Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6151 RESOLUTION NO. 6151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED ANOAKIA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS ADEQUATE FOR C.U.P. 99-004 AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 52745, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the Anoakia Residential Development Project, consisting of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-004 and Vesting Tentative Map 52745 (collectively known as the "Project"), proposes to subdivide a 19.1-acre parcel and construct 31 residential units within the City of Arcadia ("City"); and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1999, applications for CUP 99-004 and Vesting Tentative Map 52745 were filed with the City of Arcadia Community Development Department by Arcadia Oaks, LLC ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code 99 2100 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 99 15000 et seq.), and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines (City Council Resolution 5157), the City is the lead agency for thEl 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 issued by the City of Arcadia on May 5, 1999, and circulated for a period of 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082[a], 15103 and 15375; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation identified the following significant adverse impacts: Historic Resources, Biological Resources, short-term noise impacts from site preparation and construction, computed peak ground acceleration levels and proximity of project site to the official delineated liquefaction zone; and WHEREAS, the City consulted with state and local agencies as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Arcadia Resolution 5157, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report RVPUB\NGS\54J797 1 6151 for the Project entitled "Draft" Environmental Impact Report Anoakia Residential Development ("DEIR"), State Clearinghouse Number 99051017; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and Notice of Completion were released for public review, including filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research, on July 21, 1999 which initiated a 45-day public review period (July 21, 1999 through September 8, 1999); 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, and published the Notice of Completion on August 3, 1999 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment at the City of Arcadia Development Services Department; 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, the City of Arcadia Planning Commission, during the public hearing portion of its regularly scheduled public meeting on August 24, 1999, reviewed the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period; and WHEREAS, approximately 10 people provided oral comments on the Draft EIR at the public meeting, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, during the official review period for the Draft EIR, the City received approximately 24 written comments, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, following the public comment on the Draft EIR, the Final Environmental Impact Report and Errata (collectively referred to as "Final EIR") for the Project was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Arcadia Resolution 5157; and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commentors, including responses to oral comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1999, the Planning Commission, after giving the required notice which was mailed on October 21, 1999, held a duly advertised public hearing on the Final EIR, the Conditional Use Permit and the Vesting Tentative Map. The Planning Commission's comments, record and recommendations were transmitted in Resolutions 1599 and 1600 to the City Council; and RVPUB\NGS\S4:J797 2 6151 WHEREAS, public hearing notices regarding the City Council's hearing were mailed on November 16, 1999 to all property owners within a 600-foot radius and any persons requesting notice of said hearing; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 1999, the City Council held a duly noticed pubic hearing to consider the Final EIR, C.U.P. 99-004 and Vesting Tentative Map 52745 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, prior to taking action on the Project; and WHEREAS, based upon such evidence and testimony and staff reports for the Project, including all oral presentations and testimony, all letters, information and material submitted as part of the public testimony and documentation submitted during the public hearing on December 7,1999, the City Council made the following findings: A. The Applicant has proposed to subdivide the 19.1 acre "Anoakia" parcel and construct 31 residential units within the City of Arcadia. The existing structures on the parcel will be demolished and a number of existing mature trees, including oaks will be removed. Additionally, a portion of an existing drainage channel will be converted to a covered box drain on a portion of the channel. A City-owned pumping well would be added at the northwest corner of the property. The well would be screened with a wall and landscaping. B. The primary objectives of the applicant are to maintain as many of the existing characteristics of the site as possible while developing the site with two-story, single-family homes of a size and value that will complement and be compatible with the surrounding ama and consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. A more detailed project description is contained in Page 1 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); 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 of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines (City Council Resolution 5157), 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 properly evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the RVPUD\NGS\s43797 3 6151 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 are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 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 3 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 4 hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 5 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 the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 1508B.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. RYPUB\NGS"43797 4 6151 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 session assembled on December 7, 1999 the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, 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 Anoakia Residential Development 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. Environmental Impacts Considered Less Than Significant 1. The proposed Project will result in the elimination of foraging area on the site for the Cooper's hawk (California species of special concern). This is considered a less than significant impact because the hawk does not nest on the site and the nearby Arboretum of Los Angeles County provides substantial amounts of foraging habitat. (FEIR, p. viL) 2. Habitat used by the yellow warbler (California species of special concern) will be eliminated by the proposed Project. However, the yellow warbler may continue to feed, rest, and shelter within the retained trees on site and therefore would not be significantly impacted by implementation of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) 3. Long-term vehicle noise from project-related traffic will be generated on streets providing access to the Project site. The proposed Project includes 31 single family units that would generate no more than 354 one-way daily trips. The trips generated from the proposed Project will contribute a less than one percent (1%) increase in traffic volume on Foothill Boulevard and four percent (4%) increase on RVPUB\NGS\543797 5 6151 Baldwin Avenue. Therefore impacts from long-term vehicle noise due to project-related traffic on surrounding streets are considered less than significant. (Ibid.) 4. Long-term noise from surrounding roadways will impact the proposed Project. Noise measurements made at five locations within the Project site indicate that the existing freeway and street noise level is approximately 61.1 dB(A)Leq, which is below the City's maximum 65 dB(A) CNEL level considered compatible with residential uses. Therefore, long-term noise impacts from surrounding roadways on the proposed Project are considered less than significant. (Ibid.) 5. The Initial Study prepared for the Project determined that the Project would result in either less than significant impacts or no impacts in the following areas of environmental concern (FEIR, pp. vii - viii): . Land use and planning. . Population and housing. . Energy and mineral resources. . Hazards and hazardous materials. . Public services. . Utilities and service systems. . Agricultural resources. . Recreation. . Hydrologylwater quality. . Air quality. . Transportation/traffic. . Aesthetics. 6. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. Development of the proposed Project would commit nonrenewable resources during construction and operation. (FEIR, p. 45.) In addition, energy would be consumed in processing building materials and for transporting these materials and the construction workers to the site. (Ibid.) However, energy conservation standards are mandatory and will be applied to the Project. Considering the long-range life span of the Project (approximately 70 years for residential housing), the nonrenewable resources consumed for this Project are insignificant compared to the annual use of resources RVPUB\NGS\S43797 6 6151 regionally. (Ibid.) Further, neither short-term nor long-term significant impacts on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the proposed Project. (Ibid.) 7. Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed Project is a relatively small residential development that consists of 31 units and is accounted for within the housing growth projection of the General Plan. (FEIR, p. 45.) Thus, the proposed Project will not foster population growth, either directly or indirectly, beyond ongoing growth already anticipated for Arcadia under the City's General Plan growth projections. (Ibid.) Also, temporary construction related to the Project is expected to be accomplished by existing construction workers in the area; thus, a permanent influx of new construction workers should not result from the Project. (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 Final 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. Biological Resources 1. !'otential Significant Impacts. Implementation of the Project will result in the removal of 35 oak trees, specifically 31 Coast Live oaks and four Engelmann oaks. The Project will also potentially encroach upon the remaining 105 oak trees' protected zones. (FEIR, p. 22.) 2. Findings. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan include the following three mitigation measures to reduce these impacts: a) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a Horticultural Tree Consultant (HTC) shall submit a plan showing the proposed location of new trees on the Project site and plan for protecting the remaining trees which the HTC has determined may be encroached upon during construction. If all trees cannot be located on-site, remaining trees shall be planted at the Applicant's expense in RVPUB\NGS\~43797 7 6151 dedicated open space location(s) approved by the City within six months from issuance of a grading permit. The HTC shall be present on-site during all replacement to ensure proper planting, and during construction to ensure protection of remaining oak trees on-site. (Ibid.) Il) Replacement: Replacement of the 35 oak trees shall be at a ratio of three (3) Engelmann oak replacement trees for every removed Engelmann oak tree and of two (2) oak trees other than Engelmann oaks for every removed oak tree as determined by the HTC and the City to ensure long term survival. A minimum of 70 oak trees shall be planted, and no less than 12 of these replacement oak trees shall be Engelmann oaks and, if available, up to 35 replacement trees shall be Engelmann oaks. The replacement trees shall be 60 inch boxed stock. If the availability of 60 inch boxed is limited, with the approval of the HTC and the City, smaller stock can be used. However, stock may not be less than 36 inches. The replacement trees can be located on site or off site in an area of dedicated open space, such as a public park, or at other such locations deemed appropriate by the City of Arcadia. The developer shall replace any oak tree (new or existing) that dies during the period of time that construction by the developer is taking place on the property. (Errata, pp. 2-3.) The final plans shall contain the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) that include covenants and disclosure statements that the new Homeowner's Association is responsible for replacement of any oak trees located within the common area and that private property owners are responsible for compliance with the City of Arcadia oak tree regulations as set forth in Section 9700 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and successor ordinances. Oak trees that die from natural causes shall be subject to removal per City's oak tree regulations in Section 9700 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and any successor ordinances. (Errata, p. 3.) c) Oak Tree Protected Zone Encroachment. The following mitigation techniques shall be observed on-site by the HTC, paid for by the Applicant. The HTC shall be notified 48 hours prior to any work being done to the RVPUB\NGS\543797 B 6151 trees. The following measures should ensure that the remaining 105 oak trees on the site will remain as valuable assets to the community (FEIR, p. 23): Tree Protection: . Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, oak trees adjacent to proposed grading and demolition shall be fenced at their drip lines with protective fencing. Fencing will be installed to prevent equipment storage, debris drop, etc., from occurring within the Protected Zones during demolition and construction. This fence shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without knowledge of the HTC and approved by the City of Arcadia Planning Division (CAPO). (Ibid.) . Any brush clearance within the drip line shall be completed by handwork only. (Ibid.) Dead Wood Removal and/or Pruning: . Dead wood removal is the removal of dead wood from within the tree. Structural pruning is for clearance and safety pruning is for hazardous limbs three inches (3") in diameter and larger. All pruning shall be completed by a qualified Arborist only if approved by the CAPO and under the observation of the HTC. (Ibid.) . Pruning cuts shall not be made flush with the trunk. (Ibid.) . Climbing gaffs shall not be used by any tree climber (except to reach an injured climber or when removing a tree). (Ibid.) Watering & Fertilization (only if needed): . Native oaks are in a dormant state during the summer months and do not require regular or constant watering (or fertilizing). Watering is normally contemplated only following long periods of extreme drought. (FEIR, p. 24.) . Fertilization of these native oak trees may be detrimental in general drought conditions. The addition of fertilizer into a maintenance program may promote temporary growth flushes at a time when the tree would normally be maintaining regular growth or to even reduce the number of RVPUB\NGS\543797 9 6151 RVPUB\NGSIJ43797 green leaves present. The greater amounts of foliage the tree has, the higher the watering requirements. (Ibid.) Disease and Pests (only if needed): . During all phases of construction the health of the trees shall be monitored for disease signs and symptoms. These problems, if they arise, shall be remedied. (Ibid.) If bees are encountered in anyon-site oak tree and they become a problem, they shall be removed by a professional Beekeeper. (Ibid.) Grading within the Protected Zones: . Initially, all grading within the Protected Zone shall be done by hand, under the observation of the HTC. If any roots (one-inch diameter and larger) are encountered, they shall be savedlbridged (except in a cut slope situation) and covered with a minimum four inch (4") layer of sand. All pruned roots shall consist of clean-cut surfaces at a 90 degree angle and shall be sealed as required by the CAPO. (Ibid.) Other Considerations: . No grade stakes or any other materials shall be nailed to any native oak tree. No chemical herbicides shall be applied within the landscape areas of the Protected Zone of any native oak tree. (Ibid.) The dust accumulation on the tree from nearby construction shall be hosed off periodically during the construction period as recommended by the HTC. (Ibid.) Any City approved work, including branch removals, within the Protected Zones of the oak trees shall be under the observation of the HTC. All . . . construction activities shall follow the established preservation program. The purpose of the program is to control the impacts to each tree and to protect them from any unnecessary and unscheduled damage. (Ibid.) . To ensure that no nests of native birds will be affected by construction activity the Applicant shall engage services of a qualified biological monitor to monitor construction on the site if the Project construction takes place 10 6151 during the nesting season, which typically extends from March to late July. (FEIR, pp. 24-25.) 3. Supporting Explanation. Consideration of disease and pest control will playa major role in such a program and for the most part will be long range. The best protection against any problem is to build up the tree's natural defenses and to avoid wounding whenever possible. These mitigation measures will encourage vigorous growth within the trees, so that their compartmentalization can effectively control disease. Implementation of these measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. (FEIR, p. 25.) B. Short-term Construction Noise 1. Potentially Significant Impacts. Noise generated by construction activities will have adverse, but temporary, impacts. The residential uses most sensitive to noise are located adjacent to the Project site on the west, and across the street on the north and east. (FEIR, p. 30.) Site Preparation. The principal noise source during the site preparation period will be from heavy equipment used for site grading. The Project site is relatively small at less than 20 acres, and smaller equipment is expected to be used for this project. (Ibid.) This equipment could result in intermittent peak noise levels of 80 to 85 dB(A) at nearby residential uses when operating directly opposite these uses in grading the site. Most of the time, construction noise levels would be expected to peak below 75 dB(A) at nearby residences. Average levels would be expected to continue to be dominated by the freeway noise at all locations within 500 feet of Route 210 (Foothill) Freeway, except during short periods when grading will be going on directly opposite residences. No evening or night grading activity would be permitted by the City's noise ordinance requirements. (Ibid.) On-site Construction Noise. During the period when the buildings are being constructed, noise from heavy equipment will occur on the site with varying frequency and intensity for the construction period after site preparation. (FEIR, p. 31.) Noise levels fall substantially with increasing distance from the noise source, both as a result of spherical spreading of sound energy and as a result of RVPUB\NGS\543797 11 6151 absorption of sound energy by the air. Spherical spreading of sound waves reduces the noise of a point source by six decibels for each doubling of distance from the noise source. Absorption by the atmosphere typically accounts for a loss of one decibel every 1,000 feet. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan include the following five mitigation measures to reduce these impacts: a) Truck Loading and Staging during Site Preparation. Loading operations and staging for trucks for removal of material from the site shall not take place within 200 feet of the residences adjacent to the western property line. The most desirable location for loading in terms of minimal noise impact on the surrounding residences is the center of the southeastern half of the site. (FEIR, p. 32.) b) Equipment mufflers. Muffled construction equipment shall be used by the construction contractor whenever possible. (Ibid.) c) Construction Contact Person. The contractor shall designate a construction liaison staff member who will deal with construction noise or other concerns that may arise, and shall provide the name and telephone number of this individual to the City. The name and telephone number of a contact person for comments or complaints by the area residents shall be posted on the site at the main construction entrance or in another location clearly visible from surrounding sidewalks. (Ibid.) el) Construction Activity. The City of Arcadia restricts construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays. To protect the residences adjacent to the Project site to the west, as well as the residences across the street to the north and east, no construction involving high-noise equipment or deliveries by semi-trailer trucks shall take place on Saturdays. (Errata, p. 3.) RVPUB\NGS\543797 12 6151 e) Site access. Access to the subdivision will not be provided on Anoakia Lane either during construction or after completion of the Project. (FEIR, p. 32.) 3. !Supporting Explanation. Although construction activities will generate high intermittent noise, it will cease upon completion of construction. The principal feasible mitigation measures for construction noise impacts is to limit high noise construction to daytime hours, a measure which is included in the City's current regulations. The City of Arcadia's noise ordinance restricts construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 AM. and 7:00 PM. Monday through Saturday. Intermittent, temporary disturbance of residential uses is expected occasionally during the construction period. (FEIR, p. 31.) With the implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, short-term construction noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant. (FEIR, p. 33.) C. Geology 1. ):>otentially Significant Impacts. Using the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology ("Division") Statewide Fault Model, a complete probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was performed for the site. Because significant earthquake ground motion is known by the State Geologist to exist on the site and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) computed by the Division is higher than the standard envelope of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, this is considered a significant impact. (FEIR, p. 34.) The State Geologist's official Seismic Hazards Zone Map is predictive of the potential for liquefaction. Because the proposed Project is in close proximity to the official delineated liquefaction zone, liquefaction hazard is considered potentially significant. (Ibid.) 2. )=indings. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan include the following two mitigation measures to reduce these impacts: RVPl)B\NGS\543797 13 6151 a) The structures shall include special earthquake design by a California Registered Structural Engineer. The City of Arcadia shall use the PGA of 0.69 for plan-check purposes. (FEIR, p. 37.) b) To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, subsurface geological drilling shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit to determine the exact location of the water table under the Project site. If the water table is shallower than currently known, an analysis for the potential for liquefaction shall be performed. If the analysis concludes a high potential for liquefaction, then specific engineering design techniques identified such as the following shall be implemented (Ibid.): .. The ground surface shall be properly backfilled and compacted. .. Over excavated soils in the building area shall be recompacted as appropriate. o Fill and backfill shall be compacted to ninety percent (90%) or more of the maximum dry density as appropriate. .. Final site grading shall be such that all water is diverted away from the structures, and is not allowed to pond. .. Isolated pad footings shall be used for support of structures as appropriate. o The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by retaining walls or similar structures shall be increased as to allow for surcharge loads as appropriate. " Weepholes or an equivalent system of backfill drainage shall be incorporated into the retaining wall design as appropriate. 3. Supporting Explanation. Design of structures by a California Registered Structural Engineer and use of specific engineering design techniques listed by the structural engineer and those selected for the Project by the registered soils engineer as appropriate will mitigate the PGA of 0.69 and the potential for liquefaction to a less than significant level. (FEIR, p. 37.) RVPUB\NGS\543797 14 6151 Section 4. Resolution regarding environmental impacts not fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level: A. Historic Resources 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The proposed Project will result in the demolition of all 15 structures on the Anoakia property which appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion B (significant individuals) and Criterion C (design). Therefore, the proposed Project will result in a significant impact. (FEIR, p. 17.) 2. Findings. Changes or alteration have been required for, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the potential environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan include the following five mitigation measures to reduce these impacts: a) Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall produce at its cost and expense up to five sets, as determined by the City, of a documentation survey of the property and all historically significant buildings and structures in accordance with the Historic American Building Survey standards. This document shall include archival quality photographs of exterior features, elevations, and significant interior features. Scaled, "as-built" site plan and floor plans shall also be produced and an historic documentation report included in the documentation package. The documentation package will be archived at an appropriate location determined by the City and subject to an agreement approved by the City, including the Arcadia Library, Arcadia Historical Society, and the Arboretum of Los Angeles County. (Errata, p. 1.) b) In consultation with a historic preservation professional approved by the City and compensated by the Applicant, the Applicant shall produce at its cost and expense an interpretive plan for the property for a permanent display before issuance of a demolition permit. The City shall solicit proposals for locating the display and choose the most appropriate location RVPUB\NCS\s43797 15 6151 subject to an agreement approved by the City. A possible location could be the Arboretum, the City library, City historic museum, or similar location. Displayed materials shall include photographs (current and historic), written materials describing the historical themes associated with the property and a physical model of the site showing its character-defining features. (Errata, pp. 1-2; Public Hearing of December 7,1999.) c) If any party submits, within ninety (90) days of final approval by the City of Arcadia of the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, a completed application to the City pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8631 et seq., as determined by the City of Arcadia in its sole and absolute discretion, to relocate the main structure or portion thereof or any historic and/or artistic interior and/or exterior attached and/or unattached building elements on the premises, then the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with such a party to allow for relocation without payment to the Applicant, subject to following (Errata, p. 2; Public Hearing of December 7, 1999): The agreement shall provide that the party seeking such relocation shall bear all costs and expenses of such relocation, and shall provide for reasonable indemnification of the Applicant by that party, that the party shall post a bond with the City equivalent to the City's estimate of costs of such relocation, that party shall obtain general liability insurance covering the relocation in an aggregate amount of at least $5 million, and the developer shall not unreasonably fail to execute such agreement; all of the foregoing subject to the determination and approval of the City in its sole and absolute discretion. The agreement shall provide that the relocation shall be completed within two hundred ten (210) days following the final approval by the City of the CUP and Vesting Tentative Map. (Ibid.) Furthermore, the Applicant shall make payment to a not for profit charitable organization qualifying as such under Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(3) equal to the actual costs of segregating and preserving during demolition of structures, and thereafter relocating all of the certain items listed to be donated to RVPUB\NGS\543797 16 6151 the Los Angeles County Arboretum and to the City of Arcadia as set forth In certain letters from McCaslin Properties dated November 15, 1999. (Ibid.) d) A qualified historic preservation professional approved by the City and compensated by the Applicant shall be present on-site during demolition to ensure appropriate removal and handling of historic and/or artistic, interior and/or exterior, attached and/or unattached building elements. (Ibid.) l~) Wrought iron gates shall be used at the entrance off Baldwin Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. (FEIR, p. 18.) f) The City shall comply with requirements in Section 15064.5(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines which specify the procedures to follow in the event of discovery of archaeological resources. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation. Under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects and the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, there is no mitigation for the Project's effects short of preserving nearly all of the site and structures in their current or rehabilitated condition, which would result in a less than significant impact on historic resources. Under the CEQA Guidelines, partial preservation, such as preserving the main residence while developing the rest of the site, would still result in a significant adverse impact on historic resources, albeit of lesser magnitude when compared to demolishing all structures on the site. (FEIR, p. 17.) Therefore, even after implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts to historic resources will remain significant. In addition, the proposed Project will result in a cumulatively significant impact on historic resources in the region by adding to the loss of resources that has occurred as a result of past development. (FEIH, p. 44.) 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. CEQA 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 RVPUB\NGS\.s43797 17 6151 technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project which 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 proposed 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 Final EIR identified the City of Arcadia's objectives for the proposed Anoakia Residential Development Project, which are reflected in the City's General Plan land use and zoning designations. (FEIR, p. 1.) The Final EIR also identified the Applicant's objectives, which are to maintain as many of the existing characteristics of the site as possible while developing the site with two story, single family homes of a size and value that will complement and be compatible with the surrounding area. (Ibid.) The Final EIR analyzed four alternative development scenarios to the Project. The City of Arcadia has reviewed and considered such alternative development scenarios in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the Project and the reduction or elimination of such effect which may be accomplished by selection of the alternatives. The alternatives are presented below, and specific economic, social, or other considerations that render such alternatives infeasible are set forth as follows: A. Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative. 1. Description. Under the No Project Alternative, no development of any kind would occur and the 19.1-acre Project site would remain as an estate with the main house operating as a property management office with 14 other unused structures. The property would also continue to be used periodically for filming. (FEIR, p.39.) Although no development would result from this alternative, new impacts on the environment could occur. The main house, pool house, gymnasium, garage and office building are on the City's list of high risk buildings. These buildings need to be R VPUB\NGS\S43 797 lB 6151 brought up to the seismic standards of the City's adopted Ordinance No. 1924. (Ibid.) To retrofit and rehabilitate the main residence in accordance with the California Historical Building Code (CHBC) would cost approximately $5.5 million, excluding soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. To retrofit the buildings without complying with the Standards could result in compromising the historic significance, and the historic structure, therefore creating a significant impact. (Ibid.) 2. Finding. The City Council finds that Alternative 1 is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project, is considered infeasible due to the cost associated with retrofitting and rehabilitating the main residence, and fails to meet Project objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation. No development of the Project site would preclude the achievement of the City's and the Applicant's objectives for the proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 40.) Further, in the absence of the proposed Project, another residential development is the most probable future use for the Project site because of its General Plan land use and zoning designation as a residential land use, and the compatibility of such development with surrounding residential land uses. (Ibid.) Therefore, under this scenario, the intensity of development on the site would be expected to be comparable to that of the Project. With similar square footage and use, no substantial difference in environmental impacts is anticipated to result from this scenario. (Ibid.) For these reasons, the City Council hereby finds that the No Project Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project, is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and, therefore, rejects it. B. Alternative 2 - Preservation and Reuse of the Baldwin Residence. 1. Description. This alternative considers preserving the Baldwin residence on the Project site and subdividing the parcel to provide up to 27 half-acre residential lots for the subsequent development of single-family homes. The Baldwin residence would be used as either a residence or center for the residents of the Project. (Ibid.) Under this alternative, the Baldwin residence would be rehabilitated, including the seismic retrofit, in accordance with the California Historical Building Code (CHBC). This retrofitting and rehabilitating would cost approximately $5.5 million, RVPUB\NGS\S43797 19 6151 excluding soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. (Ibid.) The remaining 14 historic buildings would be demolished and replaced with single family residences. 2. Finding. The City Council finds that Alternative 2, although environmentally superior to the proposed Project, is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and is economically infeasible. 3. Supporting Explanation. Under this alternative, the magnitude of the unavoidable significant impact on historic resources will be reduced, but not eliminated. Other impacts, inCluding those from short-term construction noise, from removal of oak trees, and from geologic hazards would be similar to the Project's impacts. (FEIR, pp. 40-41.) Overall, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project because it would reduce the magnitude of adverse impacts on historic resources and biological resources. (FEIR, p. 41.) However, this alternative is considered infeasible because of economic considerations. The Applicant, after reviewing Preliminary Rehabilitation Estimate, determined that retrofitting and rehabilitating the Residence at its current location would result in additional costs which include the price of the land. (FEIR, Appendix E.) The preservation of the Hesidence in its current location would reduce the number of lots on the Project site from 31 to 27. The land costs associated with the four lost lots in addition to the retrofitting and rehabilitation costs would render the Project economically infeasible to the Applicant. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that Alternative 2 is infeasible because it fails to meet the proposed Project objectives, is economically infeasible, and rejects it. C. Alternative 3 - Reuse of the Baldwin Residence and Other Structures 1. Description. This alternative considers preservation of the residence, related structures and the grounds for use as a museum, community center, park, or resident summer camp when school is not in session. (FEIR, p. 41.) The adaptive reuse of the structures requires upgrading the buildings to comply with the seismic standards in Arcadia's Ordinance No. 1924. To do so in conformance with the California Historical Building Code would cost approximately $5.5 million for retrofitting and rehabilitating just the main residence (as set forth in Appendix E to the Final EIR). (Ibid.) This estimate excludes soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. RVPUB\NGS\,543797 20 6151 To retrofit the 15 structures without complying with the Standards could result in compromising the historic significance and a significant unavoidable impact. (Ibid.) 2. Finding. The City Council finds that although Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, this alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and is considered economically infeasible. 3. Supporting Explanation. Under Alternative 3, there would be no impacts to the existing oak trees because this alternative maintains the grounds in their existing state. (Ibid.) Short term noise impacts would result from the seismic upgrading of the 15 structures on-site. The impacts from geologic hazards would be similar to those of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) In contrast, this alternative could result in potentially significant impacts from traffic due to the substantially larger number of trips typically generated by visitors and patrons of the types of uses under this alternative. Overall, because this alternative would eliminate significant impacts on historic resources, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would not meet the City's objectives for the site as reflected in the Arcadia General Plan land use and zoning designations for the parcel. (Ibid.) Furthermore, this alternative is considered economically infeasible. A proponent of this alternative would have to purchase the site from the Applicant and then retrofit and rehabilitate all the structures. No such proposal is known to the City or to the Applicant to exist. Therefore, this scenario is not considered a viable alternative. For these reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives, is economically infeasible, and rejects it. D. Alternative 4 - Re-establishment of a Private School. 1. Description. This alternative considers that the estate be used as a private school. After Anita Baldwin's death, a private school operated on the property for 49 years until it was closed in 1989 as a result of severe damage from the Whittier earthquake. (Ibid.) Under this alternative, all the structures on the property would need to be repaired and upgraded to comply with the Arcadia seismic standards set forth in Ordinance No. 1924. To accomplish the required upgrade in conformance with the California Historical Building Code would cost approximately $5.5 million for just the RYPUB\NGS\543797 21 6151 main residence (as set forth in Appendix E of the Final EIR). (Ibid.) This estimate excludes soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. To do so without complying with the Standards could result in compromising the historic significance, and in a significant adverse unavoidable impact. (FEIR, pp. 41-42.) 2. Finding. The City Council finds that although Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, this alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and is considered economically infeasible. 3. Supporting Explanation. Impacts to oak trees would be minimal under this alternative. Short term noise impacts would result from the seismic upgrading of the 15 structures on site. The impacts from geologic hazards would be similar to those of the proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 42.) In contrast, this alternative could result in potentially significant impacts from traffic due to the substantially larger number of trips typically generated by students and their families. Overall, because this alternative would eliminate significant impacts on historic resources, it is considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would not meet the City's objectives for the site as reflected in the Arcadia General Plan land use and zoning designations for the parcel. (Ibid.) Furthermore, this alternative is considered economically infeasible. A proponent of this alternative would have to purchase the site from the Applicant and then retrofit and rehabilitate all the structures for reuse as a school. No such proposal is known to the City or to the Applicant to exist. Therefore, this scenario is not considered a viable alternative. For these reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 4 is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives, is economically infeasible, and rejects it. E. Other Alternatives Not Analyzed. 1. Alternate Location. There is very little vacant land available for development in the City. No alternate site adequate in size to support the proposed Project exists in the City. An alternate location outside of the City would not meet the City objectives for the Project. (FEIR, p. 38.) 2. Commercial Development Scenario. This alternative was examined and found not be feasible since the Project site is designated by the Arcadia General Plan and zoning as Single Family Residential land use with a density of 0-2 dwelling RVPUB\N(}S\S43797 22 6151 units/acre. This scenario would also preclude the achievement of Project objectives of creating a residential planned development. (Ibid.) 3. Office Development Scenario. This alternative was considered and found not be realistic for reasons similar to the commercial development scenario. The City's objective of residential land use on the site and the Applicant's objective to develop a 31-unit residential planned development would not be met. (FEIR, p 39.) 4. Conventional Subdivision Scenario. This alternative was considered and found to be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. It would result in the removal of more trees than the proposed Project due to the lack of flexibility in siting lots and homes. This alternative would not meet the Applicant's objective of maintaining as many of the existing characteristics of the site as possible. Additionally, it would not meet the City's objective of preserving oak trees. (Ibid.) Section 6. 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 Projects 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 Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final 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 Final EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specfic economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that RVPUB\NGS\543797 23 6151 except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the Final 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: 1. The Project will remove an attractive nuisance caused by the presence of deteriorated and semi-abandoned structures on the property which throughout the years have been subject to repeated vandalism, trespassing, and poor maintenance complaints reported to the City thereby furthering public safety. 2. The Project will provide for a productive reuse of the underutilized and deteriorating property that is visually compatible with the surrounding development and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. (FEIR, p. viii.) 3. The Project will remove seismically and otherwise unsafe buildings and replace them with residences built to current seismic and other safety requirements thereby furthering public safety. 4. The Project will further the City of Arcadia's objectives for the site reflected in the General Plan land use and zoning designations, which permit development of the site for residential uses with a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet. The General Plan designates the site as Single Family Residential land use with a density of 0-2 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned R-O & D. (FEIR, p. 1.) 5. The Project maintains a number of existing characteristics of the site while providing single-family residences in keeping with surrounding residential development in the City. Existing site elements which will be incorporated in the Project include 294 RVPUB\NGS\~4:J797 24 6151 existing trees (including 95 Coast Live oaks and 20 Engelmann oaks), the Le Jeune relief, twin arbors, and the perimeter wall. (FEIR, p. 3.) 6. The Project will provide additional single-family housing which will contribute to meeting regional housing needs and the goals and objectives of the City's Housing Element. 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 which cannot be mitigated and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Section 7. Resolution regarding certification of the EI R. The City COLlncil finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed 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 150B8.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following signficant environmental impacts have been identifed in the Final EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: historic resources. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the Final 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 proposed Project, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. RVPUB\NGS\543797 25 6151 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed Project. Section 8. 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 set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. Section 9. 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, California 91066-6021. The custodian for these records is the Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Section 10. 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 11. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this21stday of December , 1999. ATTEST: Ci Arcadia Approved as to Form: ~P. k1f~ Step en P. Deitsch, City Attorney RVP\}B\NGS\543797 26 6151 STATE OF CALlFOHNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6151 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 on the 21st day of Decembe, 1999, and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Harbicht, Roncelli and Chandler NOES: Councilmember Marshall and Kovacic ABSENT: None RVPUB\NGS\543797 27 6151 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 6151 m -0>< Ql::!: co 0- CD;:+ -')> Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) Anoakia Residential Development Project Mitigation Monitoring Cbecklist Issue Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Monitor/Report TiminglFreqnency Historic 15 buildings on site that 1. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall Community Prior to issuance of Resources appear to be eligible for produce at its cost and expense up to five sets as determined by the Development Demolition Permit listing on the National City, of a documentation survey of the property and all historically Division, Regisler of Hisloric Places significant buildings and structures in accordance with the Historic Planning and California Register of American Building Survey standards. This document shall include Services Historic Resources will be archival quality photographs of exterior features, elevations, and demolished. significant interior features. Scaled, "as-built" site plan and fioor plans shall also be produced and an hisloric documentation report included in the documentation package. The documentalion package wiil be archived at an appropriate location determined by the City and subject 10 an agreement approved by the City, including the Arcadia library, Arcadia Historical Sociely, and lhe Arboretum of Los Angeles County. 2. In consultation with a hisloric preservation professional approved Community Prior to issuance of by the City and compensated by the Applicant, the Applicanl shall Developmenl Demolition Permil produce at its cost and expense an interpretive plan for the property Division, for a permanent display before issuance of a demolition permit. The Planning City shall solicil proposals for locating lhe display and choose the Services most appropriate location subject to an agreement approved by the City. A possible localion could be the Arboretum, the City library, Citv historic museum. or similar location. Displaved materials mav include photographs (current and historic) and written materials describing the historical themes associated with the property and a physical model of the site showing the character-defining features. Anoakia Residential Development Page 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) Issue Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Monitor/Report Timing/Frequency 3. If any party submits within ninety (90)tays of final approval by the Community Prior to issuance of Cily of Arcadia oflfte Condilional Use Permit and Vesling Tentative Development Demolition Permit Map, a completed application to the City pursuant to the Arcadia Division, Municipal Code Section 8631 et seq., as determined by the City of Planning Arcadia in its sole and absolute discretion. to relocate the main Services structure or portion thereof or any historic and/or artistic interier andlor exterior attached and/or unattached building elements on the premises, then the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with such a party to allow for relocation without payment to the Applicant, subject to following: a) The agreement shall provide that the party seeking such relocation shall bear all costs and expenses of such relocation, and shall provide for reasonable indemnification of the applicant by that party, that the party shall post a bond with the City equivalent to the City's estimate of costs of such relocation, that party shall obtain general liability insurance covering the relocation in an aggregate amount of at least $5 million, and the developer shall not unreasonably fail to execute such agreement; all of the foregoing subject to the determination and approval of the City in its sole and absolute .discretio!,. Th~ agreement shall provid,,- t_hat the retocation _ . shall be complete.d within two-hundre~ and ten. (210) days f?lIawing the final approval by the City of the CUP and Vesting Tentative' Map_ Furthermore. the Applicant shall make payment to a not for profit charitable organization qualifying as such under Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(3) equal to the actual costs of segregating and preserving during demolition of structures, and thereafter relocaling all of the certain items listed to be donated to the Los Angeles County Arboretum and to the City of Arcadia as set forth in certain letters from McCaslin Properties dated November 15, 1999_ m -eX III :!. COO' CD;::;: N)> Anoakia Residential Development Page 18 Mitigation Monitoring Program m -OX III ~ <OCT CD;:+: ,w:t> Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) Issue Euviroumeutallmpact /\fitigatiou /\fasures Monitor/Report Timing/Frequency Historic 4. A qualified historic preservation professional approved by the City Community During demolition Resources and compensated by the Applicant shall be present on-site during Development (cont.) demolition to ensure appropriate removal and handling of historic Division, and/or artistic, interior and/or exterior, attached and/or unattached Planning building elements. Services 5. The City shall comply with requirements in Section 15064.5(f) of Community During demolition, the CEQA Guidelines which specify the procedures to follow in the Development grading, and event of discovery of archaeological resources. Division, construction Planning Services Biological Removal of 35 oak trees, Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a Horticultural Tree Community Prior to issuance of Resources specifically 31 Coast Live Consultant (HTC) shall submit a plan showing the proposed location Development Demolition Permit oaks and 4 Engelmann of new trees on the project site and plan for protecting the remaining Division and oaks. trees which the HTC has determined may be encroached upon Public Works during construction. Services Dept. If all trees cannot be located on-site, remaining trees shall be planted Public Worl<s Within six month at the Applicant's expense in dedicated open space location(s) Services after issuance of approved by the City within six months from issuance of a grading Department grading permit permit. The HTC shall be present on-site during all replacement to ensure Community During construction proper planting, and during construction to ensure protection of Development and tree remaining oak trees on-site. Division, replacement Planning Services Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 19 Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) m -OX lll::r. ceO' CD~ ,:..)> Issue Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures MonitorfReport TimingfFrequency Biological 1. Replacement of the 35 oak trees shall be at a ratio of 3 Community Prior to issuance of Resources Engelmann oak replacement trees for every removed Engelmann Development Occupancy Permit (cont.) oak tree and of 2 oak trees other than Engelmann oaks for every Division and removed oak tree as determined by the HTC and the City to ensure Public Works long term survival. A minimum of 70 oak trees shall be planted, and Services Dept. no less than 12 of these replacement oak trees shall be Engelmann oaks and if available. up to 35 replacement trees shall be Engelmann oaks. The replacement trees shall be 60 inch boxed stock. If the availability of 60 inch boxed is limited, with the approval of the HTC and the City. smaller stock can be used. However, stock may not be less than 36 inches. The replacement trees can be located on site or off site in an area of dedicated open space, such as a public park, or at other such locations deemed appropriate by the City of Arcadia. The developer shall replace any oak tree (new or existing) that dies during the period of time that construction by the developer is taking place on the property. The final plans shall contain the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) that include covenants and disclosure statements that the new Homeowne(s Association is responsible for replacement of any oak trees located within the common area and that private property owners are responsible for compliance with the City of Arcadia oak tree regulations as set forth in Section 9700 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and successor ordinances. Oak trees that dies from natural causes shall be subject to removal per City's oak tree regulations in Section 9700 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and any successor ordinances. 2. The mitigation techniques shall be observed on-site by the HTC, Community During demolition, paid for by the Applicant. The HTC shall be notified 48 hours prior to Development grading, and any work being done to the trees. Tree protection mitigation Division and construction techniques as specified in Section 3.2 should ensure that the Public Works remaining 105 oak trees on the site will remain as valuable assets to Services Dept. the community. Anoakia Residential Development Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring Program Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) Issue Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Monitor/Report TimingfFrequency 3. To ensure that no nests of native birds will be affected by Community During demolition, construction activity the Applicant shall engage services of a Development grading. and qualified biological monitor to monitor construction on the site if the Division, construction project construction takes place during the nesting season, which Planning typically extends from March to late July. Services Short-term Site preparation and 1. Loading operations and staging for trucks for removal of material Community During demolition, Constructio construction will produce from the site shall not take place within 200 feet of the residences Development grading, and n Noise noise from heavy adjacent to the western property line. The most desirable location for Division, Building construction equipment, with varying loading in terms of minimal noise impact on the surrounding Services frequency and intensity for residences is the center of the southeastern half of the site. the duration of construction. Short-term 2. Muffled construction equipment shall be used by the construction Community During demolition, Constructio contractor whenever possible. Development grading. and n Noise Division, Building construction (cont.) Services . 3. The contractor shall designate a construction liaison staff member Community During demolition, who will deal with construction noise or other concerns that may Development grading, and arise, and shall provide the name and telephone number of Ihis Division, Building construction individual to the City. The name and telephone number of a contact Services person for comments or complaints by the area residents shall be posted on the site at the main construction entrance or in another location clearly visible from surrounding sidewalks. 4. The City of Arcadia restricts construction activity to between the Community Demolition, hours of 7:00 AM. and 7:00 PM. Monday through Saturday. No Development Grading, and construction is allowed on Sundays. To protect the residences Division, Building Construction adjacent to the project site to the west, as well as the residences Services across the street to the north and east, no construction involving high-noise equipment or deliveries by semi-trailer trucks shall take place on Saturdays. m -0>< Ql~ <CO' CD;::::+: c.n~ Anoakia Residential Development Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program Anoakia Residential Development Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (continued) Issue Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures MonitorlReport Timing/Frequency 5. Access to the subdivision will not be provided on Anoakia Lane Community During demolition, either during construction or after completion of the project. Development grading, and Division, Building construction, and Services after completion Geology The peak ground 1. The structures sha!! include special earthquake design by " Community Prior to issuance of acceleration computed for California Registered Structural Engineer. The City of Arcadia shall Development Building Permit the site is higher than the use the PGA of 0.69g for plan-check purposes. Division, Building standard envelope of the Services 1997 Uniform Building Code. Geology 2. To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, subsurface geological Community Prior to issuance of (cont.) drilling shall be performed to determine the exact location of the Development Grading PermiV and water table under the project site. If the water table is shallower than Division, Buiiding during grading and currently known, an analysis for the potential for liquefaction shall be Services construction performed. If the analysis concludes a high potential for liquefaction, then specific engineering design techniques identified such as the following shall be implemented: . The ground surface shall be properly backfilled and compacted. . Over excavated soils in the building area shall be recompacted as appropriate. . Fill and backfill shall be compacted to 90% or more of the maximum dry density as appropriate. . Final site grading shall be such that all water is diverted away from the structures, and is not allowed to pond. . Isolated pad footings shall be used for support of structures as appropriate. . The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by retaining walls or similar structures shall be increased as to allow for surcharge loads as appropriate. . Weepholes or an equivalent system of backfill drainage shall be incorporated into the retaining wall design as appropriate. m -OX III ::!. <CO' CD ;:::+ 0>)> Anoakia Residential Development Page 22 Mitigation Monitoring Program _..'" ...',.....,"11; 1".l;~Dl'r" 7020 i"-'~-j9 : e:34AM l 310~5201'~-526 J!5 99!! fROM: McCaslin Proper~les F'~ NC. 626 355 HS4 A~S' ~2 1999 09: 57Fi'1 Pl M;~..lill Proptl1l' II 11 ..."..,,, ",V."IIe, " . r.. . Ilerr. Madre, Callforlllt. ;110U 8H U~llB ,. November 15, 1iS9 Ms. Sandy Snider The Arbol'1llum County of Los Angeles 301 North Baldwin Avenue Arcadia, California 91007-2697 Dear Sandy, Altectled 16 a list of \teme from the "Anoeki; Eat II ,,", wh~h the McCaslin Family has decided to dOflate to the Los Angeles COlJntl '\rborelum. Theall Itllms must be removed during the month of Janull'Y 20Ql. If the Arboretum choosea to accept the following items as a donation than ;t,;l removal will be lit Ihe 100le expense of the Arboretum. Please respcnct to U I by November 19, 1999 with your lelter of acceptance. WG hope you will be III excited about the list as' It- ara to donale them s~reIV' Mc~~ ark cCaslln MMc:lp '. "'1 Exhibit A Page 7 d .' . ' .WI'I . l'IC\""Cl.SI an t'n;.per1.le~ rMA ........ . 0"'0 ..:J.,J"; ..w........ ~~. U"' .JJJ ~.'''''''''''~. r..... Items to be donated to Los Angell s County Arboretum (from arboretum wish lists dated" lril & June 1998) 1. Two large E.J. Baldwin display wine c lsks and 2 small wooden kegs (currently in basement) . 2. Entire Batchedler tile fireplace from thE office of Lowry B. McCaslin ,. 3. J.J. cut glass chandelier and matching sconces from the dinning room 4. J. J. Sommans etched peacock door 5. . Leather upholstered arm chair curre; tly in the library 6. All ornamental bronze entrance gaj,)s surrounding Anoakia 7. Concrete columns and wood pergolas ::urrenlly on the ground by the swimmIng pool 8. Two marble benches located by drago", pond 9. Alabaster wishing well currently locatell on the south lawn 10. All wood paneling, Batchelder & mahoj lany fireplace located in dinning room 11. Fireplace located in living room '12. Batchelder Fireplace, paneling and boe kcases located in library Exhibit A Page 8 ~eNT eV:Xerax Tt,I~C~ol.. '020 :':-1~-9a ';32A~ ~.\O~5201(S~625 355 ~Hl. "" -- - - - - ....... -,-,.". I... : c 1 '1M : McCasl m PropertieS FAX NO, 626 355 9651 A~9, B2 1399 29:S9AM ?1 McCaslIn Proptll it. 19 Suffolk Avenue,S tite iii Sierra Madre, Califomi; S' 024 (62.6) 35~3~S November 15, 1999 Vla: fax 447-9173 Ms. Donna Buttler City of Arcadiil 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 Ms, Buttler: Attached is a 118t of ItemB from the "Anoakia Elll11 :,', which the McCa8lin Family has dacld&d to donate to the City of Arcadia. 1 '188& items must be removed during the month of January 2000. If tI'Ie city ,I-o)Ose8 to accept Ihe following items 88 a donation than the removal will be at ti,e sole expellSe of the CIty of Arcadia. Plesss respond to us by NOll6mbe r 19, 1999 with your letter of acceplllnce. ':W8 t->ope you will be as excited ebout tho lIat sa \ Il are to donate them . , ~~cere~, . L:~~j~( C~ .. '. MMe;lp Exhibit A Page'g 1. 2. "'. 3. 4. 5. 6. McCaslin Prope1ies 19 Suffolk Avenue, iuite B Sierra Madre, Califorr ,a 91024 (626) 355-335 i Items to be donated to C ty of Arcadia (from City wish list dated JL le 18. 1998) Carved molding In the living room for around Mayor's office Entire Newel stairway railing and post located in basement (known as the (billiard room) Bottle 'glass windows located in Jinx n 10m in basement Bottle glass accordion doors leading t,) bowling alley Two molds for living room and library I made by movie company) Outside urn/fountain (known as dragoll pond) " ) Exhibit A Page 10 "-