Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6181 RESOLUTION NO. 6181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33445, AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS COMPRISING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program includes significant improvements in the public right-of-way both in, adjacent to, and near the Project Area, and within the original survey area; and WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 33445 requires approval of the expenditure of Redevelopment Agency funds for improvements which will be publicly owned, the City Council is able to make three findings: a) that the proposed improvements are of benefit to the project area or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located; b) that there are no other reasonable means of financing the improvements available to the community; c) that the payment of Agency funds for the improvements will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area and is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490; and WHEREAS, a report entitled "Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Agency Capital Improvement Program Summary Report" ("Summary") is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Summary (Exhibit A) sets forth the facts regarding the amount of property taxes to be used to pay for the proposed improvements, sets forth the facts supporting the three determinations to be made by the City Council per Health and Safety Code Section 33445, and sets forth the redevelopment purpose for which such taxes are being used; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Agency and City of Arcadia California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, staff has prepared an Initial Study of the proposed Historical Museum Project ("Project"), and based upon said Initial Study, has caused to be prepared a Negative . Declaration regarding the Project in accordance with CEQA, all attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B; and 1 6181 WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has caused to be published a Notice of Intent to adopt a negative declaration for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: S.ECTION 1. The facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. The facts supporting those certain findings required by Health and Safety Code Section 33445 are true and correct as set forth in the Summary, Exhibit A, attached hereto and as ~et forth in the staff report submitted to and considered by the City Council with reference to this Resolution. SECTION 3. That the City Council finds in light of the whole record that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and that the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) as proposed by staff be adopted. SECTION 4. Based upon the initial study prepared for the Project, the City Council approves the Negative Declaration for the Project as attached hereto as Exhibit Band incorporated herein by reference, as and if modified at the public hearing, and directs staff to file a Notice, of Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk in accordance with the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed improvements both inside and outside the redevelopment project area are of benefit to the project area, or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby finds that there are no other reasonable means of financing the proposed improvements available to the community. SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds that the payment of funds for the proposed improvements will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the 2 6181 redevelopment project area, and is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490. SECTION 8. The City Council hereby approves and consents to the payment by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency for all and any part of the public improvements which are part of the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Agency Capital Improvement Program. SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the adoption of . this Resolution. SECTION 10. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: J APPROVED,AS TO FORM: ~D,~ City Attorney City of Arcadia 3 6181 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6181 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of June, 2000 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None cadia 4 6181 FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT (PER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33679 REDEVELOPMENT LAW) REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE OF ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCREMENT FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN AND/OR NEAR THE ARCADIA CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA May 15, 2000 EXHIBIT .A"'.~ .,~ SUMMARY REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Introduction. This summary report has been prepared consistent with Health and Safety Code Sections 33445 and 33679 and serves to describe several proposed capital improvement projects in and near the Redevelopment Project Area. This report has been prepared in order to explain to the public why Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds are to be used to pay for these public improvements. A location map showing the general locations of the proposed improvements is Exhibit A. , The 1999-2004 Redevelopment Agency Implementation Plan is proposed to be amended (Amendment One, dated June 20, 2000). This will add an annual Agency Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which will include the projects or similar type projects listed below. 1. Historical Museum Project $100,000 The existing 2,000 sq. fl. facility is a rehabilitated modular temporary bank building not designed as a museum or educational use, with deteriorating roof, HVAC and electrical/plumbing systems. The improved Historical Museum will be 4,000 sq. ft. to replace the aging modular building. The new facility will include a new storage area, educational teaching areas, display cabinets, and a new center court using the existing parking at the rear (east side) of the Community Building. The Agency is being requested to pay $100,000 of the estimated $800,000 cost of the new building since the facility and the services it provides will benefit the residents and businesses in the project area. Also, the museum will have historical information regarding downtown Arcadia as well as information regarding the establishment of the project area and its significance to the City. (The site is in the original Survey area) The Gilb Family donated $300,000 to initiate the project in 1998. . Consequently, no monies were allocated in the City budget or are available to pay all or part of the project. The City has applied for and received a grant for approximately $95,000 for planning and architectural services related to the Historical Museum. However, in the absence of other City governmental financial support or private donations, the Redevelopment Agency is the only alternative funding source that can. provide assistance. This contribution is consistent with the Central Redevelopment Project Area Five Year Implementation Plan (see Table No.2B - Master List of Projects/"Public Facilities Assistance") 1999-2004 which was adopted in December 1999. 2. Traffic Signal Upgrades Total - $230,000 Signal upgrades are needed at four intersections (listed below) because of increased traffic and obsolescence of the existing equipment: Work includes up-graded service cabinets, new mast arms, pedestrian heads, wiring terminals, and safety lighting features. The intersections will receive ADA ramps and removal of median signals and unnecessary signage. The new development in and adjacent to the project area will create an increase in traffic. The signal upgrades at the four intersections (listed below) will be of benefit to the businesses and residents in the project area by being able to regulate and adjust to the traffic flow in the project area at peak and off peak traffic times throughout the day. This will encourage additional patronage of downtown offices, shops, and restaurants. The major funding sources for City wide capital improvement projects include the Capital Outlay Fund, gas tax funds, Prop C funds, and sewer and water facility funds. However, with an increasing City wide Capital Improvement Program, these funding sources are limited to paying for other high priority projects. Because of this, the only way to fund these needed signal improvements in the project area in a timely way is through Redevelopment Agency financing. The traffic signal improvements are consistent with the Central Redevelopment Project Area Five Year Implementation Plan 1999-2004 which was adopted in December 1999. a) b) c) d) Colorado/Colorado Place Colorado/Santa Anita Huntington/Santa Clara Colorado/Huntington $50,000 $80,000 $50,000 $50.000 TOTAL - $233,000 3. Front Street/51. Joseph Reconstruction Project $171,000 Currently, this area is unimproved with curb and gutter and sidewalk on the west and south side of Front Street and St. Joseph Street respectively. The east and north side does not have any curb, gutter, sidewalk, or full width roadway pavement. The existing asphalt terminates in the dirt on the east and north side with a non-standard drainage pipe crossing under the MTA Railroad Tracks from Flower Street draining onto Front Street. Improvements will include the construction of new curb and gutter and a five-foot sidewalk along the entire length of Front Street and St. Joseph Street. Also, Front Street will be paved with asphalt to 40 feet in width curb to curb. A ne0 drainage system and new landscaping are also included in the project. The addition of curb, gutter, and sidewalk will eliminate the current physical blighted condition of Front Street and rectify the storm water flow and drainage problems. The improvements to Front Street will benefit the residents and businesses in the project area: 1) the new street asphalt overlay will help with the flow of commercial traffic onto and across Front Street, 2) the new curb and gutter will direct water runoff to appropriate areas for drainage, and 3) the new sidewalk will help to create a more pedestrian friendly attractive environment along Front Street and St. Joseph Street. Like the traffic signal. upgrades, other funding sources like the Capital Outlay Fund, gas tax funds, Prop C funds. and sewer and water facilities replacement funds must be prioritized with these projects of the most benefit to the entire City or a larger population in an area of the City. Because these proposed roadway improvements are a direct benefit to a non-residential part of the project area, it is not a high priority for the other funding sources. Therefore, Redevelopment Agency funds are proposed to fund this project. This proposed project is consistent with the 1999-2004 Central Redevelopment Project Area Five Year Implementation Plan (see Table 3b - Note 6) which was adopted in December 1999. 4. Santa Anita Entry Corridor Project $32,000 The City is under-grounding utilities along N. Santa Anita Avenue and E. Santa Clara from Colorado Boulevard to Huntington Drive in FY2000- 2001. Santa Anita Avenue is a major entry/exit way for visitors to the Santa Anita Race Track, County Park, and Santa Anita Fashion Mall and to the downtown project area hotels, restaurants, offices, and shops. This project proposes to retain the existing medians and large trees. It also proposes to add landscaping, decorative lights, street furniture, signage, and striping consistent with the improvements on Huntington Drive (but to a much lesser degree) in order to irnprove the image of the City and the downtown. This project will enhance the appearance of the north Santa Anita entry to the project area and the downtown business district. Businesses and residents will benefit from this project because it not only beautifies and area that is non-descript and undistinguished, but will improve traffic circulation at the intersection of Wheeler and Santa Anita. It is also a benefit to the project area because the new streetscape would further enhance the image of this underutilized area to the development community as well as to shoppers and Racetrack patrons who now use Santa Anita and Santa Clara for travel, avoiding the Huntington Corridor. Similar to the previously mentioned traffic signal upgrades and 'Front Street improvements, the major funding sources for City wide capital improvement projects are prioritized due to an ever growing Capital Improvement Program. This project is not a high priority in comparison to other City wide projects, but will be a significant benefit to the project area. Therefore, Redevelopment Agency funds will be used to fund this project. This project will help to irnprove the traffic flow on intersecting arterial streets and provide the area with the necessary public improvements to help create an aesthetic,attractive, and functional environment similar to . the previous Downtown 2000 Project. This project is also consistent with the 1999-2004 Central Redevelopment Project Area Five Year Implementation Plan (see page 49) which was adopted in December 1999. 5. Police Facility $1,500,000 This $16 million dollar project, to design and construct a new 42,000 sq. ft. police station on the former National Guard Armory property, was previously assessed in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33445 and 33679 (and CEQA). The FY2000-2001 CIP proposes to add $1,500,000 to the previously appropriated $1,000,000 (total $2,500,00). An additional appropriation of $1 ,500,000 is anticipated in FY2001-2001. GRAND TOTAL - $2,033,000 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: The Ruth V. and Charles E. Gilb Historical Museum The Ruth V. and Charles E. Gilb Historical Museum is a 4,000 square foot single story historical museum. The new building will replace an existing 2,000 square foot single story modular trailer on the Community Center site at 380 W. Huntington Drive cannot by retrofitted to meet current seismic and handicap standards. The new facility will be built and maintained 160 feet to the' east on the same Community Center site and will utilize existing Community Center parking. The facility will be funded by private and corporate donations and the Redevelopment Agency and operated by the non-profit Arcadia Historical Society. Following completion of the new building the current historical building will be removed/demolished, and that location converted to a landscaped pati%pen space area. B. Location of Project: 380 W, Huntington Drive C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Applicant: The City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Contact: Don Penman (626) 574-5414 D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached lnitial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None Date: May 23. 2000 Date Posted: May 25,2000 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: The Ruth V. and Charles E. Gilb Historical Museum 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia! Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Development Services Department (Economic Development Division) 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter P. Kinnahan (626) 574-5408 Brian Saeki (626) 574.5409 4. Project Location: 380 W. Huntington Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager! Development Services Director City of Arcadia 240 \Y'. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Public Facilities & Grounds 7. Zoning: S-2 (Public Purpose) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.): The Ruth V. and Charles E. Gilb Historical Museum is a 4,000 square foot single story historical museum. The new building will replace an existing 2,000 square foot single story modular trailer on the Community Center site at 380 W. Huntington Drive cannot by retrofitted to meet current seismic and handicap standards. The new facility will be built and maintained 160 feet to the east on the same. Community Center site and \vill utilize existing Community Center parking. The facility will be funded by private and corporate donations and the Redevelopment Agency and operated by the non-profit Arcadia Historical Society. Following completion of the new building the current historical building will be removed/demolished, and that location converted to a landscaped pati%pen space area. The project is hereafter referred to as the "Historical Museum Project". (See site plan and concept elevations, attached) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's snrroundings.) North: South: East: West: Unzoned (Arcadia Methodist Hospital) R-1 (Second One-Family) - Church; Multi-Family Arcadia County Park - Golf Course R-3 & R-1 (Multiple Family & Second One-Family) - Santa Anita Race Track CEQAFORi'YfS/CHECKLIST May 23, 2000 Page I of5 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City of Arcadia, Planning Division / City Engineering Division / City Public Works Services Department / City Fire Department / City Water Division / Los Angeles County Engineer; Los Angeles County Sanitation District; Los Angeles County Flood Control District ENVIRONMENT AL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at l~ast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. DETERlVIINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I tind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL llvfPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the emironment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONlVIENT AL IM.PACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. CITY /R VPUB/20002000/546265 FORM ~~J" Page 2 of 5 - I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Peter P. Kinnahan Printed Name 4/13/2000 Date ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY For CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page3of5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. . 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate ifthere is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant . Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify whicheffects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proj ect. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. CITYfRVPUB/2000/3l3785 FORNI "J" Page 4 of 5 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format IS selected.' 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 5 of5 INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The single story Historical Museum project is located adjacent to the Arcadia Flood 'Control Wash, near the Arcadia County Park, and at the rear of the Community Center. The proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards and will not affect scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees. rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The single story Historical Museum project is located adjacent to the Arcadia Flood Control Wash, near the Arcadia County Park, and at the rear of the Community Center. The proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards and will not affect scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the sire and irs surroundings? The singe story Historical Museum project is located adjacent to the Arcadia Flood Control Wash, near the Arcadia County Park, and at the rear of the Community Center. The proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards and will not degrade the area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposal will be required to comply with City architectural standards and illumination requirements. II. AGRICUL TITRE RESOURCES. In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland. Would the proj eel: CITY /R VPUB/20002 000/ 546265 Page I of22 PotentialIy Significani , Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation IncOlJlorated Less Than Significant , No Impact Impact x x x x FORM 'T' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland, or Fannland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The proposed Historical Museum project will not impact agricultural farmland. The surrounding uses are the Arcadia County Park and other public facilities. b) Contlict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed Historical Museum project will be consistent with other surrounding public uses. The Historical Museum site is not located in area zoned for agricultural uses. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Fannland, to non-agricultural use? The proposed Historical Museum project will be consistent with other surrounding public uses. The Historical Museum site is not located in area zoned for agricultural uses. ill. AIR QUAlITY. ,Vhere available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following detenninations. \Vould the project: a) Contlict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed Historical Museum project is for public purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with State and City Building Codes, and local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CITY /R VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 2 of 22 Potentially Significant hnpacl Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No hnpact hnpact x x x x FORM "]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AL'ID CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violationry The proposed Historical Museum project is for public purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The proposed Historical Museum project is for public purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The proposed Historical Museum project is for public purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed Historical Museum project is for public purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: CITY!R VPl.JB/20002000/546265 Page 3 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Les,Than Significant With Mitigation Incnrporated Les,Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x FORM "J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned and currently used for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned and currently used for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected \vetlands as detined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal. etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. CITY /R VPUB120002000/5462 65 Page 4 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation . lncotpOtated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x FORM '~J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. CITY /R VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 5 of 22 Potentially Significant lmpact Less Than Significaot With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x FORM "f' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on historical resources, other than to better preserve them. b) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on archaeological resources. . c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a. populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. None of the above resources have been identified at the subject area. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed Historical Museum project is within a populated area zoned for public purposes in which similar projects have been developed. None of the above resources have been identified at the subject area. VI. GEOLOGY A.l'ID SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. including the risk ofloss, injury or death involving: While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. CITY /R VPUB/20002 00015462 65 Page 6 of 22 Potentially Significant . Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM ''In INITIAL STIJDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking" While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? While this entire region is subject to the effectsof seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is on slightly sloping land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. iv) Landslides') While this entire region is subject to the effects of .seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is on slightly sloping land, and is not within an area subject to inundation. subsidence, or expansion of soils. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for office, exhibits, public meeting, and storage purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. CITY /R VPUB/2000200015462 65 Page 70f22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM "J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse" While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been . determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. Because of the buildings closeness to the Arcadia Wash, sufficient geotechnical testing of the ground will be made prior to finlll building plans being prepared and construction done. The site is on slightly sloping land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for public purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. No unique geological or physical features have been identitied at the site. d) Be located on expansive soiL as defined in Table 18-1. B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property'? ',,"hile this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is on slightly sloping land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste warer1 While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. Waste water will be disposed of by the Arcadia sewer system. VII. HAZARDS At"ID HAZARDOUS iviA TERIALS. Would the projecr: CITYIR VPliB/20002000/546265 Page 8 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x FORM "J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. Al"ID CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or . disposal of hazardous materials'? The proposed Historical Museum project does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? The Historical Museum project is for a one-story museum and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. Removal of the existing facility will comply with State Statutes, County and City codes. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acurely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an ex is ring or proposed school'? The Historical Museum project is for a one-story museum and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to 'health hazards. Removal of the existing facility will comply with State Statutes, County and City codes. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment'> The subject site has no known hazardous material pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wirhin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard tor people residing or working in rhe project area? The Historical Museum project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has been adopted. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/ 546265 Page 9 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significanr No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM "J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? The Historical Museum project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Historical Museum project will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adj acent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum. The proposal does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazardous. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. vm. RYDROLOGY At"ID ,VATER QUAlITY. Would the proj ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 10 of22 , Potentially Significant Impact 'Less Than Significant With Mitigation ,Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact , x x x x FORM"]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V, AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL tvruSEUM Issues: b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ,or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e,g" the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the alteration of the cours!: of a stream or river. or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CITYfR VPUB/20002000/ 546265 Page I I of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x FORM "]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V, AND CHARLES E. GILB , HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: e) Create or contribute I1lnoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoffJ The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the'existing drainage pattern of the suhject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will not degrade water quality. g) Place housing within a I aO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map'? The Historical C\luseum project is located within an area surrounded by public uses cand is not within a lOO-year flood hazard area. h) Place within a IOO-year t100d hazard area structures which would impede or redirect t100d t1ows'? The Historical Museum project is located within an area surrounded by public uses and is not within a IOO-year flood hazard area. i) Expose people or structures [0 a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving Hooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam" The risk of flooding of the Historical Museum is remote. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudt1ow? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the surface runoff into catch basins and then into the Arcadia Wash in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CITY IR VPUBI200020001546265 Page 12 of22 Potentially Significant Impact 'Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x x FORM"J" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: ' a) Physically divide an established community'? The proposed Historical Museum project will not disrupt or divide any established community. The surrounding uses are recreationalJopen space and public facility. The facility will replace and expand the existing deteriorating museum. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental etTect? The proposed Historical Museum project does not contlict with any plans or policies adopted by the City or Agency. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" The proposed Historical Museum project does not contlict with any such plans. 'X.MINERA.L RESOlJRCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? There has been no evidence of mineral resources in the past; therefore the proposed Historical Museum project would not result in the loss of available known mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There has been no evidence of mineral resources in the past; therefore the proposed Historical Museum project would not result in the loss of available known mineral resources. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 13 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM "]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: XI. NOISE, Would the project result in; a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies'? There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction and clearance on the site. However, there are no residences or hospital rooms within 150 feet +/- of the project site, and the project is for construction of a relatively small 4,000 square foot museum. Once the construction is completed, noise generated from the museum or parking area should not adversely impact any of the neighboring properties due to the distance and the probable limited number of people at the Museum events and the nature of the probably activities and events at the Museum. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels~ There could be a short term increase in the generation of groundborne vibration due the construction and demolition on the site. However, there are no residences or hospital rooms within 150 feet +/- of the project site, and the project is for construction of a relatively smllll museum. Once the construction is completed, the museum will not generate groundborne vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' There will be a short term increase in the ambient noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction and clearance is completed, it is anticipated that the addition of the museum should not generate any adverse amount of ambient noise. CITYIR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 14 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x FORM "f' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 'ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels' existing without the project? There will be a short term increase in the ambient noise levels due to construction and demolition/clearance on the site. However, there are no residences within 150 feet +1- of the project site, and the project is for construction of a small museum which can accommodate 300 people at most (A3B occupancy). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? The proposed Historical Museum project is not in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in ' the project area to excessive noise levels'? The proposed Hisrorical Museum project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION A.ND HOUSING. Would the proj ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and . businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum with approximately 3-5 permanent workers and up to 20 part time volunteers. The proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in the area, since the staff and volunteers are only relocating from the existing facility to the new building 160 feet away. CITY /R VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 15 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x / FORM"]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Community Center and existing Historical Museum are on the same property. The lot is located in an area surrounded by public uses. No housing will be displaced due to the project. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? The Community Center and existing Historical Museum are on the lot. The lot is located in an area surrounded by public uses. No housing or people will be displaced due to the project. xm, PlJBLIC SERVICES, Would the proiect: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. the construction of which could cause significant emironmental impacts, in order to maintain acce]Jtable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of [he public services: The 2,000 square foot historical museum is simply relocating to a larger 4,000 square foot facility on the same site. There will be no significant impact on public services. F ire protection'? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The building will be sprinklered per code. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. Police protection? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 16 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x FORM ''f' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: Schools'? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have lllready been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public schools but will provide increased learning opportunities for local school children. Parks? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have lllready been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. Other public facilities'? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have lllready been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. XN, RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? The proposal is for a one-story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects .have lllready been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational services. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? The proposed Historical Museum project is a one- story museum and does not propose the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an ad~erse physical effect on the environment. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/5462 65 Page 17 of 22 ' Potentially Significant Impact Less Than , Significant With Mitigation Incorporated \ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM "]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL NfUSEUM Issues: XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)'? The proposed Historical Museum project will not substantially increase the existing traffic load and capacity. Parking will be onsite in already existing bnt seldom used parking spaces (3i) at the rear (east) of the Community Building. Approximately 3-5 permanent & up to 20 part time volunteers will work in the building. Because there is an existing Historical Museum on site presently, the anticipated increase in traffic volume is minimal. Occasionally, the facility will have special events or exhibits generating 100+ cars or several buses at one time using the east and main Community Center parking lots. This is less than the Community Center generates for their own special events. City staff will coordinate events/activities for the Historical Museum and Community Center to ensure there is no conflict. On street parking is permitted on Campus. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'? The proposed Historical Museum project will not significantly affect the level of service on roadways Of at intersections. Access to and exiting ffom the Community Center is available on Huntington and Campus. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed Historical Museum project will not impact air traffic patterns. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 18 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x FORM"r' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES.E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'? The proposed Historical Museum project will not affect any of the above impacts. The project may be subject to mitigation measures such as additionai signage or similar measures should any traflic or parking related impacts arise. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed Historical Museum project will'not affect emergency access and will have proper emergency access. t) Result in inadequate parking capaciry? The proposed Historical Museum project will have sufficient parking to code. The east (rear) parking area (3i spaces) in the Community Center is seldom used. Street parking is also available on Campus. The project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related Impacts arise. g) Conflict \vith adopted poiicies, plans, or programs supporting aiternatjve transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'7 The proposed Historical Museum project will not conflict with adopted policies or plans adopted by the City supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES Al"ID SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the project:- a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Relrional Water Qualiry Control Board? - . The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already beeD developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. CITY /R VPUB/20002 0001546265 Page 19 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x x FORM "f' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V, AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: b) Require or result in the construction of new water or. wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant en vironmental effects'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. d) Have sufficient water suppiies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed~ The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/5462 65' Page 20 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant 'With Mitigation, . Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x x FORM 'T' INITIAL STUDY RUTH V, AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one- story museum in a populated area zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. XVII. MA1"IDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAl"lCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or 'Wildlife species. cause a tlsh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory0 The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one-story office building zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of , the above mentioned effects or impacts. CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 Page 21 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 'Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x FORl'fl"]" INITIAL STUDY RUTH V. AND CHARLES E. GILB HISTORICAL MUSEUM Issues: b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one-story office building essentially being relocated and expanded in the same location zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above mentioned effects or impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed Historical Museum project is for a one-story office building zoned for public purposes in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above mentioned effects or impacts. CITY IR VPUB120002000/546265 Page 22 of22 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 'No Impact Impact x x FORM "J"