Loading...
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