management. executive. and
worker housing opportunities. These employment opportunities. which are in close
proximity to an existing population base, will contribute to expansion of employment
choices. reductions in unemployment, and reduction in home to work travel distance
and time for residents desiring local employment.
Continu~d Provision of a High Ln>el of Services to th~ Community
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan provides for the continued maintenance of a high
level of public services and facilities due to the projected positive municipal revenue
stream that will result from the \996 General Plan, as identified in the General Plan
Fiscal Impact Report prepared by Agajanian & Associates (March 1996). In the
absence of the increased revenues that would result from General Plan
implementation, it is likely that municipal service levels would need to be reduced in
the future.
Provision of Opportunitia for Housing that is Affordahl~ to all Economic Segm~nts
oj the Community
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan includes a program to provide housing that is
affordable to all economic segments of the community. In particular. the 1996
General Plan increases the availability of lands for the production of housing to low
and moderate income households.
Meet the R~qu;rements of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
Adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan is consistent with the requirements of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which requires the reclamation of
mineral extraction sites. The [ndustrialland use designation applied to Transition
Area 4 permits the reclamation of a large open pit on the south side of Lower Azusa
Road, and provides for an .appropriate long-term use of the property following site
reclamation.
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHIBIT,A)
67
The Benefits of the' 996 General Plan Outweigh tlte Plan's Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Primary and Secondary Hazards from Regional Seismic Acti"ity
It is not possible to expand employment opponunities within the communitv. diversify
the City's economic growth. provide housing for all economic se~m~nts of th~
community. or comply with the reclamation requirements of S~tARA wilhout
increasing the numbers of people subject to primary and secondary seismic hazards.
Because the level of risk that new residents, employees. and commercial patrons will
experience is similar to that which is commonly accepted by existing Arcadia
residents, employees. and patrons of commercial uses, and because implementation of
the provisions of the Uniform Building Code generally places buildings rather than
people at risk, achieving increased economic diversity outweighs primary and
secondary hazards from regional seismic activity.
Loss of Mineral Resources Underlying the Livingston-Graham Quarry
The previous Arcadia General Plan designated the Livingston-Graham quarry site as
Industrial. permitting a range of non-mining uses. The Industrial land use designation
permits continued mining of the quarry if such an activity would be tinancially
feasible, provides for reclamation of the site for another use once mining activities
have ceased, and also provides for employment generating industrial development
should mining of the site prove to be uneconomical. The only circumstances under
which the mineral resources underlying the Livingston-Graham quarry site would be
lost is if industrial development occurred in lieu of mining and reclamation. It is
logical that such an event would occur if the landowner found mining and reclamation
to be uneconomical, or at least less economical than industrial development. The
Livingston-Graham quarry is a portion of a larger site which has been extensively
mined. and which is still being mined. In addition, the pan of the Livingston-Graham
quarry site which is within the City of Arcadia represents only a minute ponion of the
sand and gravel resources available for extraction at the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains., As such, the risk that industrial development might occur in lieu of the
mining and reclamation of the site is outweighed by the employment and economic
diversity benefits that such industrial development would bring to the City of Arcadia.
Traffic Along Michil/inda Avenue Between Sunset and Colorado Boulevards
Existing traffic along Michillinda A venue between Sunset and Colorado boulevards
currently ex,ceeds the City's threshold criteria of Level of Service D. Expansion of
housing and employment opponunities, and achieving economic diversity within
Arcadia will contribute additional traffic to Michillinda Avenue. However, even
though this section of Michillinda Avenue currently experiences LOS E, traffic speeds
are relatively high, and actual congestion along this roadway is thus minimal.
Testimony received during public hearings on the [996 General Plan indicated that
travel speeds might be excessive for the residential character of uses along this
roadway. Increased traffic resulting from implementation of the 1996 General Plan
7 /JO/96(A. \EXHlIlIT.A)
68
will not reduce the level of service along ~Iichillinda below LOS E. but .:an be
expected to reduce travel speeds. For these reasons. the housinl! and economic
diversity benetits of the 1996 General Plan outweigh the Plan's impac~s to ~lichillinda
A venue.
Itrcreased Air Emissions
Although significance thresholds for air emISSIons would be el<.ceeded by the
cumulative development permitted under the 1996 Arcadia General Plan. the General
Plan is consistent with the provisions of the South Coast Air Qualitv Manal!ement
Plan, as outlined in Section 4.10 of the Final EIR. The 1996 Arcadia General-Plan is
also consistent with the provisions of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, as evidenced
by the comment letter on the Draft ElR provided by SCAG.
In addition. State law requires each city and county to provide opportunities tor
housing all economic segments of the community, and to accept their fair share of
regional housing needs for very low. low. moderate, and above moderate income
households. The 1996 Arcadia General Plan recognizes this obligation. and provides
for the development of 580 new dwelling units over the next seven years. representing
a net increase of 432 dwelling units, for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate
income households. The increased traffic volumes and energy use associated with this
new residential development will create air emissions in excess of the significance
thresholds maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for several
constituent emissions sources. In addition, the reclamation activities requirements
under SMARA, as well as the subsequent usc of reclaimed properties will contribute
to the exceedence of air emissions significance thresholds.
Thus. if the City of Arcadia is to comply with State Housing Element law and
SMARA. its General Plan must create a significant air emissions impact. To avoid
this significant impact would not only mean that the City would be in violation of
State Housing Element and SMARA requirements, but also that Arcadia's local
economic and employment opportunities could not be expanded. The result would
ultimately bc an inadcquate Gencral Plan and a stagnant economy, which would in
turn lead to reductions in the level of services provided to local residents and
businesses. For thesc reasons, the benefits of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan outweigh
the Plan's significant unavoidable air quality impact.
Localized Visual Impacts in Transition Area I
The Santa Anita race track is a key community feature, and an important component
of Arcadia's character. Thc retention of horse racing at this facility, and the ongoing
economic vitality of the race track are also critical to Arcadia's future fiscal health.
Over the past ten years, there has been a reduction in attendance at the Santa Anita
race track, largely due to the advent of off-track wagering facilities and a long-term
downturn in the racing industry. Thus, it is no longcr necessary to reserve both of the
race track's large open parking areas exclusively for race track event parking. As a
7/JO/96(A.\EXHIIlIT,A)
69
result of dwindling attendance. there has been a reduction of municipal re\'enue
derived from the race track. This revenue is earmarked tor capital improvements.
The southerly parking tOl of the Santa Anita race track is a logical location for future
commercial de\elopment. It is strategically located adjac~nt to the Santa Anita
Fashion Park mall. near downtown Arcadia. has I!ood access to the re~ional freewav
system. and can draw patrons from and contribute patrons to the ;ace track. I~
addition. the southerly parking lot is large (over 85 acres) and under single ownership.
thus presenting significant opportunities for high quality master planned development
which can provide substantial economic benefits to the community. These benetits
are described in the General Plan Fiscal Impact Report prepared by Agajanian &
Associates in March 1996. This report indicates that, without substantial commercial
development within Transition Area I. the City faces. at best. a "break-even" lonl!-
term municipal revenue picture. The expansion of commercial development south of
the race track grandstands will provide the City with a revenue needed revenue
"cushion." enabling Arcadia to continue providing a high level of municipal services
during times of economic slowdowns.
Inevitably, commercial development within the southerly race track parking lot will
result in a loss of existing open views of the race track grandstands. Even though
view corridors to the most important architectural features of the grandstands will be
maintained, the loss of views is considered to be significant. In light of the economic
diversity needs of the City, and recognizing that view corridors to the grandstands will
remain and that the architecture of new commercial development will be compatible
with the architecture of the grandstands, the economic and employment benetits of
, development within Transition Area I outweigh the impacts of a loss of views of the
race track grandstands.
A vai/abi/ity of Water Supply for Future Growth
Although the City of Arcadia primarily relies on the extraction of groundwater for
which the City has firm rights, future development within the City will require the
purchase of replenishment water from the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District, which in turn purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD). Because the City of Arcadia can not control
implementation of all the mitigation strategies contained in the Urban Water
Management Plans of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and the
MWD, a significant unavoidable impact was determined to exist. The Urban Water
Management Plans of both of these water agencies project future water needs based on
SCAG population projections with which the 1996 Arcadia General Plan is consistent,
as evidenced by the comment letter on the Draft EIR provided by SCAG. Thus. the
risk of not having sufficient water supplies available to support build out of the 1996
General Plan is minimal.
The only way that the City could, by itself, ensure adequate water supplies would be to
adopt the No ProjectINo Build alternative. which has been rejected as being infeasible.
To adopt this alternative would leave the City with an inadequate General Plan, in
violation of State Housing Element law and SMARA, and with a stagnant economy
7 IJO/96(A:\EXHI!lIT.A)
70
which would ultimately result in a cutback of the existing level of services proviJed
by the City to local residents and businesses. For these reasons. the benetits of [he
1996 General Plan outweigh its impacts related to water resource availability.
7 IJO/96(A.\EXHlBIT.Al
71
'.I!: ':JtI inn \ICF11[0I'i!1!.! PrO~I'i\m
o'f\T -
:>1'_ , .~
~.~
~.'~~
'.. ~,.
~.~~;:'." .'
EXHIBIT B:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
MITIGA TION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180)
requires .that the following requirements shall apply to all reponing or mitigation
mOnltonng progn.ms:
"(a) 71.e public agency shall adopt a reporting OT monitoring program for the changes
to the project which it has adopted OT math a condition of project approt/al in
order to mirigare or awid significant effrm on the environment. The reporting
or monitoring program shall he cksigned to enSlne compliance during project
impkmenraricn. FOT rhose changes which haw been required or incorporattti into
the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requesttti by the lead OT
responsible agency, prepart and submit a proposed reporting OT monitoring
program.
(b) If there is a project for which mitigation is adtJpttti, a public agency shall comply
with subdivision (a) by, among other things, adopting mitigation measllTt$ as
conditions of project approwL 7hose conditions of project approt/al may he set
forth in refrmrced documents which address required mitigation measures.
(c) Pri,)1' to the close of the public review period for a draft entJironmental impact
report or mitigated negatiw ckclaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency
hat/ing jurisdiction over natural resources afftcttti by the project, shall either
submit to the lead agency complete and dnAiled pt.funll4nce objectitlf!S for
mitigation measllTt$ which would address the signifkant effects on the
rot/ironment idmti/iLd by the responsible agency OT agency hatJing jurisdiction
ot/er natural mources affmtti by the project, OT refrr the lead agency to
appropriate, rtadiJy aflaiJable guideliMs OT refrmrce documents. Any mitigation
TI'lfasum submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency OT an agclCY having
jurisdiction OtIeT natllTal resources ajfmed by the project shall he limittti to
measures which mitiga~ impacts to rtrources which art subject to the statutory
authority of, and ckfini!iom applicable to, that agclCY. Compliance OT noncom.
pli4nce by a responsible agclCY OT agency hatJing jurisdiction OtIeT natural
resources ajfmed by a project with that requiremmt shall not limit that authority
of the responsible agclCY OT agclCY hatJing jurisdiction OtJf!T natllTal rtrourm
a/fected by a project, or the authority of the lead agclCY, to approw, condition, OT
dm-y projects as provided by this diflision OT any other provisWn of law.
(d) The w.ad agclCY shall specify the location and custodian of the documents OT other
material which constitute the TtCorrJ of proceedings upon which its decision is
based. .
EXHIBIT "S"
I:I",S011.,.;.1,..,.o..
Aurust ~9. /i96'
-1-
\I!r 1:!:tI :on \Iondo!'!n:! P!'o:!!,,111l
.,un ~
!f~'
~.~1
"~~..~':..O. ,.-
Mitigation Monitoring ProceduT'ts
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program h.. been prepared in compliance
with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and
procedures to be followed by the City of Arcadia to ensure that all mitig-ation
measures adopted as pan of the proposed Generu Plan Update will be carried out as
described in this EIR.
Table 9.A lists each of the mitig-ation measures specified in this EIR, and identifies the
party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. Table 9.B
identifies the Development Performance Standards included in the proposed Generu
Plan and existing regulations utilized in making determinations of significance.
-(!-
J, \",,501 \.,..;.\....94. upJ
AUFUst.?.9. /.990
Miti~idioll Monilorill!! PrO!!rillll
:~:l:~.
.~1
'~.!'~~'!!.~~; .::.~'
Table A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
ivjeasur~
4.1 Land Use and Planning 4.1-1 Praor 10 any discretionary approval of any Developmem St:rvices Devclt)pnu.'Ot Prit)f Itl Ji)4."rt.'liIHIJry
Considerations development within the Sanu Aniu R.u:e Dire.:wr (or dt:'signee) Scrvi(l.') JpprclVJ.I of
Track or Lower Azusa Road Transition Dirt'(1,.ur (or Jt'vdopl\u..'1\\ wl\hiu ,\u:
Ar.... ,b. proja:l applicant ,hall provide J(')iglll'C) Cllllllllt'Tl"ioll
evidence to the City, for review and Elllc:rt:llllllll'lll
approval by the Dcvdopmem. Services Tr,unilioll An'J.
Dira:LOr (or design<<). thai ,be pro po...!
devdopmcm:
. Provides transitions and buffers
belwun new dcvelopmcOl and
existing u~s such thai the bulk,
massing, and an:hilrctural design of
Dew uses art' (omp.uiblc witb
CJ.lslln& dcvclopmCD\j
. Avoids placing n~w activilics or
crea.ling DUluncc conditions lbOil
would disrupt ',be inlOOded
activilies or adjaccDl caudng and
planned land use,. make the
in,eoded use 01 adjaanllands
undesirable. or disrupt the pby,ical
arrangement of oslahli>hed
neighborhoods and oon-....idential
land use);
-J-
I \",,101\1(/10.'11 I..,~:) 1.1'/
.Jt/~.tI.l .:./ I~/I:.
Mitigation Moni\o)'ing P)'ogl'illll
~~\1'Y~q.,
(,.1,'
\ ~"f'<> '. - ',..-;'/
" '~'!~~!'!'!'...
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring -Mitigation
Measure
. Maintains roadway levels of service
at or better than level of S(:rvicc D,
except along Micbillinda Aveoue
between Sunset aod Colorado
boulevards, where level of st:rvicc
E is LO be maiDlainedj
. Docs DOl cause an exc<<daocc of
applicable noise or air quality
standards, or a significam adverse
impacllO existing vicwshedsj and
,
. Is consinent with applicable
General Plan public facility per.
formance sundarW, aod does 001
cause II reduClion in tbe level of
services and facilities provitkd to
cJ:i.uing Ut:vdopmem.
4.2 Population and Houoing None.
-1-
Il".dJl\Kf'o:'H\"'~O I.t-I
IfI:.'/I'/,:/ /,'.1(.
Mitigalioll Monilorinc PrOgrilnl
~:~m~..,.
It' '
" }
. . -
.\,..~;.,'/
-'~!:~~!.II!!"''/
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
..3 Earth Resource, 4.3-1 Prior to initiation of the fill operatioJl at the" City Engin<<r (or de.ignee) City Enginn'r Prior to iuiti,l1ioll of duo
Rn<klfer quarry pi" ,he pi, shall be inspemd (or de>ign<e) rl'l,:lalll;uion opt'f,llioll JI
by the City Engineer, or designee, on ii the Roddfn t1uury pit.
mon,hly basis from October IS 10 April IS
or ...bscquen"a p<riods of heavy ninlall
ouLSide of this timc frame to as.ses.s the status
of ,be ",ble :wd unstable slope.< on si,e.
During these inspections, my Dew UIlSlablc
arcaJ shall be identified in a memorandum
transmitted to the propcny OWDer. Where
,he CilY Engineer iJen,i1ia unstable slop<.
tbal may rcsuh in immediate danger 10
adj>C<Dl propeny or f..:ili,ia, ,be propeny
owner will be nDlilied by ,be Ci,y Engineer
:wd emergency remedia,ian will be
requcs,ed. An ull1table slope is delined as a
slop< baving a F...,or of Safety' of less ,b:w
1.0. Tbe propeny owner .ball be required
'0 stabilize slope.< '0 Olee"bc faUawins
,t:wdards:
. Achieve a Factor of Safety of 1.5
>gains, .bear fadure, :wd
. Acbieve a F ilC\ar 01 Safety of 1.1
>gains, seismi.:ally-induced slop<
fadure.
"Factor of Safety. is the ratio of the resisting force to the driving force. Thus, values greater than 1.0 represent varying
degrees of stability, while values under 1.0 represent varying degrees of instability.
-j-
I \dAfOl\K/"'H \>n ~ J 1-/,,1
1t~:.'II,1 .::~ I'~ If
Mitigatioll Monilorillg Progralll
$;~rf't~
'~i*'~"~';"
, I :)
\, '
.,+,... .;,..",
,a~!.";"'!l!:~':'/
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
Any and all emergency remedial ion
measures sball be prepared by a qualified
geotrchoical engineer, cenificd by the Slale
of California, and submiued to lbe CilY
Engineer for rev~w and approval.
Remediation measures may include but Dot
be limited 10 tbe foUowiog: placement of
buttress {ills, ttrouting of drainage fadlilies,
and r~nding or covering slump areas with
shOlcrclc with pla.Slic sheeting or wire Dlc~h.
4.4 Water Resources 4.4-1 Prior 10 issuance of grading permiu for Development Services Development Prior Itl i')')u;iun' of
cOOSUllctiOD projectS less than five acres, the Director (or dc)ignee) Servilors gr<lJing pt.'mlil.' l~,r
project applicanl sball submit 10 tbe Dircnor (or (tln~lru(lllln pnlll'(lS
Developmenl Services Director (or designee) de,ij;nee) Ie....! Il.<ln five <I(fl'S.
for review and approval, a Drainage/Erosion
Control Plan lbal idcnlifies site specific
measures for the rcu~DtioD of siltatioD, scdi.
mtDI,uioD, and Olhcr pollula.DlS 00 silt
during CODSlrUClioo. MCilSUrtS idcDtifitd in
the Plan sball be imposed as conditions of
approval or Olhtrwist incorporated U1l0 lhe
projel1. Such a plan shaU bc consislcDI ",ilh
tbe rcquiremtnu of Ordinance No. 2010,
and includt' instructions for prtparalioD
prior to and during SlOrm CVCDIS, Dorma!
and emergency procedures, and procedurcs
followlng storm rvcnts.
4.5 Biological Resource. Nonc.
4.6 Mincral kClour,cl None.
-fj-
'- \".j..?l\.(/lo',,\..... !!IJt.!,,1
./t/:,'II,I ~ :'( /',~ ':'
Mitigation Moniloring Proerctlll
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
,'Orrt ~
(~*~!
,...~
.~.!v.U!!..:;;..'
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.7 Cattanl/Sc;ientif" Nooo.
Resources
4.1 Aesthetic. NODe.
U Traffic and Circulation ..9-1 Prior to any discretionary aCtiOD within the Dcvelopmem Scrvi("cs Devdopnlt:m Prior 10 J.IlY
Commercial EDlcnainmcDl <ksigoatiOD, tbe Direnor (or design<<) Services di~rClillllJry OIllitJIl
project applicant shall submit, for review and Din:ClOr (or withinlhe COlllmcn.:i...1
approval by ,be Developmen. Services design<<) Enh:'nainlllclIl
Director (or desigo<<), a .rallic study. Je~igll;.llion.
prepared by a qualified <nllic engineering
consuhaDl. tbat walyus the project's crea....
00 level of service 00 Holly Avenue benvccn
Huntingtnn Drive and Duane Road. Wbere
the study indicates trip grner.niaD for the
proposed development resulu in an
unacceptable level of ~rvicc OD this ~mCDI
of HoUr Avenue on a project levd, or
cODlribulQ cumulatively to greater than
LOS 0, .be .raflic study sball iden.ify
appropriate measures to achieve acceptable
levds of service; these measures either will
become conditions of approval of tbe project
or will be incorporatni into the project.
These measures may include. but arc not
necessarily limited to, the following:
-1-
I \.t.J.?lIJU1t',,\..... 'IJ ~1~1
.111~'II'/ .. Y /'1:1//
Mitigatioll Mflllitoring PrOgrilll1
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
,t~~~',
,~~\,
";'.<~~
'.~!:,::,!!!,!!!..~
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
. Provisioo of neighborhood ,raffic
conlrol measures at Holly Avenue/
HUDlin~oD Drive, such as turn
lane restrictions, uaffic divencrs
and lane closures to diven traffic
away from the roadway srgmcnl,
or
. Designate HoUy Avenue as a four
lane roadway betwccn HUDliogton
Drive and Duane Road, and
rc~rve right-of-way at such time as
rcdcvdopmcm of adj.a(CDt
propenics takes place.
4.10 Air Quality 4.10-1 Pctor to the issuaoce of any grading or Development Servin's Devdopmenl Prior 10 the U,,\UJ.lIl'l' 01
building permiu, project applicanu shall Dim.~or (or design.,,) Srrvin~s ;&oy l;c:.IJiuK or buJJin~
submit a mitigation plan for bOlb Dircnor (or PCTIIHh.
cODSlNaion equipment e:abausl and fugitive design.,,)
dust impacu to tbe Dcvdopmem Services
Director (or design.,,), for review and
approval. No cODsuuctioD will be
conducted prior to approval of ,his plan.
This Plan shall be included as a condition of
approval for the project or lncorporaled lnlO
,h. project design. The Plan shall include
but no' be limi,ed to the following (the City
shall verify use of ,he plan measures during
rq;ular site inspec,ions):
-8-
I \./.IJ01\Xf'o'lr \jo<~ 'j 01.,.1
.I1/.:.'ll'/ ~Y li:!!-
Mitigation Monitorinl! PI'O~I'i1nl
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
~_m~PI'_
, '
';" r . .I
,~~+;ji,.,.7
~~~!.y
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
+ Truck.~ used for haulinG n;,:cl.)
material sball be covered to mini.
mar loss of material, and flagmen
will be utilized <0 assist
(oonNctian trucks moving lOW
traffic.
. The CODtral"lor shall comply with
SCAQMD Rules .02, .03, wbicb
restricts fugitive dust emissions.
Measures outlined in tbe pI... sball
include, bu. nOl be limi.ed <0: daily
watering of graded areas, washing
of equipment tires t>cfore leaving
tbe construCtion sile, and use of
SCAQMD approved cbemical
S1abilizen or soil binden.
. During (OOSlNcrion, the
contractor shall discontinue all
consuuction activities aD the
projm si.. during fint ...d second
stage smog alens, or when wind
gusts e"eed 25 miles per bour.
-g-
I: \".'01 \gp.-" \J(1. ~:; L.1~1
.//{:.'IJ,j..Y /:.ll(.
Mili~ali()n M()l\il()rin~ P\'G~r;\I\\
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
~~~>.'
".~)
,+,,' .-..
.Q"!:~~!II!!"/
Responsible Party for
Timing Cor
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
. All construction equipm~m sball
be maimained and properly .
serviced so as to rrduce op~raliona.l
cminions. The contractor will
ensure abat all CODSlI'UClioD equip-
ment is being properly serviced ilIId
maiolaiard through weiHeD
documcllulloD lo the
Developmeot Services Dirc(tor (or
design<<.)
. The contractor shall provide evi-
dence thaI low cmwion mobile
construction equipment will be
utilized, or lhal their use was
investigated and found to be
infeasible for ,he project.
-/(}-
I \".dJ}\j{p<n\..,'~J L.f"1
}u.~'1J ,/ _::t /:l'~'
Miligalioll Moniloring Program
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
~~I'\'Yq.
.._~'"
="
I' .
.' ,
\ ~~o' - ./,;.-'/
""~!~!,l!~"Y
Responsible Party {or
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.11 Noise 4.11.1 Prior (0 issuance of ~ny entire StruL:lure Dl'vdopmenl St-rvices Developmellt Pri~lr to i~~u.ln(t' of ;IllY
demolitioo, grading or building permit, tbe Oil-<Ctor (or de>ignee) Servll'l's t.'llllre ~lnH:lure
permit applicant sball provide a Direl.."lOf (or Jt:JIIuliliulI, ~f.lJill~ or
Construction Management Pla.o to the designee) building pt.'flllil_
Devdopment Scrvicr.s Oil-eclDr (or designer).
for review and approval. Tbe Plan sball
describe the measures tbat will be
implemented during demolition/
construction activities to reduce off-sill' DOlse
impacu from cooSlructioD rquipOlcollO
within tbe instantaneous DOlse standards
witbin tbe City's Noise Ordinance. Tbese
measures shall become conditions of project
approval or incorporated uno .be projet.,
design. Tb... measures sball include but not
be limited to tbe foUowing:
. Use of quieter macbinery
. Use of DOise muffluslsilcDccn,
bUlb kiu. or otber mecbanical
methods 10 mulOt eJ.lcrnal noise
. Locating stockpiling. vehicle
staging arras, and otbrr ooisy
activities away from 'noUc scnlitivr
rttrplOrs (,.r., rc~idt:ncrs, schools,
day<arc, and ro.:rraliooal facilili(1).
The: Plan sball also provide: Cor pc:rioJic monitoring
reporu, lO the approval of thr Dira:lor, doc"Umrolwg
Plan implemrmatioo.
-1/-
ntf4JOJ\~.,\>nYO lop.!
.~I~:,'I1_"/ ~Y /1:1('
Mitigation Monitorin~ Pro~rlllll
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
t!m~,." _,
.~...)!
!'~'~'!i;!.~!"-:--
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.12 Public H.a1th (Hazard.) ..t2-t Prior 10 issuance of building permilS for any Emrrgency S('rvil'es Offil'cr EmergclIl'Y Prior ItI is}uJn(c of
development of 400,000 square feel or (or de.ignee) Services OHi(l'( buJJin~ pamil\ J~H.
greater, the Emergency Services Officer sb.ill (or Jt'Sit)llCC) Jl."dlJpml'1ll uf "00,000
modify the City's emer&ency response ~U;')'fl'h.-t.'lllrgrCJ\l'r.
prOlocol and available cmcrgenl-Y response
resources. oullined in the Multi-Hazard
FUDctional Plan. 10 accommodate tbe
additional increment of development allowed
by ,b. proposed Geoeral PI... Update. Such
modifications sball ensure tballbc nisting
level of service is maintained.
..12-2 Prior to issuance of building permiUi, projCt."1 Development Servil'cS OevdopmclH Prior (0 ,he..' is)UJIK(' of
proponenu shall demonstrate that the Du-eclOr (or desi~nee) Servi,es blliJJill~ pamilll.
propos<d devdopmen. will bave a neutral Dirc(lOr (or
effect on the City's ability to implemeDlthe Jcsi~lIcc)
emergency evacuation procwures and routes
identified in ,be Mulli Huard Functional
Pi.... If a n<gative eff<cr is identified,
alternative procedures for eVII(.'11a.tioD. of new
residents, employees, or patrons shall be
identified and doc'11mented for review and
approval by .be Devdopmelll Service.
Director. Ahernative evacuatioo procedures
sball be conditions of proj<cr approval or
incorpomed inlo ,b. design 01 tb. propos<d
developmeot.
-/c-'
I \,t.J01\KPr"\..'dl0 1.,...1
;//~~'II.''/ -.':! I'/~I,/,
Miligalion Moniloring Progntnl
Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
#f;~rrr~q.. ;
'~. . }
: (~.~*;.")
'~~!~,!!;.:/
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topil: Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.12-3 Prior to the lssuance of grading permits for Fire Ma"hall (or designee) Fire Mmhall Prior 10 Ihl' u.sU;lOfC,' 01
projecu ("'aled in designaled fire hazard and ~(;Idillg pt'rlllil~ for
zones, proposed site plans shall be submitted Devdopnlt'nl projects IUt:alt'J in
to ,he Fire Manball (or designee) and Servin:s I.k~it;nOlll.d fin:: b.ll.lrJ
DevclopmeDl Services Dircuor (or designee) Dirc:nur (or wUe\.
for review and approval demonstrating that deslgnees)
sufficient evacuation routes and adequate
water pressure or fire flows nist. Gradln,
permiu will nOl be issuai until sufficient
evacuation routes, water pressure, or flre
now facilities can be reliably provided.
4.13 Public Services and 4.13-1 Prior lO issuance of a building permit. the DcvdopmcDt Servil..'l:s Develupment Prior III inUJfllC 01 a
Utilities permit applicant shall provide writtcD Dircaor (or designee) ~rvices building permit.
evidence to the Development Services DinClor (or
Director (or designee) for review aod tksignee)
approval ,bat tbe Metropoli,an T rawit
Au,bori,y and! or FOOlbill T rawit ..
applicable b.. bee. contacted regarding
potcntial construction and operational effects
to e.is,ing and pl..ned f..,ilitics. Wbere
potcntial con.SlruClion and/or operational
imp.... would aff...~ tnnsi, facili,ics or
routes, mitigation sball be identified in
writing by tbe permi, applic.." ..d sball
include bu, not be limilCd to:
. Provision and maintcnance of
acceptable clearance between
construction aoivitic.s and transit
facilities.
-IJ-
J:\".ofJ01\Kf>c'J'\W'\O)/O 1..1,,1
o.J/{:;//./ ~ Y. 1/1;11-
Mitigation Monitoring ProgrilJil
;/,~m~q.
~~>
".."j
, f~~!.......~i.,'~
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
. T ransil purveyors must be notified
a minimum of two weeks prior (0
any roadway closure adjaccOllO
C&Lsting transit facilities.
. Incorporation or bus SlOpS,
shellers, park and ride Iou or other
typ<s 01 lacai,ies iDlO projec'
design.
4.14 Recreation NODe.
-11-
!-\".dOllKP<..,\.......yJ t.f~1
.-I{~;.'(J,I ~:/ /'1.'1(1
Mitigation Monitoring Prograrn
,\1m <'r
11.~
-?!t!:'!!!.!.~!.y
Table B- Summary of Regulations. Policies. Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects
Environmental Topic
Proposed General Plan
Mitigation Measure
Existing Regulations
".1 Land Use and Planning N/A ".1-1 N/A
Considerations
".2 Population and GP Strategies CD-20, CD-21, N/A N/A
Housing CD-22, CD-23. CD-H. CD-25
and Housing Improvement
Objectives in Appendix A of the
proposed General Plan Update)
".3 Earth Resources Development Performance ".3-1 City of Arcadia Ordinance Nos.
Standard (DPS)-40, DPS-..I 2033 and 192..
..... Water Resources DPS-3b, DPS-42. DPS-"3; Item .......1 City of Arcadia Ordinance No.
d., Coordination of 2010
Infrastructure.
IntergoverOIRental
Coordincation and Improvement
Program in Chapter b.O
".5 Biological Resources DPS-31, DPS-32,DPS-33 N/A N/A
i.b Mineral Resources N/A N/A California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975; City of
Arcadia Municpal Code, Anicle
9, Chapter 5, Pans 1 and 2,
Sections 951(}.9528; Conditional
Use Permit No. 92-003
-j5-
1:\Il.,Ol\ICPn,\..,:fJ1.1.1
.1//:,'/1'/ ._::~ IJ'~"
Mitigation Monitoring Pro~r[j/ll
J(rr:~1\o ~
'~~ . I
'(,:;~,:;,')'
"~!~!.II!.!-,-
Table 9-B- Summary of Regulations, Policies, Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects
4.7 Cultural/Scientific DPS-37, DPS-38, DPS-39 N/A N/A
Resources
4.8. Aesthetics Strategies CD-I through CD-13 N/A N/A
and CD-17 through CD-22; DPS- .
I through DPS-18
4.9 Traffic and Circulation N/A 4.9-1 N/A
4.10 Air Quality Strategies ER-Sthrough ER-16; 4.10-1 City of Arcadia TDM Ordinance
ER2lthrough ER-30; and DPS- and Title 24, 1994 UBC
H
4.11 Noise DPS-+4through DPS-SI 4.11-1 Noise Ordinance in Municipal
Code 4600
4.12 Public Health DPS-24, DPS-2S, DPS-26, DPS-30 4.12-1,4.12-2,4.12-3 N/A
(Hazards)
4.13 Public Services and Smllegy FS-20; DPS-21, DPS-22, 4.13-1,4.13-2 City of Arcadia SRRE (AB 939)
Utilities DPS-24 through DPS-29, Idem
d., Coordination of
Infrastructure,
Intergovernmental Coordination
and Improvement Program in
Chapter 6.0
4.14 Recreation DPS-23 N/A N/A
-10-
I \, I~ lOl \t.J'<1' \.... y 0 ....,..1
.Jt~:"(J,1 ..:/ I/'If>