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"