Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5946 RESOLUTION 5946 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE] 996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, updating the City's General Plan has been a long-term goal of the Development Services Department; ,md WHEREAS, the City's last General Plan update was completed in ] 990 and the last technical studies were completed in the ] 970s and do not adequately reflect the current land uses, noise issues, and circulation patterns within the City and its sphere of influence, In addition, since 1990 there have been changes in State laws relating to required information which have been incorporated in the new 1996 Arcadia General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March ]5, ]995, authorized the Development Services Department to proceed with a comprehensive amendment to the General Plan and enter into a professional services agreement with LSA Associates, Inc. for the preparation of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan (the "]996 General Plan") and related Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia (the "City") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq,) (the "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, a community workshop was held on the General Plan on May 17, 1995; and WHEREAS, ajoint workshop ofthe Planning Commission and City Council was held on July 19, ] 995 to discuss General Plan alternatives; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on April 29, April 30, May ]4, May ]6, May 30, and June 25, ]996 on the Arcadia General Plan and General Plan EIR, -]- 5946 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, after review of the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1535 on June 25, 1996 recommending that the City Council adopt the 1996 Arcadia General Plan with certain revisions arid certify the ErR; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the City Council on July 8 and July 10, 1996, on the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and 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 the Final EIR and all comments thereon and responses thereto have been considered, including Planning Commission Resolution 1535, and; WHEREAS, the proposed Draft General Plan document and EIR were available for public review at the following locations: Arcadia Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California Arcadia Public Library 240 West Duarte Road Arcadia, California WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the Housing Element of the Draft General Plan and changes pursuant to the comments made by HCD were considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(g) and 2762(b) and (c), applicable sections of the Draft General Plan were distributed to the Division of Mines and Geology of the State Department of Conservation for review; and WHEREAS, the Division of Mines and Geology of the State Department of Conservation did not provide comments in regard to the Draft General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, the proposed action has been referred to the appropriate entities on the Draft Environrnentallmpact Report Mailing List on file in the office of the Community Development Division and the City Clerk's office, and incorporated -2- 5946 fully by this reference; and WHEREAS, the final 1996 General Plan and all its constituent parts are properly integrated, internally consistent and compatible; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Government Code Section 65400(b) requiring an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and its implementation, the General Plan includes an annual General Plan Review and Update Program as an integrated component of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of this date herewith has adopted a Resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impac1 Report (FEIR) relating to the comprehensive amendment of the Arcadia General Plan is complete and adequate and that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines, and the City CEQA procedures; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the 1996 Arcadia General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of this date herewith adopted a Resolution making certain findings regarding the environmental effects ofthe proposed General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Final EIR and has considered the information and public testimony presented in the public hearings and in the proposed documents and staff reports, all of which are included in the public record and incorporated herein by reference, prior to acting on the 1996 Arcadia General Plan itself, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, Based on the evidence presented at the public hearings, within the staff report, and within the 1996 Arcadia General Plan document and the Final EIR, the City Council adopts a comprehensive amendment to the Arcadia General Plan, subject to the conditions set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, (Exhibit B to the Resolution certifying the Final EIR). Section 2. Specific economic, social, or other considerations as described on pages 59 through 63 of Exhibit "A" which are incorporated fully by this reference, make infeasible the Project alternatives identified in Chapter 5, pages 5,6 through 5,36 of the Final ElR. -3- 5946 Section 3. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed 1996 Arcadia General Plan project against its unavoidable envirorunental risks in determining whether to approve the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, and has determined that the benefits outweigh the significant effects which are not substantially mitigated, and finds that such adverse environmental effects are acceptable, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth on pages 65 through 71 of Exhibit "A" and incorporated fully by this reference, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, held on the ~ day of Sept, 1996, //~ MayorjCity of Arcadia Pro tern A TIEST: jJ APPROVED AS TO FORM: J!J~ if rr; eM- City Attorney of the City of Arcadia -4- 5946 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE 0, ALFORD, City Clerk ofthe City of Arcadia, California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No, 5946 adopted by the City COlll1cil of the City of Arcadia, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ~ day of Septemb'lrl996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None u,<...I~ C' lerk of the City -5- 5946 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I'l SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS. ,-\:--;D STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF'. ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND In accordance with the Califomia 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 certified 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 the significant effects on the environment J2108/.(aj(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 J2108Ua)(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 the mitigation measures or altematives 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 "An 7/lO/96(A.,\EXHlBIT.A.) EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT Land Ure and Planning Considerations Conflicts with General Plan Designations and Zoning . The primary purpose of the 1996 General Plan project is [Q assess the land use desi!!- nations of the existing General Plan, and to modi fv those designations as necessarv ;0 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 not be modified by the 1996 General Plan, Modifications to the land use designations of the proposed 1996 General Plan will be primarily limited to: I) downtown, 2) the Santa Anita 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 Agricultural Resources or Operations There are no known agricultural resources within the City of Arcadia and its sphere of influence, Direct Land Use Impacts: Santa Anita Race Track Transition Area The \ 996 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. 7/JO/96(A, \EXHlBIT.A) 2 Direct and Indirect Land Use Impacts: Santa Clara StreetlHuntin{:ton Dri"e Transition Area As identified in the 1996 General Plan. land use designations within this transition area are being modified to renect the area's transition from industrial to commercial land uses, The majority of the transition area will be designated Mixed 13se-Cl)m. mercial/:\Iultiple Family Residential (C/MFR). Land use designations" ithin this transition area will not substantially alter the existing land use patlern within this portion of the City. The potential for significant indirect 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 Street/Huntington Drive Transition Area are below the level of significance. Direct and Indirect Land Use Impacts: Downtown Residential Transition Area The 1996 General Plan continues the 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 to establish maximum allowable intensities within the areas designated Jor multiple family use. replacing the previous 7+ dulac 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 the implementation of the 1996 General Plan as it affects land use within the Downtown Residential Transition Area are below the level of significance. Direct Land Use Impacts: Lower Azusa Road Transition Area The 1996 General Plan retains the existing Industrial land use designation and the existing/past land use type that existed within 8S 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 to be permitled from existing residential streets. A transition from the adjacent residential 7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.A) J . uses would be achieved utilizing physical and visual buffers, such as inte~ratin~ a system of building setbacks and landscaped berms located in such a man~er as- to visually shield the adjacent industrial development from adjacent residential. Thus, direct land use impacts from the ultimate industrial use of this transition area are anticipated to be less than significant. The direct impacts of an inert landfill within the fonner Rodeffer quarry site in the 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 nOled above, the 1996 General Plan requires that access to tt}is 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 the 1996 Gen- eral Plan (setbacks and benn) 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, Direct and Indirect Impacts: Balance of Incorporated Area Land use designations identified in the 1996 General Plan for the balance of lands \vithin 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 identify 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, \EXHlBIT.A) 4 As evidenced by the comments of the Southern California Association of GO\ ern. ments (SCAG), the growth that would be permitted by the 1996 Arcadia General Plan is consistent with regional grO\,~h forecasts. Di-,placement 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 the replacement of existing affordable housing. as well as for new housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, Thus. displacement of existing housing is not considered to be a significant effect of the 1996 General Plan. Earth Resources Soil, Slop" 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 O. 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 EIR 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 Performance Standard 4\ of the proposed 1996 General 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 quany site in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area. Prior to construction of 7/JO/9&(A,\EXHIllIT .A) 5 any structures on ~he site. the Rodeffer property "ill have to be completely fllleu. Additionally, future industrial structures constructed on top of the till material .;elulu be subjected to the effects of senlement. "hich could potentially occur if the lanutill materials are not properly compacted. However, proper standards for .;ompaction are provided in the approved Reclamation Plan for the site, Filling of the quarry pit has previously been approved by the City (Conditional Use Permit No. 92-003). and the environmental effects of this operation have been evaluated in the Rodeffer Inert Landfill FEIR (City of Arcadia. 1994.) Existing mitigation measutes have been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Landtill (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 Hazards 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. or the Course or Direction of Water 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 w.ill 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 panerns on this site is considered less than significant. 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHIIllT.A) 6 Biological Resources General Biological Resources The General Plan study area is nearly fully developed and. therefore. has relativelv few signiticant biological resources. The proposed changes to the General Plan land use designations are concentrated in the developed portions of the City. vvhere no significant biological resources occur. There will be no impacts to biological re- sources within any of the transition areas. specifically. The Los Angeles County Arboretum, located west of Santa Anita Fashion Park and the Arcadia Wilderness Park in the northern 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 the 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 detennination of potential impacts due to proposed land development. Development Perfonnance 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 pennitting procedures for species categorized as either endangered. rare or threatened by USFWS and/or CDFG, As part of the pennitting procedures, surveys may be required at the appropri- ate time of year prior to the development in or adjacent to these areas, to detennine whether sensitive species are present on such properties, After compliance with 1996 7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.A> 7 General Plan Perfonnance Standards 31, 32 and ]], effects to sensitive biolo~ical resources are considered less than signiticanl. - Santa 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 those habitats are preserved as open space for -public safety (flood control facilities) or as wildlife habitat. However, there could potentially 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 33 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. Lower Azusa Road Transition Area. 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 Penn it (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 confinned 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 arid 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 Policies 7IJO/96(A,\EXHIBrr.A) 8 Areas of biological resources within the General Plan study area exist primarily \\ ithin the Arcadia Wilderness Park and the Los Angeles Coumy Arboretum, Outside these designated areas. biological resources are limited due to the developed nature or the community. The 1996 General Plan contains City policies relevant to resource conservation: however, there are not any specitic policy or land use changes that would impact affect adopted conservation plans and policies. Mineral Resources The land use designations and densities proposed in the 1996 General Plan do nO! alter the availability or non-availability of the four sites determined to have signiticam mineral resources, Drainage Areas 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 Property The Rodem~r 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, Soulh Easl industrial Area 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 ofa Conditional use permit by the City, If the property remains vacant or quarrying activities are undertak.en, 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(^,\EXHIllIT .^) 9 Article 9. Chapter 5. of Ihe Arcadia \lunicipal Code, potential secondary impacts resulting from future mining activities are considered to be less than signiti~ant. Cultural/Scientific Resources Physical Changes Which Might Affect Unique Ethnic Cultur"l V"lues 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 the policies contained in the 1996 General Plan. the likelihood of these changes impacting any unique ethnic cultural values is speculative and remote. Restrictions on E:cisting Religious or Sacred Uses The 1996 General Plan does not contain any restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses. nor would any provisions of the 1996 General Plan have the result of restricting known existing religious or sacred uses within the General Plan study area. Archaeological Resources Unknown archaeological resources may be encountered during grading activities for new and redevelopment within the General study area, With compliance with Devel- opment Perfonnance Standards 37. 38 and 39 of the proposed 1996 General Plan. potential effects to unknown archaeological resources within the study area are con- sidered less than significant. Historic Resources 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 structures if not designed with their protection in mind, The provisions of the 1996 General Plan (Chapter 4,0. Cultural Resources Approach). ensure that new development will not be pennitted 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 - ler. The 1996 General Plan retains the Horse Racinll: land use designation for the race track facility itself. eliminating potential impact;. Potential t~ture development proposals within the Commercial ponion of the race track could.adverselv affect the visual integrity of these facilities. although no direct physical impacts are 'antic ipated from site development, Thus. the General Plan approach section outlininu Gelleral Plan requirements for future commercial development within the southerly ;ace track parking area provides for the retention of view corridors to the race track grandstands. and specities that the architecture of future development is to be compatible with the architecture of the grandstands. Scientific Resources Based on a review of scientilic (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 fonnations that are known to have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of proposed 1996 General Plan Development Perfonnance Standards 37. 38 and 39 penaining to paleontological resources will funher reduce any potential impacts to these resources. if found. Implementation of the 1996 General Plan will result in incremental development throughout the City, Development opponunities outside of identilied Transition Areas are limited, and will be consistent with the existing character of the area: therefore. potential visual effects are considered less than significant. In addition, implementation of the 1996 General Plan Strategies CD-I through CD-22 and Development Perfonnance Standards 1 through 18 further reduce potentially visual effects for the portions of the City outside the Transition Areas identified, Santa Clara Strut/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition Areas 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 significanr. [n addition, implementation of 1996 General Plan Strategies CD-I through CD-22 and Development Perfonnance 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. 7/1C/%(A,\EXHlBIT.A) 11 The site is barren of vegetation and has linle variation in colors to provide \ isual interest. Future development has the potential for improving the visual .:hara.:ter of the site by transforming the site to a developable parcel. Because industrial development sometimes results in large-scale buildings and site designs that are out of scale and character with existing ~esidential development. the 1996 General Plan contains specific provisions for industrial development within this Transition Area. including requirements for setbacks, landscaped berms. and site design to achieve visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods to the west and south. In addition. the 1996 General Plan recognizes that security lighting of industrial uses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods has the potential to introduce light into adjacent residential neighborhoods and provides performance standards to ensure that light and glare from industrial developments do not impa.:t residential neighborhoods, . Implementation of the General Plan Approach provisions for this Transition Area. along with Performance Standards I. 2, 7. 9 will mitigate potential impacts to the quality of existing viewsheds to a level that is less than significant. Traffic and Circulation Waterborne and Air 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 El Monte Airport, No increases in the amount of rail traffic are proposed in the 1996 General Plan, [n 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, Parking Current City ordinances outline off-site parking requirements for proposed development, The land use changes coiltained 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/%(A,\EXHII\IT .A) 12 Air Quality development projects within the City requiring an EIR are subject to Resolution ~o. 5780, which requires an analysis within the EIR that assesses impacts on the re\!ional transportation system. After compliance with Ordinance '10. 1984 and Resoluti;n ~o. 5iSO. impacts related to implementation of the O...IP will be less than si\!niticant - . Roadway Levels of Sef'Vice A detailed analysis of the traffic impacts of the 1996 General Plan was undenaken as part of the EIR. and is included in Appendix D of the Final EIR. The traffic studv demonstrates that. with the exception of Holly Avenue (between Huntington Dri\'~ and Duarte Road) and Michillinda Avenue (between Colorado and Sunset boulevards), all roadways will operate at Level of Service D or belter. and thus. no signiticant impacts will resull. Air Movement, Moisture, and Temperature Based on the proposed revisions to General Plan land uses, building heights within 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, If no 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 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHlBIT.AI 13 Chapter -1.0 of the 1996 General Plan outlines the City's approach to implementati\Jn of AQI-oIP strategies. 1996 General Plan Strategies ER.I and ER-2 address public information and community involvement ER-3 and ER--I regarding coordination \\ ith regional planning efforts, ER-S and ER-S regarding identitic;tion ;nd implementation of transportation system management programs, ER.9 through ER.13 re~arding implementation of transponation demand management strategie-s. ER-I-I and- ER.15 regarding location of new development and redevelopment ~ithin the Citv, All of these strategies are geared to I) educate the citizens of Arcadia regarding o'pponuni- ties for use of alternative modes of trans po nation. 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 opponunities for substantial new development, the land use program in the 1996 General Plan focusses on the intensification of existing uses through redevelopment with multifamily and commerciallindustrial. 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 SCAG 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 Comprehensive Plan Growth 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 SeAG'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 pollutailt emissions by encouraging redevelopment of existing properties with more intensive land uses. [nfill 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 flO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 14 Regional ,\(obiliry Cllapter. As evidenced by SCAG's commentlelter On the Drali 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 traffic '.01- urnes and vehicle miles traveled. consistent with the ~oals of the Regional ~Iobilit\' Chapter, - - , Congestion Management Plan Although the \996 General Plan i1self is not subject to the provisions of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), Arcadia hos Jdopted J T rJnsportation Demand Management Ordinance (Ordinance 1984), and has a land use analysis program for development projects (Resolution 5780) as required by the County CMP. 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 0 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 Perfonnance Standards 44 through 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 (Hazards) Hazardous ,Wateriau 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHIBlT.A) 15 Asbestos. ~Iany of the buildings in the City, particularly within the Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition Areas, "ere constructed prior to the \ 979 ban on the use of asbestos building materials. The 1996 General Plan provides for increased residential densities and red~velopment within the downtown area. which may spur the modification or replacement of older buildin!!s. Construction workers involved in such demolitions could be exposed to asbestos containing materials. Prior to issuing demolition pertnits, the Arcadia Building Section requires that all applicants submit a completed "Notitication of Demolition and Asbestos Removal" form. per SCAQMD requirements. Also. pursuant to 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 asbestos 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 1han significant. Hazardous Materials Storage/Hazardous Waste Generation. Industrial facilities typically use and generate significantly greater quantities of hazardous materials than 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 transported 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, In addition, the City has adopted a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the enforcement of which is identified as Strategy EH-2\ in the \996 General Plan, Compliance wi1h 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 oCthe 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 h<;>usehold hazardous waste from occurring, 'derground Storage Tanlcs. The 1996 General Plan will result in intensification of :1mercialland uses in the Santa Clara StreetlHuntington Drive Transition Area, Due. the 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 1he future within this transition area. Underground storage tanks associated with 7/JO/96(A,\EXHlBIT.A) 16 historical. existing. and future uses have the potential for developing leaks that can contaminate local groundwater if not properly installed and maintained. \rith compliance of existing and new development with federal and State reuulations regarding installation, maintenance and repair of underground storage tanks. potential effects resulting from leaking tanks are considered less than signiticant. Inert Ll/ndfill The 1996 General Plan retains the industrial designation previously applied to the abandoned quarry site located adjacent to Lower Azusa Road. The quarry is planned to be filled with inert materials over approximately 8to 10 years, as addressed in the "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill" (City of Arcadia. 1994), Reclamation of the site has the potential to introduce hazardous materials as part of fill operations. As discussed in the FEIR, 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 the 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 the 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 hmdfill operation. If contamination is detected, affected groundwater will be exiracted 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. Public Services Fire Departmell' Currently. the Fire Department is able to provide tire 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 IJO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 17 throughout the City, primarily within the four identified transition areas: ho\\o\w. these changes are not expected to increase demand for tire protection services, \\ ith the exception of new commercial development adjacent to the Santa Anita race track. Any significant commercial development in this area will likelv ~enerate an increase in emergency medical services (EMS) for the City, and the Eivis -team at Fire Station No. 32. located adjacent to the racetrack. will be fully oc:upied by calls from fUllIre development within this area. Because the EMS team for Station No. n also covers medical emergencies within 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 unit. 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 the 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 2S will further reduce potential effects on fire services. Police Service:l The City's existing police services are adequate to support build out of all land use intensification outlined in the 1996 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, Incremental demand for patrol services and staffing and necessary resources will be assessed through new development and redevelopment projects' compliance with Performance Standards 27, 28 and 29 of the 1996 General Plan and as pan 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 security, future development within this area may increase demand for police services anywhere up to 4 to I S percent. Exact figures of additional police labor needs and additional capital improvements will be established through 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, \EXHIIlIT.Al 18 Hospital Services The 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentially result in additional demand for medical and emergency services provided by the \Iethodist Hospital. As identified in the Final EIR, according to Dennis Linson, Vice President of\lethodist 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 \lethodist Hospital. effects to hospital services resulting from implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan would be incremental and are considered less than significant. School Services Arcadia Ullified School District (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 OA/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 Newpon-Mesa Unified School Districts, These districts were used due to similar student characteristics as the Arcadia Unified School District. The Final EIR 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 EIR'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 cum:nt 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 Slate 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 MOllie City School DiSTrict (EMCSD) alld EI MOllie High School District (EMHSDj, Current and proposed land uses for the ponions of the City within the 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHlBlT.A> 19 boundaries of the E:-'ICSD and E\IHSD. including the Lower Azusa Ruad Transition Area. are designated industrial. As noted in the Fin;' EIR. according to the E\lCSD. commercial and industrial uses have been found to have an insigniticant impact un EMCSD enrollment. and State mandated development fees have not been assessed un past commercial and industrial development within the E:-'lCSD. The EMHSD currently collects 40 percent of the standard fee for commercial/industrial development. with the remaining 60 percent going to the appropriate elementary school district. of which EMCSD is one, No additional fees are levied. Payment uf 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 School Districts. 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 commerciallindustrialland 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, [n 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 6-6 of the 1996 General Plan document. which establishes the school facilities perfonnance 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 perfonnance standard noted above. Thus. impacts on school facilities will be less than significant. 7 IJO/96(A, \EXHIIlIT.Al 20 Library Services The 1996 General Plan will increase residential densities and an increased demand on library services. The existing facility and programs at the Arcadia Public Librar.... are currently being expanded, refurbished, and updated, As noted in the Final 'EIR, according to Kent Ross. Librarian, the build out of the 1996 General Plan will not signiticantly impact existing City library facilities, With the current facilitv expansion, the Final EIR also notes that Mr. Ross also indicated that the library would be able to service the needs of the City by responding to public requests and offering computers for more technological capabilities. Therefore. the additional demand resulting from build out of the 1996 General Plan is considered minor, and any effects to library services are considered less than significant, The County of Los Angeles has indicated that 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. Sewet 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 the 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 will 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(Ao \EXHIBIT.^) 21 Performance Standards 42 and 43 and Item d.. Coordination of lnfrastruc!ure. Intergovernmental Coordination and Improvement Program of the 1996 General Plan. potential localized flooding impacts resulting from implementation of the 1996 General Plan are considered less than significant. As discussed in the Final EIR. projected growth with implementation of the 1996 General Plan will be less than projected by SCAG in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Since capacity for wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Consolidated Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is based on the growth projections outlined in the RCP and since implementation of the 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 the 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 Park 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. Perfonnance 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(A, \EXHIIlIT.A> 22 The City of Arcadia proposes to adopt an amendment and comprehensive update of the Arcadia General Plan. Due to the potential impacts to the community and because the proposed action constitutes a project under CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines. :1l1d City CEQA Procedures. the City of Arcadia has prepared an EIR. The EIR identitied certain signiticant effects that may Occur as a result of the implemel1lation of lhe updated General Plan. FurtheT. the City Council has determined that the EIR is complete and adequate, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. State Guidelines. and City CEQA Procedures. Therefore, the tollowing lindings are set torth herein pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public ResouTces Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Significant Effect Number J The build out of land uses within Transition Area I (Santa Anita Race TTack aTea) fOT General Plan ScenaTios A, B, and C (1.5 million, 975,000 and 600.000 squaTe feet of new commercial entertainment development, respectively) has a potentially significant indiTect 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 the 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, fOT Teview and approval by the Development Services Director (or designee), that the proposed development: . PTovides tTansitions 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 7/ JO/96(A, \EXHlBIT.A) 23 ". . Is consistent with applicable General Plan public facilily performance standards. and does not cause a reduction in Ihe level of services and facilities provided to existing developmenl. Fllcts in Support of Finding Depending upon the configuration of future development within Transition Area I. there is potential for massing of buildings in a manner incompatible with the low intensity residential character of the community. The potential development 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 1 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. POPUU TlON 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 Number 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) 24 Specific economic. legal. social. technological. or other considerations. il1c1l1din~ considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for high Iv trained workers." make infeasible the reduction of seismic impacts to 3 level of in;ig~itic3nce. Filets in Support of Finding In the study area. seismic shaking that could occur as a result of a lame re~ional earthquake or a great, relatively distant earthquake is considered potent~lIy I~ighly destructive. There is currently no way to prevent or predict earthquakes with a high degree of accuracy. The severity of the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (7\ICEs) for the local and regional faults located near Arcadia range from an estimated 6.5 to 8.3 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 II1JUfles. 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 (\ 988) generally takes into account shaking of up to approximately 0.5g, 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 1996 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 C it)' 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, \EXHIBIT.A) 25 incremental development. no increase in the exposure risk within the City would occur. . . Differential Settlement. Due to regional seismic activity. differential 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 the exposure risk w'ithin the City. . Landslides/Slope Instability. Due to regional seismic actlVltv. future residential and habitable structures within the portion of the study a'rea 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 the 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. WATER RESOURCES Significant Effect Numbe, 3 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,\EXHIBIT.A) 26 Changes or alteralions have been required in. or incorporaled i1110. the proj~'l "hid, mitigate or avoid the signiticant effects on the environmenl. With implementation of Ordinance No. 2010 and the mitigation measure identitied below. potential Slonn water quality impacts associated with construclion projects of less than tive acres" i II be reduced to below the level of signiticance. :Vlitigation :Vleasure 4.4-1 stales: 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for constru,tion projects less than live acres. the project applicant shall subm it to the Development Services Dire'tor (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 lhe" requirements of Ordinance No. 2010. and include instructions for preparation prior to and during storm events. normal and emergency procedures. and procedures following storm events. Fllcts in Support of Finding Future development is required to comply with the requirements of the 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. 20 I 0 will result in impacts to long-term storm water quality that are considered less lhan 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. 2010, 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, \EXHIBIT.A) 27 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No potentially significant or significant impacts to biological resources have been identified resulting from the proposed amendment and co~prehensive update of the Arcadia General Plan. . JIlNERAL RESOURCES Significant Effect Numbe,-I Loss of the availability of known significant mineral resources that would potentially be of future value to the region and lhe residents of the State. as detined by the State of California Division of Mines and Geology. 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 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 CO!ls!rUction. As such. the 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, S 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 sllldv orea. individual development projects will be required to comply with City Devel~pmenl Performance Standards of the proposed 1996 General Plan. . Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated inlo. the project which miligate or avoid the signilicant effects on the environment. 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. rorest 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 rorest Service property and, therefore, these resources will not be directly affected and no impact will occur. ruture 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 10 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 that are considered less than significant. 7/JO/96(A,\EXliIBIT,A) 29 Based on a review of scientific (paleontological) resources. developmenl ,,;thin the study area would have little or no effect on paleontolol!ical resources" ith 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 Envi,onmental Effect Number 6 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. 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. Faets in Suppo,t 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, \EXHlBIT.A) 30 included in General Plan Approach and Slrategies CD-I through CD-I} and CD-17 lhrough CD-22 identified in Chapter 2.0. and Development Performance Slandards I through 18. will reduce pOlential effects on the existing viewshed adjacent to Transi. tion Area I; however. residual impacts to localized views of the ~randstJnds will remain signiticant and unavoidable. :--10 mitigation measures have be;n identitied that ,an reduce this signiticant. unavoidable. adverse impacl. The remaining. unavoidable signiticanl effect is acceptable when balanced a~ainst facts set forth above and in lhe Slatement of Overriding Considerations made below. TRAFFIC AND CIRCUUTlON Significant Effect Number 7 Potential traffic related impacts from the planned Rodeffer lnen Landfill project on Lower Azusa Road were addressed in the Rodeffer Final ErR, City of Arcadia. 1994. The FEIR analysis projected that intersection levels of service would exceed threshold levels of significance for Lower Azusa Road/I-605/Rivergrade 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 operate at LOS D. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. lhe project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identitied 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 15 lrucks 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 I) 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 atlhe intersection of Lower Azusa Road/and 1-605/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 Numbe, 8 7/JO/96(A,\EXHIlIIT.A) 31 As outlined in Appendix D of the proposed 1996 General Plan EIR. Holl\" ..h~l1u~ between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road is projected to operate al LOS F \\ ith implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan. wilh any of the De\"~lopmenl Scenarios. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated inlo. lhe projecl which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding As described under General Plan A.nalysis ,\-lethodology 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 determ ine 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 Avenue 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 ofthe 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 A venue 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 71 JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 32 shall identify appropriate measures to achieve acceplable levels of service: these measures either will become conditions of approval of the project or will be incorporated into the project. These measures mav include. but are not limited to. the following: . . Provision of neighborhood traffic control measures at Hollv Avenue! Huntington Drive, such as turn lane restrictions. traftic di,:.rters and lane closures to divert traffic away from the roadway segment, or . Designate Holly Avenue as a four lane roadway between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, and reserve right-of-way at such time as redevelopment of adjacent properties takes place. Significant Effect Number 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 Stlppo,t 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- fined 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 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 Number 10 Emissions from construction equipment from grading activities. construction acti\ilies and building materials deliveries related to the build Oul of the Gel1eral 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. 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 Construction equipment will create exhaust pollutants from grading aCllvltles, construction activities and building materials deliveries. Quantification of pollutant emissions associated with construction of the development identified in the proposed 1996 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 pOlential 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- I, which requires thaI: 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 lhis 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/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 34 . Trucks used for hauling excess malerial shall be covered to minimize loss of material. and flagmen will be utilized to assist construction lrucks moving into traffic. . The contractor shall comply with SCAQ~"1D Rules .\0". .\03. which restricts fugitive dust emissions. Measures outlined in the plan shall include. but not be limited to: dailv walering of ~raded areas washin" . -.... . - of equipment tires before leaving the construction site. and use 01' 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 lhat 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-term air quality impacts. Therefore. lhe 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 Numbe, 11 Emissions resulting from the implementation of a proposed inert landfill within a former quarry site (Rodeffer property) at the southern end of the study 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. 71 JO/96(A,\EXHlBIT.A) 35 Faets in Suppo,t of Finding Regardin'g the potential impacts from implementation of lhe planned inert landtill on the Rodeffer property in the southeast section of the General Plan sludy area. lhe Rodeffer Final EIR (Engineering Science. 1994) concluded lhat tl\e live Jay construclion period of that project (site preparation and road paving) \\ould generate em issions from CO. ROG. NO,. and So. lhat would be below the lhreshold le\els. Le\els of PM" over two of those days. however. would exceed lhreshold levels. Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer EIR will reduce the signiticant emissions to below threshold levels for all emissions with exception of PM,o' 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 pr9perty and off-site source locations. and truck trips within the site to move the material around). Stationary source emissions and PM,o were also projected for the landfill period. Concentrations of CO at tive 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 PMo 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 ElR to reduce emissions impacts include: I) discontinuation of operations during Stage II 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 Effect Number 11 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 irained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT,A) 36 While long-term emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor \ehicles to access a site. nominal emissions are also generated indirectly wilh on-site combustion involved in both space and water heating and oil-site generation of electrical power. Emissions associated with build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan includin~ Development Scenarios A. B. and C are identified in Tables 4.10.0 through 4.1 O.F ot' the Final EIR. The breakdown of emissions for the exi~ting General Plan build oul scenario is provided in Appendix H of the Final EIR. Implem-entalion of the proposed 1996 General Plan will result in total daily emissions that exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria. To identify the incremental increase associated wilh build out of the proposed 1996 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 4.1O.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-5 through ER.8 regarding Transportation Improvements and System Management. ER-9 through ER.13 regarding Transportation Demand Management, ER.14 through ER-15 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 lhat 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 Signifieant Effect Numbe, 13 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 in Support of Finding Some noise disturbance in adjacent existing noise sensitive areas is expected during construction of any development. These disturbances may result from demolilion. site preparation and conslruction 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 lighl. are otien required to move excavated material and to deliver gravel. concrete. lumber and Olher materials. Typical noise impacts associated with construction activities are described in section ...11 of the Final EIR. Although construction noise is generally a short-term impact. lhere is a potenlial for disruption of nearby sensitive receptors ifsteps are not taken to limit 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. 4.1\-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 lhe 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 identified 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 vom 6 to 7IJO/96(A,\EXHIBlT,A> 38 12 feet at adjacent residences as the tilling operation moves closer to the residences (approximately in the seventh year of the operation). It was determined in the FEIR that. Wilh implementalion of these mitigation measures. potentially signiticant noise impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance, PCBLIC HEALTH (HAZARDS) Significant Effect Numbe, U Build out of the General Plan will have the potential to increase the demand for emergency services and facilities. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. lhe project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified 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 lotal 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, lhe 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 A venue 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. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.\2-2, 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. 71l0/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 39 ~,12-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for any developmenl of ~OO.OOO 'ejuare feet or grealer. lhe Emergency Services Officer shall modify the City's emergency response prolocol and available emergency response resources. outlined in lhe Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. to accommodate the additional increment of development allowed by the proposed 1996 General Plan. Such moditications shall ensure lhat the existing level of service is maintained. ~.I ~-~ 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 Effect Numbe, 15 Implementation 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 4.12-2, identified above, the potential for increased evacuation delays from the incremental increase in permanent residents, daytime work force and nighttime pat(ons will be reduced to below tlte level of significance. Significant Effect Number 16 Build out of the General Plan will increase the demand for fire prevention and suppression services. 71 JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A> 40 Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project \\hich mitigate or avoid the signiticanl effects on lhe environment. Filets in Support of Finding Conditions in the Angeles National Forest, located just north of the northern-most portions of Arcadia. pose a high fire danger risk. The existing residences adjacent to lhe moulh of Santa Anita Canyon are located in an area topographically conducive 10 rapid spreading of wildland fires. Fires starting 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 of the 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 cle'lr 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 northernmost portion 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 lone due to slower response times of more than five or six minutes to reach this portion 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 6-8, and Mitigation Measure 4.12.-3 will result in fire hazard effecls 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 lhe Fire Marshall (or designee) and Development Services Director (or designee) for review and approval demonstrating that sufficient evacuation routes and adequate wat~r pressure or fire flows exist. Grading permits will not be issued until sufficient evacuation routes, water pressure, or fire flow facilities can be reliably provided. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Significant Effect Numbe, 17 71 JO/96(A,IEXHIBIT.A) 41 Due to the existing local and regionallransit opportunities in the Citv. the land use changes provided in the proposed 1996 General Plan potentiallv ~en;rate auuilional incremental demand on transit services in lhe City. . - Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. lhe project" hich mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Suppo,t 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-II and 13 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) for 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 sub~tantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. 7/JO/96(A,\EXHIBlT.Al '42 Significanr Effect Number 18 The proposed 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentiJllv result in addilional demand for telephone and cable lelevision services. . Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identilied in the Master E1R. Faets 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 lelevision 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 Numbu 19 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/JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT,A) 43 Facts in Support of Finding Daily natural gas and electricity consumption will increase by approximalely 310. -169 cubic feet and \21.323 ki\owan hours under build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan with Development Scenario A. Build out wilh 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 kilowan hours per day. Development Scenario C build out is estimated to consume an additional 285.1;3 cubic feet and 94.21; kilowatt hours per day. Implementation of General Plan Strategy FS-20. which identifies on\!oing 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 Numbe, 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 existing facilities at the Puente Hills Landfill and the Bradley Landfill. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. lhe project lhat 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 implemeill 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. AS 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/%(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 44 less than 56 percenl since lhe estimates in lhe SRRE were based on I(NO \\35t< generalion data. However. the City will be required to comply with AB 93'l and me<! the minimum 50 percent diversion. lhrough the implemenlation of ilS SRRE as included in Table 6-B of the proposed 1996 General Plan development performance standards. The CilV will monitor the level of waste diversion throul!hout build out of the proposed 1996'General Plan in order to ascertain compliance \\~th the 50 percent reduction mandate. As a result. no signiticant impact to solid waste facililies will be generated by the proposed 1996 General Plan. RECREATION Significant Eff~ct Numb~, 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. CUMUUT1VE IMPACTS Signifieant Cumulative Effect Number 1 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. 7/10/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 45 Finding Specific economic. legal. social. technological. or other considerations. including considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for hi~hlv lrained workers. make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives ideniiti~d in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding Additional residents in the City and its sphere of intluence would potentially be exposed to primary and secondary seism ic 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, Venlura and Imperial Coumies. 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. lhese potential primary seismic impacts are considered to be significant. since seismic events cannot be prevented but are known to be an imminent danger. Thc:'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 Numbe, 2 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 "a" Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 7IJO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 46 Facts in Support of Finding The proposed \ 996 General Plan land uses would contribute towards the cumulative draw on the East and West Units of lhe Raymond Groundwater Basin and the Main 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 potential 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 waler 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 lhe 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 Stale 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 S WP storage and water conveyance facilities and through the opportunity for urban contractors to purchase agricultural water entitlements (U,ban Wate,. Management Plan, Chapter Ill). 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/l0/96(A,\EXHlBrt.Al 47 The Regional U,ban Water Jfanagemelll Planfo, the .\fermpolitan Wate, Di.Hricr of Southern California (M\\iD. October. 1995) projects water demand for the municip;1 and industrial uses in MWD's service area utilizing torecasted lon~-lerm demographics (population. housing and employment) from adopted regional ;row th management plans provided by SCAG and San Diego Association of-Go\"Cr~ments (SANDAG). specifically the 1993 Regional Compreh~nsi,'e Plan and Guide (adopted June. 1994) and the Preliminary Se,ies 8 Foreeasts 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 2010, 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 lhrough specifically identified new water facilities and Jransfers (listed in RCP FEIR Mitigation Measure 7.lc); implementation of water transfer programs 10 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 10 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 U,ban Wate, Management Plan. Demand Side Management (Conservation) and Public Affai,s P,ograms chapter). In the Memo,andum of Unde,standing (MOll) Regarding U,ban Wate, Conservation Best Management P,actices 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 7IJO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 48 EIR and the Development Performance Standards outlined in Chapter 6,0 of lhe proposed 1996 General Plan. Therefore. all significanl environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided or subslantially lessened bv mitigalion measures identified in the Final EIR. . Finding "b" Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another publ ic 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, lhe reduction of cumulative impacts to the regional water supply is dependent upon successful implem~ntation 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 fonh above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below. Significant Cumulative Effect Number J Increased stormwater 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 I'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 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 Cfable 7-13, RCP FEIR, Volume I, State of the Region Report). The San 49 7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) Gabriel Valley contains major groundwater basins that serve Arcadia and \"icinil\", Regionally. groundwater quality is commonly impaired with salinitv. nitrJtes ;}I;d sulfates. . Primary pollutants of concern within the cumulative study Jrea 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 lhese 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 p0llutants. Increased storm water pollutants generated in the General Plan study area would potentially flow downstream into drainage in other j"urisdictions. combining with pollutants there to create a cumulative pollutant loading in surface waters downstream. BMPS and other water quality 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 quality 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 for the SCAG region. The RCP FEIR identified that surface water bodies that could be potentially affected by generated pollutants include the west fork of lhe 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 (atter rwo 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 com potential water quality impacts of the proposed 1996 General Plan to belc' significance. 'n 4.4. in ter 6.0 ion of ~vels of 7/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 50 All signiticant en,'ironmental effects that can feasiblv be avoided have been a,,\ideJ or substantially lessened by mitigation measures iden'tilied in the final EIR. Finding "h" Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiclion 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 Number 4 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 of the 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, \EXlilBIT.A> 51 habitat studies and permit requirements are specitied as mitigation for fUlure develup- ment proposals. These mitigation measures and proposed 1996 General Pl3n Development Performance Standards will reduce the potenlial impact 10 a le\'el less lhan signiticant. ..\11 signiticant environmental effects lhat can feasibly be avoided have been avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Signifieant Cumulative Effect Number 5 The potential development of non-mining industrial uses in lhe 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 Suppo,t 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 lhat 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. [f 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 ro 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, \EXHIBIT.A) 52 resources. Therefore. the Statement of O\'erriding Considerations addresses cumulative mineral use and access impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided. The remaining. unavoidable signiticant effect is acceptable when balanced auainst facts set forth above and in the Statemenl ofOverridinl!: Considerations made b~low ~ . Significant Cumulative Effect Numbe, 6 Short-lerm cumulative impacts will result in impacts to local areas wilhin 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 lhe 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- cilDce, depending on the type of construction equipment used and the phasing of lhe 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 "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. 71 JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 53 Facts in Support of Finding As stated previously. all future approved projects within lhe cumulative stud v area must reduce emissions to the extent feasible pursuant to lhe regional Air Quality \lanagement Plan (AQMP). since the region is an area of non-anainment for ozone and P7\'lI1J. Although the General Plan includes air quality mitigation measure -+,10-1 in Section -+.10 for construction activities within lhe Citv, lhe Cilv 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 for pollutant emissions to exceed established threshold criteria. resulting in a signiticanl cumulative unavoidable adverse impact, Finding He" 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 Cumulative Effect Number 7 The AQMP EIR concluded that regional long-term air quality conditions will be significant in the build out year 2015 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. Faets in Suppo,' of Finding The FEIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures specified in lhe AQMP EIR would reduce the potential long-term emissions to below levels of 7 /JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 54 significance. However. successful implemenlation of lhe re~ional measures is dependant upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specitied in the FE1R. The City of Arcadia. however. is responsible on Iv for its fair share of those re~ional measures. including the mitigation measures spe~ified in ErR Section -1.10. and Zannot guarantee the successful and complete implementation of ,II AQMP required mitigation. Therefore. the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by build Ollt of the Cily'S General Plan will remain significant. given lhe signiticant. baseline condition. 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 Suppo,t of Finding As stated above, 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 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 He" Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Faets in Slippo,t 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 potential long-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,\EXHIBlT,A) 55 Significant Cumulative Effect Number 8 The ambi'ent noise level will be increased incrementally due 10 the proposed 1996 General Plan land use intensitication. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated inlo. the projecl which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environmenl. Facts in Suppo,t 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 ~anta 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 [nsulation 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 the 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. [n addition, sound walls have been incorporated along the north side of 1-2\0 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 reclamation process for lransilion of the abandoned quarry along Lv\\er .'\lu,a Road will generate signiticant noise levels that will affect l1earby residences I Rc,deft;;r Inert Landtill FEIR. March. 1994,) The process. which \\ ill involve operation vt' construction equipment to till the existing pit. is projected to last between 8 and 12 years. Without implemenlation of mitigation measures. the noise generated bv the reclamation work would be significant upon the adjacent sensitive rec~ptors. Th~ EIR for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill (City of Arcadia. March. 1994) prescribes standard noise construction mitigation measures. such as limitations on lhe timing 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 miligation 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. PROJECTALTE~VATIVES 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 lhree 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 Repo,t, dated July 18, 1995, which is part of the Final ErR. 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 P,oject Alternative CEQA requires discussion of the No Project Alternative. Slate CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(4) sets forth the following discussion of the No Project Alternative. ,. The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The "no p,oject" analwis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable futwe if the project were not app,oved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrasl1'uctu,e and 7/l0/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 57 eommunity sen'iees. If the em'ironment"/~v sllpe,io, "Iternati\"e is the "11(1 I'mject" alternative. the EIR shall also identify an ell\"ironmentall,' mperior alternalll"e (I"'(lII,\! the other alternatiws. .. For the General Plan EIR. build OUl of lhe land uses as specilied in lhe e.xistin~ Arcadia General Plan for property within the City and build out of lal1d i~ unincorporated County areas within the City's sphere of intluence accordin!! to the Los Angeles County General Plan are the No Project Alternative. Anal\"Zin~ 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 currenlly 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 lhroughout the City. Incremental intensification of commercial uses. demolition of lower density residential uses and replacement with higher density uses, along wilh greater utilization of underdeveloped and underutilized property has been th'e historical trend in Arcadia. and can reasonably be expected to continue. Compared to the proposed \ 996 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 that: 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 I. 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. tlJe 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, \EXHIBIT.A) 58 Avenue. and occurs with or withoutlhe project. Therefore. lhe in,rease ill traftic. Jl1d the resullant air qualiry and noise effects under the :--Jo Project Alternative. \\ ill incrementally increase impacts. The pOlentiaJ impacls wOllld be proportional 10 the proposed 1996 General Plan. roughly causing 30 percent of lhe projected traftic and air pollution increase. Noise. however. does not increase in direct proportion to traftic increases. Because of existing traffic on area roadways. the increased traftic volumes resulting from General Plan implementation would yield only minor. inaudible (less than 3 dB) increases in noise levels. As a rule of thumb. lraffic at the levels reported in the General Plan traffic analysis in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIR would have 10 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 the 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 1996 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 ofaccess 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 lhe 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/JO/96(A,\EXHmIT.Al 59 regarding the provisions of maximum development intensities in the land use element. the No Project Alternative would be infeasible. Finally. lhe :-.Jo Project alternative is infeasible since it would not permit the incorporation of the lransportation and air quality management programs into lhe General Plan. No Projeet/No Build Alternative The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that no additional development would occur within the City and its sphere of inlluence. 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 lhe existing condition. and rellects 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 inlluence (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 Project/No 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 Project/No 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 rellect the absence of growth through the number of employees and residents utilizing the City's roadways. The incrementa) increases in demand for public services and facilities that would be expected with the propo.sed project or the project alternatives would not occur under the No Project/No 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 Project/No 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 Project/No 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 Project/No Build Alternative would not ensure an adequate municipal revenue stream, which furnishes the City with the 10ng- term ability to continue providing the level of services demanded by its residents and businesses. Implementation of the No Project/No 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 7IJO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 60 Alternative 1 Housing Element. This alternalive may have physical and economic effects \\ ilhin [he City by promoting a slagnant economy. Without additional rc\"enues from sales [J.\ and property laX sources. the City. faced w'ith rising costs for services. \\ould be forced to cut back services or curtail some services altogether. This would. in turn. potentially lead 10 physical bl ight. The No ProjectINo Build Alternative avoids or substantiaily lessens all of the impacls of lhe proposed \996 General Plan. and is environmenlally 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-lerm negative fiscal 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, lhe 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. Altemative 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 mullifamily 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 influence unincorporated area) would not be affected, and 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 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 I would result in significant land use compatibility impacts, for which overriding considerations are not available, particularly in light of 7/l0/96(A,\EXHlIIlT.A) 61 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 the fact that General Plan project objectives can be achieved without sllch 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 eXiSling lands zoned for residential use to multifamily development at a maximum density or' 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; 1) increase of 869 dwelling units; 2) increase of 1,872.098 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 1.5 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/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.A) 62 permit development of 35 single family dwelling units and a park on the former Rodeffer quarry site. following tilling of lhe existing pit and compktion of other site preparalion requirements. The balance of the study area would not be affected. This altemative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to lhe existing condition: I) increase of 631 dwelling units wilh 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. Altemative 3 is infeasible. and was rejected from further consideration because although it had similar impacts in most categories. the altemative had greater land use impacts than that of the 1996 General Plan. Overriding considerations for the significant land use compatibility impacts of Altemative 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 perrnit the adoption of such an alternative without overriding considerations. APPLICABILITY OF THE FINAL EIR TO THE 1996 GENERAL PUN AS DIRECTED 8 Y 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 lhe 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 lhe reasons that no EIR findings are changed and the Final EIR adequately addresses the change. . Elimination of the Comme,cial Entertainment designation p,oposed fo, T,ansition A,ea I. 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 reflect this land use proposal. Because the traffic analysis prep'ared for the 1996 General Plan (Final EIR Appendix D) 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,\EXHlllIT.A) 63 Finally. because lhe physical eXlent of proposed development for the l'l'll> General Plan as proposed for adoplion 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 EIR. . Reduction ofJraximum General Plan Densities in clre Downcown ResidellCitd Transition A,ea and Designation of a Portion of the Frontage of Second Avenue as Mixed Use (c/MFR). As analyzed in the EIR. lhe maximum allowable residential development intensity in lhis Transition Area was 30 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan, as proposed for adoption. permits 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) only for senior housing projects in areas designated for a maximum intensity of 24 dulac for other types of residential development. In addition, the \996 General Plan as proposed for adoption permits up to 18 du/ac for senior projects within the Multiple Family (12 dulac) land use designation. In addition, the 1996 General Plan, as proposed for adoption. designates a portion of the frontage of SecOlid A venue 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. I n 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 the Mixed Use (C/MFR) Land Use Designation in the Santa Cla,a Street T,ansition 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. . Mino, Modifications to the 1996 Gene,al 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 lhe Final EIR as they are incorporated into the 1996 General Plan document. [n 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. 71 JO/96(A,\EXHIBIT,A) 64 Modifications to Mitigation 7\leasure 4.1-1 c1aritied an exisling provision of the 19<)6 General Plan document. Whereas the General Plan provision related to land use compatibility affected Transition Areas I and 4. lhe EIR mitigation measure. as contained in the Draft EIR. only applied to Transition Area I. It was modi tied in the Final ErR to apply to both Transition Area I and Transition Area 4 as it was ori~inallv inlended. In addition. the portion of Mitigation 7\leasurp. 4.1-1 addressin~ ro~dwa~' le\'el of s(:rvice was moditied to recog;ize lhe EIR's conclusion re~;rdin~ t"~ significant unavoidable impact of traffic-along Michillinda,Avenue bet\;een S~1I1sel 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 A venue south of Hunlington 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 ErR. and (2) modifications to ErR mitigation measures are insignificant, additional public review or a recirculation of the Draft ElR is not required. STATEMENT OF OVERR1DING CONSIDERATIONS 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 ElR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 1509\ (a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an 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/lQ/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 65 The City of Arcadia hereby adopts the following Slatemenl of OVerridin~ C<Jnsider- ations fo~ the amendment and comprehensive update of the Citv's General Plan. The Final EIR identities significant unavoidable effects including: - . Primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional seismic activitv (Section -\.3. Earth Resources; Chapter 6.0. Cumulativ~ Impacts section ofth~ 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 of the 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 Cily 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 G,o",th 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/JO/96(A, \EXHIBIT.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. This new development provides the opportunity to contribute new cllstomers to both the adjacent mall and race track. thereby enhancing the economic vitalitv of both lIses. and. in turn. increasing municipal revenues. . Expanded Employment Oppo,tunities 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 force. 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. Continued Provision of a High Level of Sen>ices to the 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 1996 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 Opponuniliu fo, Housing that is Affo,dable to all Economic Segments of 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 [0 low and moderate income households. Meet the Requirements 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 Industrial land 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 1996 Gene,al Plan Outweigh the Plan's Significant Unavoidable Impaets P,imary and Secondary Haza,ds f,om Regional Seismic Acti"ity It is not possible 10 expand employment opportunities wilhin lhe communitv. diversil\' the City's economic growth. provide housing for all economic segm~nts of th~ community. or comply with the reclamation requirements of SMARA without 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 Qua,ry 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 financially 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 part of the Livingston-Graham quarry site which is within the City of Arcadia represents only a minute portion 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 Michillinda Avenue Between Sunset and Colo,ado Bouleva,ds Existing traffic along Michillinda A venue between Sunset and Colorado boulevards currently exceeds the City's threshold criteria of Level of Service D. Expansion of housing and employment opportunities, 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 1996 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 7IJO/9b(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 68 will not reduce the level of service along Michillinda below LOS E. but CJn be expected to reduce travel speeds. For these reasons. the housing and economic diversity benetits of the 1996 General Plan outweigh lhe Plan's impacts to Michillinda A venue. II/creased Ai, Emissions Although significance thresholds for air emiSSions would be exceeded bv lhe cumula;ive development permitted under the 1996 Arcadia General Plan. the G~neral Plan is consistent with the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management . - 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 EIR provided by SCAG. In addition. State law requires each city and county to provide opportunities for 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 use 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 be an inadequate General Plan and a stagnant economy, which would in turn lead to reductions in the level of services provided to local residents and businesses, For these reasons, the benefits of the 1996 "Arcadia General Plan outweigh the Plan's significant unavoidable air quality impact. Localized Visual Impacts in T,ansition Area I The Santa Anita race track is a key community feature, and an important component of Arcadia's character. The 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 longer 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, \EXHIBIT.A) 69 result of dwindling attendance. there has been a reduction of municipal revenue derived from the race track. This revenue is earmarked for capital improvements. The southerly parking lot of the Santa Anita race track is a logical location tor future commercial development. It is strategically located adjac~nt 10 the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall. near downtown Arcadia. has good access to the re~ional freewav system. and can draw patrons from and contribute patrons 10 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 benelits 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" long- term municipal revenue picture. The expansion of commercial development south ~f 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 view's of the race track grandstands. Availability of Wate, Supply fo, Futu,e G,owth 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, lhe 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 Project/No 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 7IJO/96(A,\EXHIBIT.A) 70 which would ultimately result in a cutback of the existing level of s~r.'ic~s provided by the City to local residents and businesses. For th~se reasons. lhe b~netits of the 1996 General Plan outweigh its impacts related to water r~source availability. 7/JO/96(A,\EXHtBIT.A) 71 ',k::dion \Ion!tnl"!n!! Pt'O~l"rim ~.",.. - .~ i.~ ~"~1 "AO.~"":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 reporting or mitigation mODltonng programs: "(a) The public agency shall adopt a rqJorting or monitoring program for the chang~ to the proj~t which it has adopted or T1'I4de a condition of projm approval in order to mitigate or atlOid significant ejfrcts on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensU7? compliance during projm impkmentation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into rhe project at the reqU/!St of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by lhe projm, thaI agency shaJJ, if so requested by lhe lead or responsible agency, prqJart! and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (b) If there is a proj~t for which mitigation is adopted, a public agency shail comply with subdivision (a) by, among other Ihings, adopting mitigalion =ures as conditions of project approval Those conditwns of proj~t approval TTlIZJ be set forth in reftrenced documents which addms required mitigation measures. (c) Prior 10 lhe cloS/! of the public review pmod for a draft environmental impact report or mitigaled negative declaration, a mponsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural moliTCes affected by the proj~t, shail either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed ~,f(" mance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the sign~ant ejfrcts on rhe environment idcItified by the mponsibk agency or agency having jurisdiction OVtT natural moliTC/!S affmed by the project. or rt!fe'r the lead agency to appropriate, rt!IIIiify available guidelines or reftrence documents. AII)/ mitigation 17l/!asures submined 10 a lead agency by a mponsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction OQeT 714tural moliTCes ajfrcted by the projm shaJJ be limited to measures which mitigate impacts 10 mollTCes which art! subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncom. pliance by a mponsible agency or agency having jurisdiction OQeT natural resources affmed by a proj~t with ihat reqNiTement shaJJ not limit tha: authoriry of the mponsible agency or agency having jurisdiction OQeT natural mourres a/fected by a project, or the authoriry of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by Ihis division or all)/ orm provision of law. (d) 7be lead agency shail specify the locatwn and custodian of the documents or orm material which constitute the rt!CorrJ of proceedings Mf'On which its decision is based. . EXHIBIT "S" t:I...'021.".;.1.-d4..,. JUfusI';>,9, 1.9.9D -1- \1;1 1'.:1\ :On \lonlio!"1n~ PrO,Jril[l1 .,un ~ (~, ~:.W ...~...,.o Mitigation Monitoring Procedures This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 2108b.b. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Arcadia to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed General Plan Update will be carried out as described in this EIR. Table 9.A lists each of the mitigation 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 General Plan and existing regulations utilized in making determinations of significance. -?- l'\",,'01\p;rI-.c.vpJ AUfust?.9. 1.9% Miligitlion Monilorilll! PrOl!ritlll ,l~j~~ .>. ~ ~ ~ ' '-'~'," -- ......{"~ . .+C' ..." ...~~~!:....!!~ '/ Table A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.\ Land Us. and Planning 4.1.\ Prior to any disccclionary approval of any Development Scrvi(c~s Dcvdupmem Prior tu JilM,:n.'liollJry Considerations developmeot within the Sanu Anita R4c(' Direnor (or designee) Scrvin~) appmvJJ of Track or Lower Azusa Road Transition Dlra:tor (or Jt.'vdllpmcm w,\hin lhl" Areas, ,b. projecl applicanl ,hall provide designee) COlllllll'nil1 evideoce 10 tbe CilY. for review and Ellh:nainlllt'lll approval by the Ikvtlopmcnl Services TrJJI\iliOll An.:J. Dir<Clor (or designee), lb.. lbe proposed development: . Provides Iransiliom and buffers between Dew development and uistwg uses such that the bulk, massing, and an:hitccturaJ design of DCW uses arc compatible witb existing dcvelopmcntj . Avoids placing Dew activities or crcatLog nuisancc conditions tbat would disruPllb. iDlendcd .aaivilia of adjaccnt elisting and planned land use" mak< lbe intcnded use of adjaccntlands unde,irable, or disrupl lbe pb pical arrang.menl of established neigbborbOO<h .nd non.....iJenlial land use~; -J- I \or..JJ!\yjlI:'" \..\>,.1 ",,~I ,11/:;1/./ . :./ I ~/ ~" MiligitliOIl MOllilol'ill.l! PI'Ol!ritlll ~~m~q._ , . ; . ~ :\,:c~.;,-)) "~~'::'.!''':~'!~ ," 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 servace at or bener than level of service D, except along Micbillinda Avenue betwccn Sun... and Colorado boulevards, where level of .srrviA.:e E is to be maimaincdj . Does Dot cause an ncecdancc of applicable noise or air quality standards, or a significant adverse impat..'l to ea:ulmg vlewshedsj and . Is consistent with applu:able General Plan public facility per- formance Slaodards, and does Dol cause a reduction in the level of services and facilities provlJcd to Uisliog development. 4.2 Population and Houling None. -1- I Id.,JJ1\t.f'<',r\.., '10 (..[.1 III.:, 'II ,/ . ....~ /". If. Mil il2al ion Monilorinc PrOl2ritll1 $~m~q. ; ~p } . . - \~.<././ ..~!~~~!'7 Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.3 Earth Re",urce. 4.3.1 Prior to initiation of 1 he fill operation :u lhr City Engineer (Of J<<:~igIlCt') City Enginc:a Prior hl iuiti,uioll uJ till' Roddler quarry pit, tbe pit sball be inspected (or de,ignl'C) rcd.lIl1Jlion UplTJlitlll .11 by tbe City Engin<<r, or designee, on a the Rodeffer qn.arry pil. monthly basis lrom Octnber 15 to April!5 or subsequent to periods 01 beavy rainlaU outside of this time frame to a.s.scss tbe status oltbe stable and unstable slopes on site. During theSt' Wp<<1.iODS, any Dew unstable areas sbaU be identified in a memorandum transmiued to tlK propcny ownef. Where tbe City Engin<<r idenlifie5 unstabl, slopes thai may rcsuh in immediate danger to adjacent propcny or facilities, tbe propeny nwner wiU be notified by tbe City Engin<<r and emergency remediation will be rcqu..tcd. An unSlable slope is delined as a slope baving a F...,or 01 Safety' 01 Ie" tban 1.0. Tbe propeny owner .baU be required to stabiliu slope. to nl<<ttbe foUowing standanh, . Acbieve a FaclOr 01 Safety of 1.5 against .be... failure, and . Acbieve a Factor of Safety of 1.1 against seismicaUy-induced slope failure. "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. -5- J \,t.J01\gpc'n \H'\ 'I J 1..(.1 II~~'IJ,I _.Y 1'~.lt. Mitigation MOllilorint; PrOt;rilln Table 9.A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ~:~n"Y ~. '~'j ~, > I . \~:., -. . .,....) -"~!:~~~!'./' Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure Any and all emergency r('medi~llon measures sball be prepared by a qualified groleChnical eoginrer, ccnified by tbe Slale of California, and submitted to tbe City Engin<<:r for review and approval. RL-medialioD measures may include but DOl be limited to tbe foUowing, placemeot of bun..... fills, rerouting of drain"lle facilities, and regrading or covering slump areas with shOlcretc with plastic shccting or wire mah. 4.4 Water RC$Ourccl 4.4-1 Prior 10 issuance of grading permiu (or Development Services Developuu:nt Prior 10 i~!lU:lllrt.' of construction projccu leu tban five acres, the Director (or de,ignee) Se(Vi(c~~ gr.Jill~ p~'rlllil~ lor project applicant sball submit to tbe Director (or l'lln~lru(IUln prclll.'lU Devdopmem Services Director (or designcc) de,ignce) le.\s dl<ln fiv!: ;&nl'~. for review and approval, a Drainage/Erosion Cootrol Plan tbat ideotifies site specific measures for the retention of siltation, sedi~ mentation, and other pollutants on site during construction. Measures Wcotified in ,be Plan sball be imposc:d as conditions of approval or otherwise incorporated into the proj...~. Sucb a plan sball be consistent witb lbe requirements of Ordinance No. 2010, and include instructions (or p~paration prior to and during storm evrnu, normal and emelJ\ency procedures, and proccdurtS (ollowing storm rvenu. 4.5 Biological Resources Nonr. 4.6 Mineral Rcsourl;" None. -0- I \..."Jl\IU'<"H\.....~JL.,..1 .1t~~'I/" _ :'( /'1. ~;, Mitigation Monitoring ProgralJl Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ~~~m~,*.. l~,..it)' '?~!~_!!!'-:;-' Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.7 Cultural/Scientific None. RuouftC$ U Acuhetic. None. 4.9 TraffIC and Circulation 4.9-1 Prior to any discretionary aClio~ within tbe D~vdopmenl Scrvi(cs Development Prior to oI.ny Commcn:w Entcnaiomcnt designation. the DircclOr (or design<<) Services di~l:rcli(JIlJry ",\.:litlll project. applicant sball submit, for review and Dirt'clOf (or within the Comlllen.:i;.L) approval by ,be Ocvdopmen, Services design<<) Enu"nainulcnl DircclOr (or design<<), a ,raffic study, JC'~~fl;.aliun. prepared by a qualified ,raffic engine. ring colUultaDl. ,bal analyzes lb. project's effa~ on Icvd of service on HoUy Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duane Road. Where the study indicates trip generation for the proposed development results in an unacceptable level of service on tbis segmeDt of HoUy Avenue on a projccllcvel. or CODlCibuICS cumulatively lO greater lban LOS D, lb. ,raffic study sball idenlify appropriate measures 10 acbieve acceplable levels of servicej lbest measures eilber will become conwlioDs of approval of lbe proja.... or will be incorporated into ,be project. These measures m3.Y ioduJe. but art: Dot n<ecswily limiled to, lb. foUowing: -1- r\.I.JJ1\KP<'Jr\.....yJt.1'" _lu~'II./ ~Y I-Nr, MillgllllOll MOllilorin!2 \lrogrillll Table 9.A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements '~~~"";'J ,...- '<+,,". ,.~) -':'~!~!!i~'l:'..<f/ Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure . Provwon of neighborhood ,raffiL control measures at Holly Avenue/ HUOliogtoJl Drive, such as tufO lane ~Strictlons. \raffic divenen and lane closures to diven lraffle away frum the roadway segmeOl, or . IX:signatc HoUy Avenue as II four lane roadway bctwttn HuDtington Drive IlI1d Duane Road, and re5(fVe right-of-way 011 such time as redevdopmeot 01 adjacent propenies takes place. 4.10 Air Quality 4.1 (). I Prior to the issuance of any grading or Devdopmenl Servias Development Prillr to Lile ~\uallu' 01 building p<rmi15. proi<<~ applicants shall Director (or design"") ~rvi(es any g~aJill~ or builtlin~ submit a mitigation plan for bOlh Direnor (or pCfllUI.\. construction equipment eJ.baust' and fugitive designee) dusI impacu 10 the Dcvdopmem. Strvice) Directnr (or designee), for review and approval. No CODsuuctioD will be conducted prior '0 approval of ,bis plan. Tbis Plan sball bt induded as a cnndi,ion of appro.a! for we project or inco'l"'raled in,o lbe project design. Tbe Plan sball include bu' no. be limi,ed '0 .be following (tbe City shall verify use of tht plan mtasures during Jqular silr insprclioIlS): -8- I. \."dOl\lU'<"n\..', ~o (.!,I ./11.:.'114_:'{ /./,/(. Mitigation MOllilorill1! PrOerilll1 (=~~ .;,~ "~-!.."'!!!!.~!'7 Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure . T n\Cks used for hauli.ng ~~ce$S . material sball br covered to mini- mize 1015 of material, ;lod flagmen will be utiliud to assist conslruclion (rucks moving into traffic. . The COQtraClor sh.u.I comply with SCAQMD Rule. 402, 403, wbicb rcslriclS fUgllivc duSl emissions. Measures oudined in ,be pI.., .ball include, bu' DOl be lin,i,ed '0, daily waLCcing of gndrd areas, washing of equipment lires brfore leaving the con.slrul.'1ioD sile, and use of SCAQMD approved cbemical Slabilizc:rs or soil binders. . During construction, the contractor shall discOD1WUC aU construction activities 00 tbe , project sile duriog first and s.rcood slage smog idem, or when wind gusu nceed 2> miles per bour. -9- J:\,l4J01\1CP<'''.\/on yJ ...f"1 ..ft~:,'//4 ~ y I~UI' M',tigalion Monilor"ln~ Pro~rltrn Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ,I\'-mqo.." l~~)' (,:.~ , ~".~~!;!~~'.'::-- Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure . All construClion equipment shall be maimainoo and proporly , serviced so as 10 rMuce operational emissions. The CODlraCLOr will eQsure that all cODslrunioD ~ujp. meOI is being properly .st:rviccd and maiotaiard through wrjucQ documcoulion to the Development Services Direc.'lor (or d<sign<e.) . The contractor shall provi~ (vi- drnce that low emwion mobile construction equipment will ~ ulutz.cd. or that their ust was iovcstig:ued and found 10 be infusiblo for lbo proj<cl. -/0- I'ldol'J}\KI"<"lP \..,~J l.f'/ .Iu,'u.I.:-I /.Z"!' Mitigation Monitoring Progrilll1 Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ,~m~q._ \$(' .' : , .;~.../.) "~!~~.,!!,!../" Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.11 NoiJe 4.11-1 Prior to issuance: of a.ny entire s.tru(1.ur(: ~vdopll\el\\ ~rvi('es Devdupmel\\ Pri~)r to i~)lJJn(e of ;my lkmolilion, grading or building permit, tbe DircclOr (ur lk.ignec) Servi,es t"nun.. \UlJdun: permil applicant shall pruvilk a Dircnnr (or ocullJlilitlll, ~r..Jin~ llf COllSlluaion Management Plan 10 the d<.igntt) bui.lJill~ pc.ormil. DcvelopmeDl Sc:rvices Direclor (or lksignec), for rc:vit-w and approval. Tbe Plan .ball lkscribe lbe measures Ib.. will be implemenled during lkmoliliun/ consuuaioD activities to m:luce off-siu: noUe impans from CODSlruoiOD rquipmcDllo within tbe instantaDcous DOise standards wilhin Ibe City's Noise Ordinance. Tbe,., measures shall become conditions of project approval or incorporated into tbe project design. Thes< measures shall inclulk bUI nol be limilCd 10 Ihe following, . Us< of quicl<r machinery . Us< of noise mufflers/silencers, bush kiu, or other mechanical methods to muffle c"T.croal noUe . Localing Slockpiling, vehicle staging auu. and other noisy activities away from 'noise sensilivc r<<('plOn (i.r., rrsidrnc.es, schools, day-care, ano ro.'rraliooal fal'ilil~s). Thr Plan shall also providr (or pcriodil' D10niloriog rrpons, 10 Ibe approval of Ibr Director, o(X..'UmrOlmg Plan implrmroulion. -//- n,I..IOl\!tPC'II\.....'10...1..1 .Iul:u,/ ~:I~ I!J:/r. Mitigfllio\\ MOII\lor\lI!! Progrill\\ Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Jf"m ;}... '&1*> \~.rD.' ..., -<:;.-!/ --~~~!-'!!-.... Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.12 Public Health (Hazard.) 4.12-1 Prior to issuance of building permiu for any Emergency Services Officer EI1It:rgclll.:Y Prior 10 i!.~uan(c: of development of ..OO~OOO square [<<lor (or desi&ncc) ServiCl:S Offi(l'f hu~Jill~ pc.'rlllih ror greater, the Emergency Services Officer shall (or designer) Jl"vdoPllIl'llI 01 400,000 modify lhe Cil)"s emergeocy response Mluarl' Jt'l'l or gn.'J1Cf. protocol and available emergeol-Y response resources, outlined La. the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, 10 accommodate the additional increment of t.kvdopmcDl allowed by lhe proposed Geoen) Plan Upda\e. Snch modifications shall ensure thallhe existing lcvd of .service is maintained. 4.12-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, proj<<'t Development St'rvil'es Devdopmeul Prior [0 thl' i~'luall(c,: 01 propoDeDU shall dcmODSlrale lbal lhe OireclOr (or designee) Servi(-es building pl.rnlil~. proposed devdopmeo, will have a neuml Din-nor (or effea on lhe CilJ"s abililY '0 implemem lhe oesil)nce) emergency evacuation procedures and roules iden,ified in the Mul,i Hazard Func~iooal Plan. If a orgative effea is iden,ified, alternalive procedures for evacuation of Dew residents, employees, or patrons shall be iden,ified and dcx;umen,ed for review and approval by lhe Devdopmem Services Director. Abernalive evacuation procedures .ball be conditions of project approval or incorporaled inlO ,be desi&n of the proposed development. -12- 1 \".'D}\KPc"1P 1"n'YD ...,..1 .11I~ '(/.,1 '_ ':.I. I'/~I," Mitigation Monitoring Progrrtlll Table 9.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements >\~m:~~ '~*_,J \~..(' "." -.~/ .~~!~'!!? Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Fir< Mmh.ll (or ""sigoee) Fir< M."h.ul Prior to .he u.sUoIO(C 01 projccu locaw in desigoa,,:d fin: hazard ,od ~nJing perOlits for ZOOd. proposed site plans shall I>< suhmiuN Development prujt..(l~ IOl'JleJ in 10 Ih. Fin: Marshall (or desigo..) aDd SCrvlCCi W.'~iblU.lcd. firc h.l.LJ.rJ Devdopm.o, Services Director (or desigoee) Directur (or wnc~. for review and approval demonstrating that designee,) sufficieot evacuation routes and ~uau~ watcr pressure or fire (lows Cl.lll. Grading pcrmiu will not be issued until suffic~Dt C'Vill.'1JatioD routes, watcr pressure. or {ire now facili!ies can I>< rdi.hly provided. 4.13 Public Services and 4.13-1 Prior \0 issuance of. building permil. lb. Dcvdopmcol ~rvi(es Devdopmem Prior 10 u~u;lnu' 01 J Utiliti.. permil applican, shall provide wriu.o Dirc:ctor (or desigoee) Servil.."es building pc:nuil. evidence to the I)rvdopmcDt Scrvi&:es DUet'IOf (or Director (or designee) for r.view aDd d<'igote) approval,b.t tb. Metropoli,an T ransi! Au,horilY and! or Foolhill T ransi, as applicable bas b<<n cOOlacted regarding potcnti.al construction md operational eHens 10 ..isling and plano.d facilities. Wb.... potcotial construction and! or operatiooal impacu would affc:ct !ransi, facifi!ies or routes. miligation shall I>< ideo,ified in wriling by ,b. permil .pplican" and sball include but no, I>< limited 10: . Provision aod maiou~oaoc~ of acct:ptablt: dearaoct: bt:twecn consuuctioo activities aud transit facaities. -/.7- 1\....'01\"""",\."..)'0/,.1"1 .l',-:,'INI ~y. 1'y~/(. Mitiua\."ion Monitoring Prourillll ~:-m~A<'_ , ;.:.J .... ( ... ) ,. t - ,\.~.?) .!,.:~~~. Responsible Party for Timing for Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure . Transit purveyors must be nOlific:d a minimum of two weeks prior lO any roadway dosure adjacent 10 cl.isting transit facililies. . Incorporation of bus SlOpS, shehers, park and rilk Iou or other type. of facaitie. into proje", design. 4.14 Recreation None. -/1- r \,1,,101 \XPo'" \'>('\ 'J J \.1"/ .11~:,'II,j ~:j /:1:'11 Mitigation Monitoring Program Jf~:~ ',~;.~' ,~~!,;,;:!-,!!!-.y Table B- Summary of Regulations, Policies, Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects Environmental Topic Proposed General Plan Mitigation Measure Existing Regulations i.1 Land Use and Planning N/A 0-1 N/A Considerations i.2 Population and GP Strategies CD-20, CD-2I, N/A N/A Housing CD-22, CD-23, CD-2i, CD-25 and Housing Improvement Objectives in Appendix A of the proposed General Plan Update) i.J Eanh Resources Development Performance i.J-I City of Arcadia Ordinance Nos. Standard (DPS)-"O, DPS-fl 2033 and 1924 M Water Resources DPS-36, DPS-f2, DPS-43; Item M-I City of Arcadia Ordinance No. d., Coordination of 2010 Infrastructure, Intergovernmental Coordincation and Improvement Program in Chapter 6.0 i.5 Biological Resources DPS-31, DPS-32, DPS-33 N/A N/A i.6 Mineral Resources N/A N/A California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975; City of Arcadia Municpal Code, Anide 9, Chapter 5, Pans I and 2, Sections 9510-9528; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-003 -/.5- r\...J01\tU"-"" I..... ':J 0 '-101 .11~;,'u"l _~~ U:~" Mitigation Monitoring ProeriHII I~~:~ '(,:o~' --~!,!!!!~~'. . Table 9.8- Summary of Regulations, Policies, Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects u Cultural/Scientific DPS-37, DPS-38, DPS-39 N/A N/A Resources ".8. Aesthetics Strategies CD-l through CD-13 N/A N/A and CD-17 through CD-22; DPS- . 1 through DPS-18 ".9 Traffic and Circulation N/A ".9-1 N/A ".10 Air Quality Strategies ER-5 through ER-16; ".10-1 City of Arcadia TDM Ordinan.:e ER21 through ER-30; and DPS- and Title 2", 199.. UBC 3.. U1 Noise DPS-+1 through DPS-51 4.11-1 Noise Ordinan.:e in Municipal Code ..600 ".12 Public Health DPS-2i, DPS-25, DPS-26, DPS-30 4.12-1, ".12-2, 4.12-3 N/A (l-Uzards) ".13 Public Services and Strategy FS-20; DPS-21, DPS-22, ".13-1, ".13.2 City of Arcadia SRRE (AB 939) Utilities DPS-2.. through DPS-29, Idem d., Coordination of Infrastructure, Intergovernmental Coordination and Improvement Program in Chapter 6.0 ".Ii Recreation DPS-23 N/A N/A -/6- I' \'(4J01\1U"'"''' I..t!ll 0 t..rJ /It.:,'I/,I...:1. /I')r,