Loading...
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