HomeMy WebLinkAbout6493
RESOLUTION NO. 6493
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING
THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ENSURES
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia (the "City") wishes to clarify the meaning
of the strategies related to traffic goals in the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, interpretation of the General Plan is the responsibility of the
staff, Planning Commission, and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the strategies in the General Plan are intended to provide goals
for future development; however, in and of themselves, the strategies do not
constitute development approvals or land use regulatory controls; and
WHEREAS, no single goal, policy or strategy is intended to prevent
development that is otherwise in harmony with and in furtherance of the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, In order to measure the efficient operation of the City's
circulation system and gauge the desired level of mobility, the City has identified
level of service ("LOS") goals; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan establishes a goal that the City shall maintain
roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets)
RVPUBIMKS\703227.1
during non-racing season along roadway links under the control of the City of
Arcadia and during racing season, wherever feasible, maintain roadway operations
at or better than LOS "E" during peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry
race-related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better; and
WHEREAS, under current conditions several intersections In the City
currently exceed the LOS goals; and
WHEREAS, the City has established the Transportation Master Plan to
alleviate existing and future traffic concerns and to maintain LOS D or better
throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, compliance with the Transportation Master Plan furthers the
objectives and policies of the General Plan and ensures long-term maintenance of
the City's circulation goals; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City that an action, program, or project is
consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the
objectives and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct the eventual
attainment of LOS D; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to clarify and help with interpreting
the General Plan.
-2-
6493
RVPUBIMKS\703227.\
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY DECLARE,
FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]. It is the goal of the General Plan to maintain adequate
circulation in the City. It is also the goal of the City to encourage new
development where appropriate. The following strategies in the General Plan,
among others, relate to traffic circulation goals:
FS-l Maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on
local residential streets) during non-racing season along all roadway links under
the control of the City of Arcadia. During racing season, wherever feasible,
maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "E" during peak hours on all
roadway links intended to carry race-related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better
(LOS C on local residential streets) at all other times and on all other City
roadways.
FS-2 Limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects
to that which is consistent with maintaining roadway performance objectives
through General Plan build out.
FS-3 Maintain a balance between land development and circulation
operations by requiring that new development be phased, if necessary, such that
-3-
6493
RVPUBIMKS\703227.!
adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS
D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets).
SECTION 2. That the policy term "maintain" is defined by the General
Plan as an expectation that active means may be employed to continue ongoing
City programs or services. The term "maintain" does not include any mandatory
elements. Instead, the General Plan specifically recognizes that there is no moral
obligation to undertake the action.
SECTION 3. That the strategies in the General Plan are intended to provide
roadway performance objectives for future development and are not intended to
prevent development where such roadway performance objectives have already
been exceeded or where implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to
achieve performance objectives have been required. To this end, the City Council
declares that the strategies in the General Plan related to roadway performance
objectives are not, and never have been, intended to create mandatory
prerequisites to development. Rather, the City has always interpreted these
strategies as desirable roadway performance goals.
SECTION 4. That where such roadway performance goals have already
been exceeded or where new development may contribute to a decline in the
-4-
6493
RVPUBIMKS\703227.1
existing LOS, the strategies in the General Plan will be adequately addressed by
adherence to the Transportation Master Plan.
SECTION 5. That based on the Transportation Master Plan, the City
Council has detelmined, in Resolution No. 6495 that a Traffic Impact Fee is
needed in order to finance certain capital improvements and to pay for new
development's fair share of the acquisition and improvement construction costs
and other costs necessary or convenient to insure that adequate facilities are
available to support future development with a LOS D or better on City roadways
(LOS C on local residential streets).
That in establishing the fee, the City Council found in Resolution No. 6495
that the fee was consistent with the General Plan and further found that
development that contributes to the Traffic Impact Fee is consistent with the goals,
policies and strategies identified in the General Plan relating to LOS conditions.
SECTION 6. That an action, program, or project will further the objectives
and policies of the General Plan and assist in maintaining a LOS D by complying
with the Transportation Master Plan. Private development projects may be
required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee along with other mitigation.
SECTION 7. That all potential adverse environmental impacts associated
with the General Plan were thoroughly addressed in the Environmental Impact
-5-
6493
RVPUBIMKS\703227.1
Report (HEIR") prepared for the General Plan (SCH # 95121059) and certified on
September 3, 1996 This Resolution regarding the interpretation of the LOS goals
is merely an interpretation of existing policy and does not cause or constitute any
change to the environment. Accordingly, the City Council finds, based on all
evidence before the City Council, including but not limited to, the certified EIR,
the staff report and all oral and written testimony, that none of the conditions
requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration
would occur from the adoption of the Resolution and that preparation of an
addendum to the certified EIR is appropriate.
SECTION 8. That the City Council hereby approves and adopts an
addendum to the EIR for the General Plan, attached as Exhibit HA," and directs
staff to file a Notice of Determination within five (5) days.
SECTION 9~ The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
-6-
6493
RVPUBIMKS\703227.\
Passed, approved and adopted this 6th . day of De mbet2005.
ATTEST:
ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~r.~
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
RVPUBIMKS\703227.1
May of the City of Arcadia
-7-
6493
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6493 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 6th day of December, 2005 and that said
Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
~<-;JI-S ~
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ARCADIA
ADDENDUM NO.1 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
CITY OF ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
A. ADDENDUM INFORMATION
1. Title: City of Arcadia, Addendum No. 1 to General
Plan EIR
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Dr.
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
(626) 574-5400
3. Contact Pel'son and Phone Donna Butler
Numbers City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Dr.
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
(626) 574-5400
4. Location: Within the Jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia
5. Sponsor's Name and
Address: City of Arcadia
6. Description of Modification:
On September 3, 1996, the Arcadia City Council approved the General Plan for the City
pursuant to a certified Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (State Clearinghouse
Number 95121059. The following Strategies in the General Plan, among others, relate to
traffic circulation goals:
FS-l Maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on
local residential streets) during non-racing season along all roadway links
under the control of the City of Arcadia. During racing season, wherever
feasible, maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "E" during
peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry race-related traffic,
maintaining LOS "D" or better (LOS C on local residential streets) at all
other times and on all other City roadways.
EXHIBIT A
FS-2 Limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development
projects to that which is consistent with maintaining roadway performance
objectives through General Plan build out.
FS-3 Maintain a balance between land development and circulation
operations by requiring that new development be phased, if necessary, such
that adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development
with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential
streets).
The General Plan defines "maintain" as establishing a level of policy commitment. (General
Plan, Appn. B, p. B-1.) Maintain is further "ranked" by the General Plan as establishing a
moderate level of commitment, but not as establishing a mandatory requirement or
establishing a legal right on the part of the City to compel other parties. Specifically,
"maintain" is defined as:
"Action will be taken to continue ongoing City programs or services. The
expectation is that active means may be employed to continue such
programs or services." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. B-2.)
The term "may" in the definition of "maintain" is identified by the General Plan as a Policy
Modifier and means "the action referred to will be allowed, but there is no moral obligation
to undertake the action." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. B-4.) Accordingly, by referring to the
definitions in the General Plan, Strategy FS-I is appropriately interpreted as establishing the
expectation that roadways in the City will operate at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local
residential streets) during non-racing season along all roadway links under the control of the
City of Arcadia but, not as mandating an obligation to ensure roadways operate at LOS D at
all times.
Similarly, Strategy FS-2 does not mandate an obligation to limit the intensity and traffic
generation of new development projects but rather, establishes as expectation that new
development projects will be allowed that are consistent with roadway performance
objectives through General Plan build out.
Finally, Strategy FS-3 continues to balance between land development and circulation
operations by phasing new development, such that adequate facilities are available to support
each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local
residential streets). Active means may be employed to maintain this balance, but there is no
moral obligation to undertake the action.
Several intersections in the City currently exceed LOS D and it is the established practice of
the City to approve development approvals that may result in incremental decreases in the
LOS so long as the development is otherwise in hamlony with the General Plan.
This modification proposes to supplement the definitions in the General Plan by further
defining the intent of the City in establishing Strategies FS-l, FS-2 and FS-3. Specifically,
2
EXHIBIT A
this modification clarifies that Strategies FS-1, FS-2 and FS-3 establish non-mandatory
elements of the General Plan and there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions
identified in Strategies FS-I, FS-2 and FS-3. This modification is made based on the
definitions contained in the existing General Plan and on the City's existing practices and
procedures.
This supplemental information is a minor technical addition and merely summarizes
information that was previously contemplated in the EIR. The purpose of this addendum is
to address any potential changes that may potentially result from the clarification, as
contemplated by Section 15164(b) of the State California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") Guidelines.
B. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM
If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available
after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (I) prepare a subsequent EIR
if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines S 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent
negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation.
(State CEQA Guidelines S 15162(b).) When only minor technical changes or additions to
the Negative Declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration has occurred, CEQA
allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines, S
15164(b).)
State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 is not triggered by the proposed modifications to
the General Plan and therefore preparation of a subsequent negative declaration is not
required, pursuant to the following analysis:
(1) "Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR or negative dec/aratioll due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects." The proposed modification includes the clarification of the
non-mandatory nature of specific Strategies in the General Plan. It does not amend or
otherwise change any element of the General Plan. The proposed modification does not
result in any land use entitlements or changes in the environment. Future development in the
City will continue as currently described in the certified EIR.
(2) "Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmelltal effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." As stated above, the
modification merely clarifies an existing definition for the implementation of General Plan
Strategies. It does not change any element of the General Plan. It does not establish any new
land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant
environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no
subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required.
3
EXHIBIT A
(3) "New information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous
EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed
in the previous negative declaration." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an
existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any
entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any
increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required.
"(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe thall shown in the previous EIR." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an
existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any
entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any
increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required.
"(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would ill fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significallt
effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It
does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there
will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified
significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required.
"(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigatioll measure or alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an
existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any
entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any
increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required.
In addition, the following conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines
section 15164 (b) are met by the proposed modifications, and therefore preparation of an
addendum to the certified EIR is appropriate:
"An addelldum to an adopted lIegative declaration may be prepared if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section J 5 J 62 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EJR or negative declaration have
occurred." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does
4
EXHIBIT A
not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be
no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified
significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required.
C. ANALYSIS OF THE MODIFICATION
The proposed modification clarifies the existing General Plan and does not change the
General Plan in any way. The certified EIR thoroughly analyzed potential traffic impacts
associated with the General Plan; however, the analysis in the ElR did not establish LOS as a
mandatory element of the General Plan. The General Plan itself anticipated that some
intersections would exceed LOS D at buildout. This occurrence was considered potentially
significant, however, it was not found to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Accordingly,
this modification does not meet any of the criteria requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental ElR or negative declaration. The proposed modification merely provides a
supplemental definition to facilitate interpretation and application ofFS-l, FS-2, and FS-3.
As demonstrated by the plain language of the General Plan these Strategies were never
intended to impose mandatory requirements on development. In fact, the General Plan
specifically states that there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions identified in these
Strategies. Furthermore, these Strategies have never been interpreted as creating mandatory
prerequisites to development.
In 2000, the City prepared a Transportation Master Plan to analyze future traffic growth on
the City's roadways and intersections and determine future needs to maintain LOS D. At that
time the Transportation Master Plan did not identify any roadways that exceeded an LOS D.
However, the Tnmsportation Master Plan has recently been updated and has identified
several intersections that now exceed LOS D.
It is the established practice of the City to approve development proposals that may result in
incremental decreases in the LOS or may add traffic to these intersections and others and the
development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan and Zoning. Compliance with
the Transportation Master Plan provides adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts.
In addition, the City has historically required larger or more intense projects to analyze traffic
impacts to determine the level of significance. If it is determined that there are significant
impacts, these impacts must be mitigated.
The City recognizes that there will be periods where a roadway or intersection may exceed
LOS D. The City is exploring funding alternatives to improve these intersections utilizing
developer fees, grants and City road maintenance funds and it is the City's intention to take
measures to make the necessary improvements as funding is available.
Therefore, the modification does not include any significant new information that would
require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or negative declaration.
D. CONCLUSION
5
EXHIBIT A
The proposed modification merely clarifies the definitions of certain Strategies and will not
result in any substantial changes to the General Plan that would implicate new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. There has not been any substantial change in circumstances or any
discovery of any substantial new information regarding the Project's environmental effects or
mitigation measures. Accordingly, the clarification regarding the non-mandatory nature of
Strategies FS-l, FS-2 and FS-3 is properly addressed and identified through this Addendum.
6