HomeMy WebLinkAbout6197
RESOLUTION NO. 6197
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN EXPANSION PROJECT,
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project proposes
construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion to the existing Westfield
Shoppingtown in the City of Arcadia; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
(Public Res. Code 921000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 9 15000 et
seq.), and the City of Arcadia's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia is the lead
agency for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project ("Project") as the public
agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of Project implementation; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was published on or about
December 17, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory
agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15082; and
WHEREAS, in order to define the scope of the investigation of the EIR, the City
consulted with all responsible and trustee state agencies, local organizations and
interested individuals to identify concerns regarding potential impacts of the Project on
the Project site; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Notice of Preparation of
an EIR, the City conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on December 6, 1999 to solicit
input from the community regarding issues to be addressed in the EIR; and
6197
WHEREAS, approximately 13 written comment letters were received by the City
in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues
and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on May
19, 2000 and the City initiated the public comment period by filing a Notice of
Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and the
Clerk's Office of Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092, the City also
provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who
had previously requested such notice in writing, and published the Notice of Completion
on or about May 25 and June 1 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project
area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to approximately 53 public agencies,
organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the
Arcadia City Library and Arcadia Development Services Department, Community
Development Division; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City
received approximately eleven (11) written comments, all of which the City responded to
in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of the Final EIR to all commentors on August 23; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City, and the EIR is sufficiently
detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have
been evaluated properly, focusing on broad policy alternatives and area wide mitigation
measures; and
-2-
6197
.
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the
Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of
eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it
as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds
are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II hereof;
and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section III hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than
significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during
all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council
and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, no comments made in any public hearing or any additional
information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring
-3-
6197
.
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
At a regular meeting on September 5, 2000, the City Council determined that
based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public,
organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated
with the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project are: 1) less than significant and do
not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation
measures; or 3) significant and will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by
the identified mitigation measures.
Section 2. Resolution regarding environmental impacts not requiring mitigation.
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of
the Anoakia Residential Development Project are less than significant and therefore do
not require the imposition of mitigation measures:
A. Aesthetics - LiQht and Glare
Lighting associated with the proposed restaurant pads adjacent to Baldwin
Avenue may be visible by adjacent residents. (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.) However, existing
landscaping and elevation differentials will screen this lighting. In addition, existing
vehicular traffic and street lighting on Baldwin Avenue will mask any additional lighting.
No spillover of parking lot lighting is anticipated. Therefore, potential light and glare
impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
8. Aesthetics - Topoaraphv
The existing topography is relatively flat due to previous grading activities
necessary to construct the existing mall. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.) As a result, no significant
-4-
6197
grading is expected to be necessary to construct the Project. Therefore, no significant
impacts to the existing topography are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
C. Aoricultural Resources
The Project site and surrounding area are fully developed with urban uses.
There are no existing agricultural resources and farmlands in the City. The Project site
has been and will continue to be developed as a shopping center and adjoining parking
lot. In addition, the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses.
(Draft EIR, p. 9-1.) Therefore, the Project will not result in significant impacts to
agricultural resources and no mitigation is required.
D. Biolooical Resources
No unique or sensitive animals are located on the Project site and
therefore will not be affected by implementation of the Project. On-site vegetation
consists primarily of small ornamental trees (throughout the parking lots) and
landscaping materials. In addition, the Project will not affect preservation policies,
conservation plans, or protected habitats. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant impacts to
biological resources will occur from implementation of the Project and no mitigation is
required.
E. Cultural Resources
The Project site is not on the Historical Places Listing in the City's General
Plan, nor is it within a designated historic district. The Project-related improvements will
not cause a physical change that would affect the unique ethnic cultural values of the
area. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated and no
mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
None of the existing or proposed land uses associated with the Project will
generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials in quantities that could pose public
health hazards. No storage of explosive or combustible materials is located on-site and
there are no known natural or any other hazards known to exist on the Project site.
Therefore, the hazardous materials impact to the public and/or environment is not
considered significant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
-5-
6197
G. HydroloQV and Water Quality
The amount of impervious surfaces will not increase with implementation
of the Project and, therefore, no significant impacts on water quality, groundwater
discharge, drainage pattern, or long-term run-off are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 9-2,)
The Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Project
Applicant will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan and a Water Quality Control Plan in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
Therefore, no significant hydrology impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is
required. (Ibid.)
H. Mineral Resources
The Project site is not designated as, or located near, any known
regionally significant mineral resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to mineral
resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
I. Population and HousinQ
Implementation of the Project will not involve any residential development
and therefore will not have any direct impact on regional or local population projections.
(Ibid.) The Project will generate approximately 780 additional full-time jobs and 780
part-time jobs, which may indirectly increase the need for housing. However, the
majority of the jobs are expected to be filled by the existing population. (Ibid.) In
addition, the Project will not destroy structures that are considered affordable housing
and therefore will have no impact on affordable housing units in the City, nor will the
Project displace substantial numbers of people. Therefore, no significant impacts to
population and housing are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
J. Recreation
The Project does not contain any components that would increase
demand upon neighborhood, regional or any other recreational facilities. Therefore, no
significant impacts to recreational resources are anticipated and no mitigation is
required. (Ibid.)
K. Utilities/Service Systems - Natural Gas Service
The Southern California Gas Company ("SCG") currently provides natural
gas service to the Project site via underground lines located in West Huntington Drive
.6-
6197
and Baldwin Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4-136.) SCG has indicated that existing mains can
serve the Project and would not create a significant impact on the environment. (Ibid.)
In addition, no cumulative impacts to gas services from the Project are anticipated al
this time. (Draft EIR, p. 4-137.) Therefore, no significant impacts to natural gas service
are anticipated from the Project and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
L. Utilities/Service Svstems - Telephone Service
Pacific Bell has existing telephone facilities within the Project vicinity and
provides telephone services to the mall shops currently operating on the site. (Ibid.) To
provide service to the Project, enhancement andlor extensions of existing facilities may
be required. (Ibid.) However, service to the Project can be provided without any
adverse impact on Pacific Bell's ability to provide telephone service in the area. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-138.) In addition, Pacific Bell will be able to accommodate the needs for
telephone service generated by this and other projects in the area. (Ibid.) Therefore,
no significant impacts to telephone services are anticipated and no mitigation measures
are required. (Ibid.) Although no mitigation is required, the following mitigation
measure will be implemented to enhance the delivery of telephone service to the Project
site:
4.8.3.1. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Pacific Bell prior
to the issuance of grading permits regarding the need for additional facilities and/or
easements. (Ibid.)
Section 3. Resolution regarding Environmental Impacts mitigated to a level of
less than significant.
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in
the Draft EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant
impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant
level are as follows:
A Aesthetics
1. Potential Sionificant Impacts.
The Project may have potentially significant impacts regarding
aesthetics because current zoning would allow the Project to have a maximum of eight
-7-
6197
stories with a building height not to exceed 85 feet (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.) In contrast, the
existing mall is two stories, with the exception of the Macy's and Robinson's-May
buildings. The Project may also have potential significant impacts to aesthetics through
limiting the existing views of the historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-7.) The area of greatest concern would be views of the Project site from the
existing multiple family residences located along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington
Drive, (Draft EIR, p. 4-9.) The unmitigated building height could be as much as 80 feet
above Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) The only other area of potential impact is the Eastside
Expansion Area on the eastern portion of the site, where the Project may disrupt partial
views of the racetrack grandstands for a distance of approximately 650 feet along West
Huntington Drive, and full views for an additional 650 feet (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.)
2. Findinas.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to aesthetics to less than significant:
4.1.3.1. All site plans and architectural building elevations
shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's Architectural Design Review
Process. (Ibid.)
4.1.3.2. The Development Services Department shall review
and approve the Project's landscape plans, prior to issuance of building permits. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-17.)
4.1.3.3. The parking structure(s) shall be architecturally
compatible with the mall architecture. (Ibid.)
4.1.3.4. The proposed restaurant pads located along Baldwin
Avenue shall be limited to two (2) stories with a maximum height of 30 feet (Ibid.)
3. Supportina Explanation.
Implementation of the Project will not require the alteration of
existing landforms nor will it substantially alter the existing viewsheds and visual
character of the site from the surrounding areas. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) The existing
commercial uses and proposed expansion are considered visually compatible (i.e., both
commercial in nature) with the existing Santa Anita Racetrack located directly north and
-8-
6197
east of the site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-9.) In addition, the Project will not visually impact the
horse stables that are located directly north of the site, nor will it impact the large
parking area east of the site, since the parking area is not considered visually sensitive.
(Ibid.)
Regarding proposed building height, the above mitigation measures
will reduce the maximum building height of the restaurant pads to two (2) stories, 30
feet maximum height. (Ibid.) Also, elevation differentials and the existing landscaping
along Baldwin Avenue and the reduced building height would mitigate any potentially
significant aesthetic impacts. (Ibid.) In addition, views of the existing Nordstrom
building are blocked by the existing berm and associated landscaping which ranges
between six and eight feet along Baldwin Avenue. Also, the pad elevation is
approximately 20 feet below Baldwin Avenue, which provides additional screening.
(Ibid.)
Further, the bulk and height of the existing mall is partially buffered
by the distance from the residences to the mall structures. Large arterial roadways
separate Westfield Shoppingtown from adjacent multi-family residences along Baldwin
Avenue and Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.) Also, no scenic vistas are currently
blocked by the mall. (Ibid.) In addition, as stated in Section II of these findings, no
significant impacts are expected regarding light and glare or the topography of the
Project site. Regarding potential cumulative impacts from the Project, there are no
other proposed development projects which could combine to result in cumulative
impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area. As a result, cumulative aesthetic
impacts are not considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.) With the existing
landscaping and implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potentially
significant impacts to aesthetics will be reduced to less than significant.
B. Geoloav and Soils
1. Potential Sianificant Impacts.
The Project could expose people and property to ground shaking
hazards from local and regional faults if a large earthquake occurred on any of the
active faults identified as hazardous to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EI R, p. 4-41.) The
most notable regional faults include the San Andreas Fault to the north and the Whittier
.9-
6197
.
~
fault to the south. (Ibid.) Also, the Raymond Hill faults zone transverses the City from
west to east. The nearby Sierra Madre Fault also influences the topography of the area.
(Ibid.) Recent activity along the Sierra Madre fault system (e.g., 1971 San Fernando
and 1992 Sierra Madre earthquakes) indicates this fault system is active and is the
source of potentially damaging earthquakes that could impact Arcadia and the Westfield
Shoppingtown Mall. (Draft EIR, p. 4-38.)
2. Findinos
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce
potential geotechnical impacts to less than significant:
4.3.3.1. All grading operations will be conducted in
conformance with the applicable City of Arcadia Grading Ordinance and the most recent
version of the Uniform Building Code (for seismic criteria). (Draft EIR, p. 4-44.)
4.3.3.2. The grading and foundation plans, including
foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer. The findings and
recommendations of the Soils Engineer shall be compiled in a geotechnical report and
submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits. (Ibid.)
3. Supportino Explanation.
Although earthquakes in the past 25 years have produced
significant ground motion within the Project planning area, the damage occurring as a
result of these earthquakes has not been as widespread in Arcadia as it has been in
other areas. (Draft EIR, p. 4-42.) In addition, although moderate to high intensities of
seismic groundshaking can be expected to occur on-site, the effects can be mitigated
by conformance with the latest Uniform Building code andlor recommendations of the
Structural Engineers Association of California for seismically resistive design of
structures. Therefore, no significant impacts related to regional seismicity are
anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4-43.)
Additionally, no landslides are present on or near the site of the
Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-38.) Also, there are currently no problems relating to runoff
and erosion since the Project site is fully developed and will remain covered in either
asphalt or building materials. (Draft EIR, p. 4-41.) Similarly, because the Project site is
-10-
6197
.,
already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil would be minimal during the
construction phase of the Project. (Ibid.) In addition, on-site soils are already
compacted and covered by pavement and there is no evidence to suggest that the soils
are not suitable for development. (Draft EIR, p. 4-43.) Also, due to past grading
activities for the existing mall, the site is relatively flat and no impacts relating to gross
slope stability are anticipated. (Ibid.) Further, the County's liquefaction hazards maps
do not show the Project site as potentially liquifiable. (Draft EIR, p. 4-44.) Although the
alluvial deposits underneath the Project site may be subject to differential settlement
during any intense seismic shaking, such settlement is not anticipated to occur to the
degree necessary to cause much damage. (Ibid.)
In addition, cumulative geotechnical impacts will be reduced to less
than significant as cumulative projects adhere to mitigation measures contained in site-
specific geotechnical reports, building codes, and grading ordinances. Therefore,
cumulative geotechnical impacts related to the Project are not considered significant.
(Ibid.) With the implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potential
geotechnical impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant. (Ibid.)
C. Land Use/PlanninQ
1. Potential Sionificant Impacts.
Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses; Project
implementation may increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels on roadways
including Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-50.) Another
potential impact may be the proposed General Plan Amendment to allow expansion of
the building envelope to the site's eastern border. Under a worst-case scenario, this
could allow the construction of structures within approximately 350 feet of the nearest
residential units. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.)
The Project includes a General Plan amendment to allow for a
600,000 square foot expansion of the existing mall, resulting in an increase of 293,699
square feet over the existing General Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4-52.) Therefore, the
proposed General Plan amendment exceeds the growth projections for commercial land
uses in the City of Arcadia by approximately 3.8 percent. (Ibid.) As a result of the
-11-
6197
'i"
increased square footage, the Project exceeds the level of development assumed in the
adopted Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). (Draft EIR, p. 4-54.) Further, the
close proximity of future restaurant pads to existing residential neighborhoods may
create controversy and compatibility impacts relative to noise and aesthetics. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-50.) Although the northerly and southerly restaurant pads are separated from
the existing residential units by approximately 340 feet and 170 feet, adjacent residents
may perceive an increase in nighttime illumination, traffic, noise, and increased activity.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) In addition, the proposed northerly restaurant pad may not be
compatible with the Santa Anita Racetrack because of the restaurant pad's close
proximity to the existing stables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) The stables have the potential to
produce various odors that may impact the proposed commercial uses. (Ibid.)
2. Findino.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce
potential impacts to land use and planning to less than significant:
4.4.3.1. The Project shall be designed in accordance with all
relevant development standards and regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, City
Council Ordinance 1425 and Resolution 4185, as amended. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.)
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
Since the proposed expansion is consistent with the existing
commercial uses at the Project site, no potential land use impacts are associated with
the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) In addition, since the existing uses and the proposed
expansion consist of an enclosed mall, no significant land use impacts related to the
existing parking area are anticipated. (Ibid.) Further, although the stables have
potential to produce various odors that may potentially impact the proposed northerly
restaurant pad, the restaurant is likely to be enclosed and will limit potential odor related
impacts. (Ibid.)
As explained in these findings, Project-related traffic and noise
impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the projected traffic
volumes are well within the roadway classifications identified in the City's Circulation
Element. (Draft EIR, p. 4-50.) Therefore, the Project is considered environmentally
-12-
6197
I
compatible with the surrounding land uses. (Ibid.) Further, the Santa Anita Racetrack
is not considered a sensitive land use and will not be significantly impacted by the
Project. (Ibid.)
Regarding potential impacts to existing residences from the
proposed commercial uses, an existing six- to eight-foot landscaped berm along
Baldwin Avenue will reduce any potential land use compatibility impacts. As a result no
significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.)
Regarding the potential "worst-case" scenario of construction within
350 feet of existing residences at the site's eastern border, these units are separated
from the proposed expansion area by West Huntington Drive, an eight-lane divided
highway with a landscaped median. (Ibid.) As a result, it is unlikely that adjacent
residents will perceive any increases in noise, light and glare, or on-site activity.
Therefore, no land use compatibility impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.)
The Project is consistent with all the elements of the General Plan,
with the exception of the Air Quality Element. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-51 through 4-56.) Air
quality impacts are further discussed in these findings. The Project is also consistent
with most of the policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG")
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"). (Draft EIR,
p. 4-69.) Further, the Project fully complies with or meets the intent of the majority of
SCAG's ancillary/advisory policies and is consistent with SCAG's employment forecasts
for the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Project, along with related projects in the
surrounding area, has already been anticipated and is included in the Arcadia General
Plan. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project site is considered appropriate for the proposed
expansion due to the commercial nature of the surrounding area to the north and east.
(Ibid.) In addition, none of the cumulative projects would require the disruption or
division of the physical arrangement of an existing community. As such, cumulative
land use impacts are not considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.) With the
implementation of the above mitigation measure, any potential impacts to land use
and/or planning will be reduced to less than significant.
-13- 6197
Noise
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Construction noise may be intermittently audible to nearby
residences, especially toward the southwestern site corner. (Draft EIR, p. 4-80.)
Construction activities may create a short-term noise nuisance for impact sources such
as jackhammers or pavement breakers. (Ibid.) Vehicular noise from traffic on adjacent
arterial roadways could increase the noise exposure of residents or other noise-
sensitive users along site access roads. (Ibid.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, noise
impacts will be reduced to less than significant:
4.5.3.1 Construction activities are prohibited between the
hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. (Draft EIR, p. 4-87.)
Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless authorized by the Building
Official. (Ibid.)
3.
D.
Supportino Explanation.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, construction
noise will be confined to the daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity by construction
permit conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4-80.) Demolition and new construction noise will be
largely masked by existing traffic noise and blocked by much of the existing buildings,
such that temporary construction activity impacts, even during maximum noise
generation, would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Off-site traffic noise will only be
increased by 0.4 decibels, which is undetectable by humans. (Draft EIR, p. 4-87.)
Consequently, traffic associated with the shopping center expansion will not perceptibly
change the noise environment. (Ibid.) Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation
measure above, noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.)
The maximum cumulative noise increase as a result of the Project
is less than 3.0 decibels, which is not perceptible by humans. (Ibid.) Therefore,
cumulative noise increases are not considered significant. (Ibid.)
-14-
6197
E. Public Services
FIRE PROTECTION
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
The Project expansion of up to 600,000 square feet would increase
demand on the Arcadia Fire Department for fire service resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4-89.)
There would be an increase in the number of responses to the Project area that would
increase the demand for existing apparatus, equipment and personnel. (Ibid.) As such,
the City's costs would increase to maintain equipment and apparatus, as well as to train
and equip personnel. (Ibid.) The Project may increase the demand for paramedic
services due to increased human activity at the site. (Ibid.) The increased demand may
require new or altered ambulance services. (Ibid.) Implementation of this Project in
combination with other projects in the vicinity may result in a cumulative increase in fire
department calls for service. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.)
2. Findinos.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to
fire protection services will be reduced to less than significant:
4.6.1.1. The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable
City of Arcadia codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention
and suppression measures, relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants,
automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire flows, fire access, access gates, combustible
construction, water availability, fire sprinkler system, etc. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.)
3. Supportino Explanation.
Paramedic response times and service are currently within the
standards in the Project area and would remain so with implementation of the Project.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-89.) Compliance with fire protection design standards will ensure that
future development within the area does not inhibit the ability of fire protection or
paramedic crews to respond at optimum levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90). The need for
additional personnel and materials will be reviewed periodically as cumulative
development occurs. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) Implementation of the mitigation measure
listed above will assist the City in meeting cumulative growth-driven demands for fire
-15-
6197
protection services and will offset any significant cumulative impacts related to this
Project. (Ibid.)
POLICE PROTECTION
1. Potential Siqnificant Impacts.
The Arcadia Police Department has indicated that policing of the
parking structure may present unique difficulties with regard to personal safety and the
safety of vehicles and property. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91.) The Project may use
approximately 12 percent of the Arcadia Police Department resources. (Draft E\R, p. 4-
92.) It is likely that the department may require the addition of some personnel as a
result of the Project. (Ibid.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts
to police protection services will be reduced to less than significant:
4.6.2.1. The parking structure(s) shall be designed to create
an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingresslegress to the
structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.)
4.6.2.2. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Arcadia Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
any structures, including the parking structure(s). (Mitigation Monitoring Program July
2000, p. 3-7.)
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
Potential concerns with regard to security of the parking structure will be
mitigated through the design concept of the structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91,) The Police
Department will evaluate the security plan to determine the best methods to address
and mitigate potential security issues. (Ibid.) Further, the Police Department will review
final design plans once they are submitted. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) The mitigation
measures listed above will reduce all potential Project-related police impacts to a level
of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) To the extent that police department resources
are expanded in an efficient manner in accordance with growth trends, no significant
cumulative impacts related to police protection services are anticipated. (Ibid.)
-16-
6197
F. Transportation/Circulation
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
The Project is expected to generate approximately 16,080
additional vehicle trips per day. (Draft EIR, p. 4-101.) At build-out, the Project may
generate 668 outbound trips and 766 inbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. (Ibid.)
The Project may have a negative impact on the levels of service for the following
intersections in 2002:
. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue
. 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard. (Draft EIR, p. 4-
106.)
Due to the contribution of growth in regional traffic and General
Plan build-out, the Project may have a negative impact on the levels of service for the
following intersections in 2015:
. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue
. 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue
. Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue
. Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue
. Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Sunset Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard
. Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place
. Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street
. Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4-
117.)
In addition, cumulative development in accordance with the
adopted Arcadia General Plan and regional traffic growth may result in deficiencies to
the levels of service for the following intersections by 2015:
. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue (W), (E)
. 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue
-17-
6197
\
t\
\.
. Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue
. Driveway B @ Baldwin Avenue
. Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue
. Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Sunset Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard
. Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place
. Huntington Drive @ Holly Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street
. Huntington Drive @ Santa Anita Avenue
. Huntington Drive @ 1-210 WB Ramps
. Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue
. 1-210 EB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue
. 1-210 WB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue (Draft EIR, p. 4-
124 to 4-125.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measures, traffic
and circulation impacts will be reduced to less than significant:
4.7.3.1. In order to mitigate the traffic problems, there are two
means by which traffic mitigations may be paid:
a. The project applicant shall participate in area-wide traffic
improvements by participating in the City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program, if
adopted by the City of Arcadia. The project applicant shall be entitled to credit against
this Fee Program for the costs of project-funded off-site circulation improvements, to the
extent that such improvements provide circulation capacity in excess of the capacity
required to serve traffic generated by the project; or
b. If the City of Arcadia has not adopted a Traffic Impact Fee
Program by the time building permits are issued for the Project, the Project shall
participate in the area-wide traffic improvements identified in the City's Transportation
Master Plan, as adopted, on a pro-rata "fair-share" basis (I.e., "nexus" formula). A
.18-
6197
nexus based formula will ensure that the Project fully compensates for its share of the
cost of improvements to roadways within or near the study area that may be impacted
by the Project. A nexus study to determine "fair-share" responsibility shall be completed
by the Project Applicant at the time engineering plans are initiated for the roadway
improvement. A nexus based formula will ensure that the Project fully compensates for
its share of the cost of "new" capacity that must be provided at various locations. (Ibid.)
4.7.3.2. The Project Applicant shall be required to complete or
bond for the cost of engineering and construction for the following improvements prior to
issuance of Building Permits within Phase 1 (up to 400,000 square feet GLA).). If an
improvement is identified in the City's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the City may
require that the applicant provide the City with the cost of said irnprovement(s) rather
than construct the improvement(s). The funding provided shall be used to construct the
improvement identified in the Transportation Master Plan. The Project-specific
improvements are as follows:
a. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue (W)
Add a separate left-turn lane on the northbound approach.
(Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-9.)
b. 1-210 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue
Restripe eastbound approach for a separate left-turn land, a
through-right land and an exclusive right-turn lane. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-130.)
c. HuntinQton Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard
Provide a separate right-turn lane on northbound and
eastbound approach by restriping and modify the traffic
signals to accommodate the new right-turn lanes, if
necessary. Detailed striping and signal plans shall be
prepared and submitted to the County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works for review and approval.
(Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.)
[NOTE: The consultant's Mitigation Monitoring
dated July 2000 deleted two mitigation measures.
1-19 of Draft EIR, mitigation measures "d" and "e."]
Program
See pg.
-19-
6197
4.7.3.3. The Project Applicant shall be required to complete or
bond for the cost of engineering and construction for the following improvements prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy within Phase 2 (up to 600,000 square feet GLA).
If an improvement included in the following list conflicts with an improvement identified
in the City's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the City may require that the Applicant
provide the City with the cost of the conflicting improvement rather than construct the
improvement. The funding provided shall be used to construct the improvement
identified in the Transportation Master Plan. The Project-specific improvements are as
follows:
a. Drivewav A @ Baldwin Avenue
Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach.
(Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.)
b. Drivewav C @ Baldwin Avenue
Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-130.)
c. HuntinQton Drive @ Baldwin Avenue
Add a second northbound left-turn lane and also add a
separate right-turn lane on the eastbound approach. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-131.)
d. Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue
Add a right-turn and a second left-turn lane on the
northbound approach and a right-turn lane on the westbound
approach. (Ibid.)
e. HuntinQton Drive @ Sunset Boulevard
Add a separate left-turn lane on the southbound approach.
(Ibid.)
{NOTE: The consultant's Mitigation Monitoring Program
dated July 2000 deleted one mitigation measure. See pg. 1-
21 of Draft EIR, mitigation measure "k."]
f. Huntinaton Drive @ Colorado Place
-20-
6197
Restripe westbound approach for an exclusive right-turn,
one shared through/right and two through lanes. (Ibid.)
g. Huntinoton Drive @ Santa Clara Street
Restripe northbound approach to provide for two right-turn
lanes, one through lane and a left-turn lane. (Ibid.)
h. Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue
Add a separate right-turn lane on the northbound approach.
(Ibid.)
L HuntinQton Drive @ Hollv Avenue
Add a second southbound right-turn lane. (Mitigation
Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-12.)
4.7.3.5. The Project Applicant's final design for any new
internal circulation alterationslchanges regarding the internal circulation system shall
comply with the following design gUidelines to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer.
a. The internal circulation system shall consist of a ring road, a
system of perimeter roads, appropriately laid out parking
aisles, landscaping and intersections and incorporate
appropriate pedestrian and bicycle access/connections.
(Ibid.)
b. Primary circulation shall be provided by the ring road. The
site circulation system shall be designed to encourage use of
the ring road and discourage use of the perimeter roadways
for movement from one part of the site to another.
Horizontal curvature and sight distances shall be designed
for at least 30 miles per hour (mph). Curve radii and sight
distance requirements for the ring road shall be the same as
for the major collector roads. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132).
c. On-site vehicular volumes and speeds shall be controlled by
the physical design of the parking lots and the perimeter
-21-
6197
roadway in order to reduce the potential and number of
serous pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The maximum width
of the perimeter roads shall not exceed 29 feet, and the
minimum inside radii shall be between 30 and 50 feet. All
perimeter roads shall be designed as fire lanes so that no-
stopping/no-parking rules can be enforced. (Ibid.)
d. Landscaping shall be used for delineation of on-site
circulation features and to discourage drivers from traversing
designated areas. (Ibid.)
e. Tee (three-way) intersections shall be used for all on-site
intersections in order to minimize conflicts and simplify
maneuver areas. The intersections shall be designed to the
same geometric standards as the intersections of
comparable classes of public streets. (Ibid.)
1. Adequate site distances shall be provided at all on-site
intersections and on horizontal curves. Minimum speeds for
sight distance determination shall be 20 mph on parking
aisles and perimeter roads, and 30 mph on the ring road.
(Ibid.)
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
With implementation of the Project-specific roadway improvements
identified above, each of the above intersections will operate at background levels of
service (as if, without the Project) or better in 2002 and 2015. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132.)
The intersection of Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard is currently operating at
an unacceptable level of service and will continue to do so with or without the Project.
(Ibid.) All other intersections in the 2002 condition will operate at acceptable levels of
service with Project-specific improvements. (Ibid.) Therefore, Project-specific impacts
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.)
Except for Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, cumulative
intersection impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through project-
specific intersection improvements. (Draft EIR, p. 4-133.) Intersection deficiencies at
-22-
6197
,,-
"'-
Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard are due to cumulative background growth
and not the Project. (Ibid.) The conditions at this intersection would essentially be the
same with or without the Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project's contribution to the
significant cumulative traffic impacts are "de minimis" and thus not significant. (Ibid.)
G. Utilities/Service Systems
ELECTRIC SERVICE
1. Potential Sionificant Impacts.
Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"), who will provide
electricity for the Project, estimates that an additional four-megavolt amps of load may
be required to serve the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-134.) To accommodate the Project
some rearrangement of SCE facilities may be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135.) During
construction, SCE anticipates conflicts between existing electrical facilities and new
construction on the site. (Ibid.) Temporary power requirements for the Project are
expected to be extensive. (Ibid.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to
electric service will be reduced to less than significant:
4.8.1.1. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with SCE prior
to the issuance of grading permits to address potential conflicts between existing
electrical facilities and new construction on the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135.)
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
To reduce the Project's electrical consumption, the Project will
comply with all the State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Arcadia codes. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-134.) SCE has indicated its ability to serve the Project. (Draft EIR, p 4-135.)
Coordination with SCE early in the planning process to address potential conflicts will
ensure a safe work environment and reliable service for SCE's existing customers.
(Ibid.) Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will further reduce any
identified impacts on electrical service to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.)
-23-
6197
WATER SERVICE
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
The Westfield Shoppingtown is served by Zone 2 of the Arcadia
Water System. (Draft EIR, p. 4-138.) The proposed expansion may increase demand
on the water storage zone, which is currently deficient by .26 million gallons. (Draft EIR,
p. 4-139.) Leaking existing detector check valves are likely to be found in the
remodeling process and may need to be resolved. (Ibid.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts
to water service will be reduced to less than significant:
4.8.4.1. The Project Applicant shall comply with water
conservation measures in accordance with AB 325. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.)
4.8.4.2. The project applicant shall comply with the Title 17 -
Backflow Regulations.
4.8.4.3. The project applicant shall replace or repair detector
check valves if leading is found.
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
The City's Water Master Plan includes a new storage reservoir to
be constructed in the next two to three years, which will accommodate current and
future storage deficiencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.) The area water distribution system
will provide adequate flow to the Project structures. (Ibid.) Further, according to the
Arcadia Public Works Services Department, the Project is not expected to have a
significant impact on the City's ability to provide quality water service to the Project and
the community. (Ibid.) Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures listed
above will reduce all potential water impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p.
4-140.) Further, with regard to cumulative impacts, Arcadia does not anticipate any
problems supplying water service to any current or future development in the City of
Arcadia (Ibid.)
.24-
6197
SEWER SERVICE
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ("CSDLAC")
provides regional sewer and wastewater treatment services for the City of Arcadia.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-140.) The wastewater flow originating from the Project site will
discharge to a local sewer line maintained by the City, for conveyance to the CSDLAC's
system. (Draft EIR, p. 4-141.) The expected increase in average wastewater flow from
the Project site is 195,000 gallons per day ("gpd"). (Ibid.) The general plan amendment
associated with the Project proposes an increase of 293,699 square feet above what is
allowed under the existing General Plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, the General Plan
Amendment may increase wastewater generation by approximately 95,452 gpd (0.1
million gallons per day ["mgd"]) over what is currently allowed under the General Plan.
(Ibid.)
2. Findinas.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to
sewer service will be reduced to less than significant:
4.8.6.1. The Project Applicant shall pay all required sewer
connection fees to CSDLAC prior to issuance of a sewer connection permit. (Draft EIR,
p.4-142.)
3. Supportino Explanation.
CSDLAC's Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer has an excess
available capacity of 2.0 mgd and is able to adequately serve the 0.1 mgd increase
generated by the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-141.) As a result, no significant impacts are
anticipated. (Ibid.) Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce all
potential wastewater impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.)
Presuming future development is generally consistent with existing general plans,
CSDLAD does not anticipate problems in supplying cumulative wastewater service to
any current and future development in the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) Further, the
proposed mall expansion is intended to serve planned population growth within the
-25-
6197
region and will not result in any direct population increase. (Ibid.) Therefore, no
significant cumulative impacts to wastewater services are anticipated. (Ibid.)
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
Waste disposal services will be provided by CSDLAC and waste
will be disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) Development of
the Project may increase the service demand on solid waste disposal beyond existing
conditions and further impact the Puente Hills Landfill and the City's solid waste
reduction and diversion programs. (Draft EIR, p, 4-143.) The Project is expected to
generate approximately 3,900 tons of solid waste per year, a five percent increase
within the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144.) With regard to cumulative impacts, the County of
Los Angeles is facing serious disposal constraints in terms of daily capacity and long
term disposal capacity, such that every effort must be made to minimize the amount of
waste generated. (Ibid.)
2. FindinQs.
With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts
to sewer service will be reduced to less than significant:
4.8.6.1 All subsequent site plans and building plans on the
Project site shall incorporate storage and collection recyclables into the Project design.
All occupants shall be required to recycle, at a minimum, newspaper, glass bottles,
aluminum and bi-metal cans, and PET. bottles to divert recyclables away from land
disposal. Recycling shall be incorporated in the Project design by reserving space
appropriated for the support of recycling, including the provision of adequate storage
areas and access for recycling vehicles. (Draft EJR, p. 4-144.)
4.8.6.2. All future refuse collection contracts serving the
Project site shall include the collection of recyclables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-145.)
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
In accordance with CSDLAC recommendations, the Project will
incorporate storage and collection of recyclables into the Project design. (Draft EIR, p.
4-144.) Also, occupants will be encouraged to recycle, and future refuse collection
-26-
6197
contracts will include the collection of recyclables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144, 4-145.)
Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures above will reduce all potential
solid waste impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-145,) Since the Project
includes significant measures to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal,
the Project's contribution to cumulative solid wastes is not considered significant. (Draft
EIR, p 4-144.)
Section 4. Resolution regarding environmental impacts not fully mitigated to a
level of less than significant.
A Air Quality
1. Potential SiQnificant Impacts.
The Project may have potential significant impacts to air quality
through construction activity, regional mobile source impacts, microscale air quality
impacts, and odors resulting from the site's proximity to the racetrack horse barns.
Construction Activitv Impacts: During construction, downwind
receptors may be exposed to diesel exhaust particulates, which are an identified human
carcinogen. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Health risk assessments of construction equipment
diesel exhaust have demonstrated that there may be an elevated individual cancer risk
in very close Project proximity. (Ibid.) Although this health risk to the surrounding public
is not considered significant, it is sufficiently adverse as to highly recommend all
feasible minimization of diesel exhaust. (Ibid.)
In addition, the age of existing structures proposed for renovation or
demolition indicates that there may be small amounts of asbestos-containing materials
("ACMs") in roofing or flooring. (Ibid.) Also, new construction typically utilizes paints,
stains and other surface treatments that emit volatile organic compounds ('VQCs")
when applied. (Ibid.) Application of more than 37.5 gallons of such paint per day might
cause significance thresholds to be exceeded. (Ibid.)
Reaional Mobile Source Impacts: The greatest Project-related air
quality concern comes from the mobile source emissions that may be generated from
Project site commercial activities. (Ibid.) The Project traffic consultant estimates 16,079
"new" weekday vehicle trips may be generated at full site development. (Ibid.) On
Saturdays, the net trips may increase to 20,000. (Draft EIR, p. 4-30.) Implementation
-27-
6197
of the Project may add approximately 120,000 weekday vehicle miles traveled ('VMT")
to the existing regional VMT burden of around 300 million VMT per day. (Ibid.) In
addition, Project operational emissions were calculated using a computerized model for
buildout in 2002. From this model, the major automotive exhaust pollutants from
Project-related operational emissions are projected to be well above the threshold set
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") for both the Project
and for related growth. (Ibid.) According to the SCAQMD, emission levels above the
recommended threshold are considered to have an individually and cumulatively
significant impact. (Ibid.)
Microscale Air Qualitv Impacts: A microscale carbon monoxide
("CO") impact screening analysis was used to estimate sensitive receptor air pollution
exposure at a number of intersections near the Project area. (Draft EIR, p. 4-31.) This
analysis showed a possible existing violation of the hourly CO standard at Huntington
Drive and Rosemead Boulevard during the evening peak hour. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.)
Odors Resultino from Site Proximitv to Racetrack Horse Barns:
Odors are a potential air quality issue for the Project site because of the presence of the
nearby horse barns from the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) At
night, odor potential increases because the wind direction reverses, wind speeds
decrease, and low-level trapping inversions become established after dark. (Draft EIR,
p. 4-34.) The odor potential across the Project site reaches a maximum very late at
night. (Ibid.)
2. Findinas.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to air quality to the extent feasible:
4.2.3.1. The Project shall include suppression measures for
fugitive dust and those associated with construction equipment in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 and other AQMD requirements. Prior to the issuance of grading
permits the Project Applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan to the
Development Services Department for review and approval. The fugitive dust control
plan shall require the construction contractor to implement measures which may
include, but not be limited to, the following:
-28-
6197
a. Using adequate water for dust control (preferably using
reclaimed water). (Draft EIR, p. 4-35.)
b. Operating street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on
adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction
vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or
bringing construction materials. (Ibid.)
c. Covering trucks or wetting down loads of any dirt hauled to
or from the Project site. (Ibid.)
d. Performing 10w-NOx emissions tune-ups on on-site
equipment operating on-site for more than 60 days. (Ibid.)
e. Requiring on-site contractors to operate a congestion relief
program including:
. Rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
. Lane closures limited to non-peak traffic hours.
. Receipt of construction materials scheduled for non-peak
traffic periods where possible. (Ibid.)
4.2.3.2. The Project Applicant shall encourage future visitors
of the Project to utilize alternative forms of transportation through incorporation of the
following measures:
a. Provide preferential parking spaces for employee carpools
and van pools. (Ibid.)
b. Provide on-site bus shelters as determined necessary by the
Development Services Director and provide a well-lighted,
safe path to the mall entrances. The design of the new
shelters shall be compatible with the design of the mall and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Development Services Director. (Ibid.)
c. Work with the City of Arcadia to implement a public outreach
program that promotes alternative methods of transportation
through information kiosks located in the mall. (Ibid.)
-29-
6197
'.
3. Supportina Explanation
Air quality impacts during construction were shown to be well below
significant threshold levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) Potential construction dust soiling
impacts will be confined mainly to cars parked near individual construction sites, but not
to any nearby homes or other dust-sensitive uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4-28.) In addition,
daily equipment exhaust will be below SCAQMD thresholds and air quality standards
will not be exceeded during construction because of the limited total volume of
emissions and the mobility of the emission sources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-28 and 4-29.)
In addition, the individual cancer risk from diesel exhaust will not be
significant. Because the large surrounding parking lot creates a substantial disturbance
buffer and because of the direction of daytime winds, the diesel exhaust exposure from
on-site construction equipment will be below the de minimis cancer risk threshold at the
nearest homes along Baldwin Avenue and/or Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.)
Further, while there may be some concerns regarding ACMs within existing buildings,
adequate mechanisms are in place to insure safe exposure for both asbestos
abatement workers as well as the general public. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Project will maintain a less than significant threshold
for VOC-containing compounds through the use of building materials that are pre-
coated under factory conditions and limiting the amount of paint and other VOC-
containing compounds applied on a given day. (Ibid.)
Regarding microscale air quality impacts, the analysis for 21
intersections in the Project area presumed worst-case conditions for maximum local and
regional CO exposure occurring at the same time calculated at 25 feet from the
roadway edge. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) However, most residences near the Project site
are generally beyond 25 feet from the edge of the roadways analyzed. (Ibid.) In
addition, the analysis shows that peak hour CO levels, even in very close proximity at all
but one of the analyzed intersections, do not exceed the California one-hour CO
standard. (Ibid.) Further, for the one location with a possible existing violation,
Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, the theoretical peak levels will drop to
below the standard by 2002 because of "cleaner" cars in the future. (Ibid.) Also, all
future one-hour CO concentrations for theoretical worst-case conditions will be below
.30-
6197
"
the allowable threshold. (Ibid.) Further, the Project will not cause any new violations of
the standards, nor measurably or substantially worsen any existing violations of the
one-hour CO standard. (Ibid.)
Regarding odors from the racetrack horse barns, odor has not been
a major issue at the existing shopping center. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) Existing odors are
minimized by prevailing winds and by odor/manure management practices at the track
and barns. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) During hours when the shopping center use is heavy,
winds are overwhelmingly from the Project site toward the barns. Barn odor during the
day is carried from the barns toward the grandstands. (Ibid.) Although odor potential
reaches a maximum late at night, the site use is essentially zero at that time. (Draft
EIR, p. 4-34.) In addition, although expanded uses will bring more people to the
shopping center, the character or intensity of existing odors will not change as a result
of the Project. (Ibid.) Odor impacts are, therefore, not considered significant. (Ibid.)
Regarding mobile source impacts to air quality, there is only a
limited potential for reducing any large percentage of these Project impacts since all
potentially significant air quality impacts come from mobile source emissions and are
beyond the direct control of the Project Applicant. (Ibid.) Although some "standard"
mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during construction will be
adopted, they fail to address the basic transportation-related air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Mitigation of Project-related andlor cumulative air quality impacts will be limited in scope
and are clearly not of sufficient magnitude to achieve sub-significance threshold levels.
(Ibid.) Therefore, Project-specific and cumulative development in accordance with the
City of Arcadia General Plan may contribute to the cumulative air quality problems in the
South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") due to generation of motor vehicle traffic. (Ibid.) As a
result, Project-related air quality impacts are considered a significant unavoidable
adverse impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-36.)
Although the Project may result in significant air quality impacts, the
Project is consistent with transportation control measures ("TCMs") to reduce the
number of vehicle trips (i.e., through encouraging carpooling and high occupancy
vehicle usage). These TCMs are contained in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide ("RCPG") and the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") adopted by the
-31-
6197
City. (Draft EIR, p 5-1.) Therefore, the Project promotes the RCPG and AOMP
policies relating to the promotion of high occupancy vehicleltransit use. (Ibid.)
Section 5. Resolution regarding alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as
infeasible the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR and described below. CEOA
requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the
location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the
Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and
technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a
Project that could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is
to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose the
"environmentally superior" alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not
provide substantial advantages over the Project and (1) through the imposition of
mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an
acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible.
The Draft EIR identified the objectives established by the Project Applicant,
Westfield Corporation, Inc., for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion, which are to:
. Provide for the expansion of the existing mall in order to maintain the viability
of the shopping center. The existing shopping center is approximately 25
years old, and needs to be expanded, remodeled and remerchandised in
order to continue to meet the needs of the marketplace, adapt to changes in
the retail environment, and attract the best retail concepts to preserve and
grow its market share. (Draft EJR, p. 2-1.)
. Allow for the construction of approximately 600,000 square feet of additional
retail space through approval of a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001),
Zone Change (Z-99-003), and a Text Amendment (TA 99-006). (Ibid.)
. To create new jobs for Arcadia residents as well as provide additional sales
tax revenue to the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.)c
-32-
6197
A Alternative 1 - "No Proiect" Alternative
1. Description.
Under the "No Project" Alternative, the Project would not be
implemented and the existing General Plan and Zoning designations would remain
unchanged. Also, the current City Council Resolution No. 4185, which controls
development of the site, would remain in effect. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) Under this
alternative, expansion of the existing shopping center would be limited to approximately
300,000 square feet, in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 4185. (Ibid.) Also
under this alternative, the two restaurant pads would be excluded. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
All other components of the Project would remain the same under this alternative,
except the square footages, including the theaters, would be reduced by approximately
50 percent. (Ibid.) Because of the exclusion of the restaurant pads and the reduction in
square footage, this alternative is expected to slightly reduce the potential aesthetic
impacts associated with the Project. (Ibid.)
In addition, potential air pollutant emissions under this alternative
would be reduced by approximately 50 percent since the "No Project" Alternative is
limited to only 300,000 square feet of expansion. (Ibid.) This alternative would reduce
potential Project generated emissions of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxide,
although the thresholds would still be exceeded and considered significant. (Ibid.)
Projected carbon monoxide emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds and not
considered significant. (Ibid.)
Further, under the "No Project" Alternative, the total acreage
impacted by grading would be slightly reduced due to the reduced building area. (Ibid.)
However, all proposed structures under this alternative would be constructed in
generally the same location and potential geology and soils impacts would generally be
the same as the Project. (Ibid.)
Additionally, under this alternative, the Project's potential noise
impacts would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. However, no significant noise
impacts were identified with the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) Also, under this alternative,
the demand for public services generated at the Project site would be reduced by
approximately 50 percent, including the potential impacts on police and fire services.
-33-
6197
. , ,- --
(Ibid.) Further, the "No Project" Alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips and
would have fewer potential traffic-related impacts than the Project. (Ibid.) Also, under
this alternative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid
waste would be reduced by approximately 50 percent (Ibid.) Since the "No Project"
Alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered
environmentally superior to the Project. (Ibid.)
2. Findina.
The City Council finds that although the "No Project" Alternative is
environmentally superior to the Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project
objectives.
3. SupportinQ Explanation.
The "No Project" Alternative would reduce but not eliminate
potential aesthetic, air quality, land/use planning, noise, public services,
transportation/traffic, and utilitieslservice systems impacts when compared to the
Project. (Ibid.) Impacts to geologylsoils would be generally the same under this
alternative, although these impacts are not considered significant under the Project
(Ibid.) Air quality impacts would still occur with the "No Project" Alternative and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required. In addition, this
alternative does not meet the Project objective to allow for the construction of
approximately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
Further, without meeting this objective, the "No Project" Alternative cannot adequately
fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viability of the existing shopping center
and creating new jobs for Arcadia residents and providing additional sales tax revenue
to the City. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project" Alternative is
infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it
B. Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensitv Alternative (450.000 Square Foot
Expansion)
1. Description.
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, an expansion of 450,000
square feet is proposed. Since the amount of square footage proposed under this
-34-
6197
.. I' ~
alternative exceeds the amount currently allowed under the General Plan, a General
Plan Amendment would still be required. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) All other components of
the Project would remain the same under this alternative, except that the square
footage, including the theaters, would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.)
Regarding aesthetic impacts, this alternative includes the
restaurant pads proposed at the northwest corner of the site and therefore would not
reduce potential aesthetic impacts along Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) Although the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would slightly reduce the bulk and mass of the expansion
to the east due to reduced square footage, it is not expected to significantly reduce the
aesthetic impacts associated with the Project. (Ibid.)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce air pollutant
emissions generated by Project-related traffic by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.)
Although this alternative would reduce the projected exceedance of the SCAQMD
Threshold Criteria, the thresholds would still be exceeded and considered significant.
(Ibid.) In addition, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would slightly reduce the total
acreage impacted by grading due to the reduced building area. (Ibid.) However, all
proposed structures would be constructed in the same locations, and geologic
constraints relating to faulting and seismicity would be the same. (Ibid.) Therefore,
potential geology and soils impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would
generally be the same as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the expansion of the
Westfield Shoppingtown would still exceed the currently allowable space under the
General Plan by about 150,000 square feet. (Ibid.) As a result, a General Plan
Amendment would be required as well as a Zone Change to accommodate the
restaurant pads, western expansion, and eastern expansion. (Ibid.) In addition,
potential land use compatibility impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative
regarding traffic, air quality and noise would generally be similar to the Project, although
slightly less. (Ibid.)
Due to the slight reduction in associated traffic volumes, the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in slight reductions of the noise volumes on
adjacent arterials including West Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.)
-35-
6197
. ,
,
-
However, construction noise impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be
generally similar to the Project (Ibid.)
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the demand for public
services generated at the Project site would be reduced by approximately 25 percent as
compared to the Project, including the Project's impact on police and fire services.
(Ibid.) Also, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips and
would have fewer traffic-related impacts than the Project. (Ibid.) In addition, under the
Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural
gas, and solid waste would be reduced by approximately 25 percent (Ibid.) Since the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, it is
considered environmentally superior to the Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.)
2. Findina.
The City Council finds that although the Reduced Intensity
Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, it is infeasible because it fails to
meet Project objectives.
3. Supportino Explanation.
Although the Draft EIR identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative
as environmentally superior, this alternative, when compared to the Project, would not
result in significant reductions of impacts to aesthetics, air quality, geology/soils, land
uselplanning, and noise. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-7 and 6-8.) In addition, air quality impacts
would still be significant under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations would be required. (Draft EJR, p. 6-9.) Further, this
alternative does not meet the Project objective to allow for the construction of
approximately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
Further, without meeting this objective, the "No Project" alternative cannot adequately
fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viability of the existing shopping center
and creating new jobs for Arcadia residents and providing additional sales tax revenue
to the City. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity
Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it.
-36-
6197
. ,
.,
C. Alternative 3 - Alternative Desian
1. Description.
Under the Alternative Design, the expansion area would move from
the eastern portion of the property to the west. All other components of the Project,
including construction of 600,000 square feet of additional building space, would remain
the same. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) As a result, this alternative would reduce the potential
visual impacts to residents and travelers on West Huntington Drive in relation to the
historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands. (Ibid.) The Alternative Design would,
however, significantly increase the bulk and mass of the expansion to the west due to
the revised building envelope. (Ibid.)
Under the Alternative Design, air pollutant emissions would be the
same as the Project and would result in projected exceedance of the SCAQMD
Threshold Criteria for carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and nitrogen oxide
emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) In addition, under this alternative the total acreage
impacted by grading would be the same as the Project, though on the western portion of
the Project site instead of the eastern portion. (Ibid.) Potential geology and soils
impacts would generally be the same as the Project. (Ibid.)
Under the Alternative Design, the proposed expansion would
exceed the current allowable space under the General Plan by approximately 300,000
square feet. (Ibid.) As a result, a General Plan Amendment as well as a Zone Change
would be required. (Ibid.) However, due to greater sensitivity of the residential land
uses located west of the site as compared to the Santa Anita Racetrack, potential land
use compatibility impacts relating to aesthetics, traffic, air quality and noise would
generally be greater than the Project. (Ibid.)
Under the Alternative Design, the demand for public services would
be the same as the Project, including the Project's impact on police and fire services.
(Ibid.) Similarly, this alternative would generate the same number of vehicle trips as the
Project and have the same impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid
waste as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) In addition, traffic volumes and associated
noise generated from the Alternative Design may be similar to the Project. However,
due to closer proximity to the residential uses located along Baldwin Avenue,
-37-
6197
. ,
.-
-
construction noise impacts would be greater. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) Since the Alternative
Design would involve greater environmental impacts, it is considered environmentally
inferior to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.)
2. Findina.
The City Council finds that the Alternative Design is
environmentally inferior to the Project and rejects it.
3. Supportino Explanation.
Implementation of the Alternative Design would result in substantial
changes to the existing viewshed for residences located along Baldwin Avenue. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-9.) These residences are more sensitive to visual changes than the Santa
Anita Racetrack to the north and east. Therefore, this alternative will result in greater
aesthetic impacts and is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. (Ibid.)
In addition to increased aesthetic impacts, the Alternative Design would increase
potential land uselplanning and noise impacts when compared to the Project. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-12.) Further, significant air quality impacts would still occur and adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required. (Ibid.) Since the
Alternative Design would involve greater environmental impacts, the City Council finds
that this alternative is infeasible because it is environmentally inferior to the Project and
rejects it.
D. Alternative Site
During the scoping/planning process for the Project, the feasibility of
developing the Project on an Alternative Site was reviewed and rejected. (Draft EIR, p.
6-2.) The main reason for rejecting an analysis of an Alternative Site was that such an
alternative would not be consistent with the Project's main objective of modernizing and
expanding the existing Westfield Shoppingtown. (Ibid.) In addition, development of the
Project on an Alternative Site would result in significantly greater environmental impacts
because the Project site is already developed as an existing mall. (Ibid.)
Section 6. Resolution regarding growth-inducing impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing
impacts of a Project. This discussion must examine ways in which the Project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
-38-
6197
T .;
-r.--=:-
.
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 8-1.) Regarding the
Project's potential for removal of obstacles to growth, no major new infrastructure
facilities are required to develop this Project. (Draft EIR, p. 8-2.) Existing facilities will
be sufficient to accommodate the demands of the Project at full buildout. (Ibid.) In
addition, the Project is surrounded by urban development and would not induce growth
within currently undeveloped areas. (Ibid.)
Regarding any potential need to expand public services for the Project, the public
agencies consulted have indicated that this Project would require the incremental
expansion of existing publiC services in order to maintain desired levels of service.
(Ibid.) However, the City of Arcadia Fire and Police Departments are currently serving
the existing mall. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing
impacts to public services. (Ibid.)
Regarding encouragement of economic activities, a number of design,
engineering, and construction-related jobs would temporarily be created during Project
construction. (Ibid.) This would be a direct, growth inducing effect of the Project. (Ibid.)
Long-term effects would include increased economic activity created by new tenants
and use categories such as a multi-plex theater, restaurants, department stores, and
entertainment and specialty stores. (Ibid.) The Project is expected to generate
approximately 780 full-time jobs and 780 part-time jobs. Therefore, the Project would
directly encourage or facilitate economic activities in the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.)
Regarding any potential precedent setting action, the Project is consistent with
the City of Arcadia General Plan Commercial land use designations for the Project site.
(Ibid.) However, the Project includes a proposed General Plan amendment to increase
the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 and a proposed change to existing
zoning standards to allow for an expanded building envelope. (Ibid.) The Project site
will remain commercial and the only modifications to the code involve design, setback,
and architectural issues. (Ibid.) Since the Project does not include any housing units, it
will not directly result in any additional residents to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 8-
3.) The Project will increase the amount of commercial retail space in the City. (Ibid.)
In fact, the proposed General Plan amendment exceeds the growth projections for
commercial land uses in the City by approximately 3.8 percent. (Ibid.) However, the
-39-
6197
.. .j
:----.... ~ - ..-- -
-
~- -
._~
Project site is already developed and Project implementation will not open any
additional lands for urban development.
Section 7. Resolution regarding unavoidable and irreversible impacts.
Implementation of the Project will require the commitment of non-renewable
andlor slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources
such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead,
other metals, and water. (Draft EIR, p. 7-1.) An increased commitment of social
services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, and sewer and water
services) will also be required to serve the proposed expansion. (Ibid.) Project
development also represents the continued commitment of the site to urban uses.
(Ibid.) The site has been developed as a shopping mall for approximately 25 years.
After the 50 to 75-year structural lifespan of the buildings is reached, it is improbable
that the site would revert to an undeveloped state due to the large capital investment
that will have already been committed. (Ibid.)
Section 8. Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council hereby declares that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any
unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If
the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of
the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level
of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in
Section IV of these Findings.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith
effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the
Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation
measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that
-40-
6197
~
would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this
City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that
except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because
they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic,
social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental
benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares, that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed
mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project,
and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts
after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social economic, and
environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse
impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based
upon the following overriding considerations:
. The Project will generate approximately 780 additional full-time jobs
and 780 additional part-time jobs within the City of Arcadia. These will
include a variety of new jobs in a wide range of income classifications,
including, but not limited to, managers, sales persons, food service,
security, and maintenance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-58.) This will meet the
Project objective to create new jobs for Arcadia residents. (Draft EIR,
p.2-1.)
. The Project will generate additional tax revenue that may be used to
renovate existing city facilities or construct new city facilities to provide
service to the public. (Draft EIR, p. 4-53.) This will meet the Project
objective to provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Arcadia.
(Draft EIR, p. 2-1.)
. Project implementation will encourage economic viability by expanding
and modernizing the existing Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-58.) This will meet the Project objective to maintain
viability of the shopping center and preserve and grow its market
share. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.)
-41-
6197
, .
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the
public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified
significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The
Board of Education finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable.
Section 9. Resolution regarding Certification of the EIR.
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
evaluating the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
fully complies with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no new significant impacts as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of
the Draft EIR that would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the
following findings and conclusions:
A. FindinQs.
The following significant environmental impact has been identified in the
Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality.
B. Conclusions.
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for the impact
listed in Section A above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly
achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor
of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any
-42-
6197
, .
.-,- -
T"
~;.
,,~
alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into
the Project.
Section 10. Resolution adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A." In the event of any inconsistencies between
the mitigation measures as forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.
Section 11. Resolution regarding custodian of record.
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these findings have been based are located at the City of Arcadia, 240 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066-6021. The custodian for these records is the City of Arcadia,
Development Services Department, Community Development Division. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Section 12. Resolution regarding staff direction.
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within five
(5) working days of approval of the Project.
Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 5 day of September 2000.
ATTEST:
I" _, .~
/ I
C' rerk of the Cit
Approved as to Form:
,
~'p~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
-43-
6197
, .
.;..-
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. 6197 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 5th day of September 2000 and that said
Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Councilmember Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
44
6197
I