HomeMy WebLinkAbout6232
RESOLUTION NO. 6232
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
AMENDMENT NO.5 TO THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, in 1973, the City of Arcadia ("City") approved and adopted the
Central Redevelopment Plan which established the redevelopment project area known
as the Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project" or "Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia ("Agency") has
prepared and is considering an amendment to the existing Central Redevelopment Plan
to add such territory ("Amendment Area") and undertake redevelopment activities as
described in the proposed amendment No, 5 to the Central Redevelopment Plan
("Plan"); and
WHEREAS, such redevelopment activities and the Agency's and City Council's
action to consider and approve the Plan, taken together, constitute a "project" as that.
term is defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
sections 21000, et seq,; "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs,
section 15000, et seq,; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the Agency's
Local CEQA Guidelines, the Agency is the public agency that has the principal
responsibility for carrying out and approving the Project, and therefore serves as "Lead
Agency" as that term is defined by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City is a "responsible agency" as defined in Public Resources
Code section 21069 because the City is a public agency, other than the lead agency,
that has responsibility for carrying out this Project; and
WHEREAS, the Agency prepared an Initial Study and determined that an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR for the
proposed Plan on February 8,2001 and has circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the Agency
solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the
scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agencies'
1
6232
areas of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues,
reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that the responsible agencies would
have analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, thirteen (13) written comments were received by the Agency in
response to the Nap, and these comments assisted the Agency in narrowing the issues
and alternatives for analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR on the proposed Plan was completed and released for
public review on April 12, 2001, and the Agency initiated a 45-day comment period by
filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning arid
Research; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, on April 11 ,
2001, the Agency also provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to the last
known name and address of all organizations and individuals who had previously
requested such notice; filed and posted (on May 7,2001) for thirty (30) days a Notice of
Completion and Availability in the office of the County Clerk of the County of Los
Angeles; and published a Notice of Completion and Availability on or about May 31,
2001 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area, Copies of the Draft EIR
were provided to approximately 4 public agencies, organizations and individuals. In
addition, the Agency placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City of Arcadia Development
Services Department, the City of Arcadia Public Library, and the City of Arcadia Office
of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, during,the 45-day comment period, the Agency consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guideline section 15086; and
WHEREAS, all potential adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently
analyzed in the Draft EIR; and .
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the Agency
received four (4) written comments, all of which the Agency responded to in the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was prepared and the Agency has evaluated all timely
submitted comments on the Draft EIR, including responses to oral comments on the
Final EIR, and prepared written responses to all significant environmental issues raised
in such comments; and
WHEREAS, the Agency 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
Agency's Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the Agency in the EIR, which is
2
6232
sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the
Project have been evaluated properly, focusing on broad policy alternatives and area-
wide mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently
analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially
lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives
capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the Agency's Local Guidelines and
WHEREAS, the Agency approved the Final EIR for the Plan as complete and
adequate and in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and certified the Final EIR
pursuant to Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it
as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds
are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II hereof;
and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant,
through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section III hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
its potentially significant environmental impacts are described in Section IX hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City 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 and is
deemed adequate for the purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed
Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or
any additional information submitted to the City has produced substantial new
information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under the State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088,5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occu rred.
3
6232
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOllOWS:
SECTION I
FINDINGS
At a regulation session assembled on July 3, 2001, the City Council of the City of
Arcadia ("City") 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 Central Redevelopment Project
are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (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 cannot be fully mitigated to a level
of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the
identified mitigation measures,
SECTION II
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING
MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the
Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
A. Aesthetics. Views, Liqhtinq and Shadows
1. Insiqnificant Environmental Impacts
Impacts to aesthetics, views, lighting and shadows will not be significant during
any phase of the Project. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-8.) At this time, no construction is planned,
although the Project is intended to ultimately result in the renovation and construction of
new buildings within the Project Area, However, any new development or
redevelopment activity within the proposed Project Area would be required to comply
with the City of Arcadia Zoning Ordinance as well as the design requirements
established by the City of Arcadia. (Final EIR, p. 4,1-4.) Because these regulations will
be implemented, the Project will not result in a demonstrably negative effect due to the
color, contrast, use of space, or reflectivity of Project components. For the same
reason, the Project will not create any intrusive visual effect due to its massing, height,
illumination level, color, or other feature that is not compatible with surrounding uses
and activities. Moreover, any proposed development is subject to additional
environmental review by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, Thus, although the
4
6232
Project may cause changes to some aesthetic elements within the Project Area, it will
not cause any adverse aesthetic impacts. (Ibid.)
As to views, the Project will not obstruct any scenic vistas, including any scenic
vistas from a designated scenic highway or from residential areas, There are no scenie
highways located within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area and therefore no
impacts to vistas from scenic highways would occur, (Ibid.) Views of the San Gabriel
Mountains would remain generally unchanged along North-South streets, Views from
single-story residences to'the south of the proposed Project are currently obstructed by
fences and structures as well as by landscaping and would remain so after
implementation of the Project. (Ibid.) While structures built to the maximum allowable
building height of three stories or 40 feet might significantly obstruct views of the San
Gabriel Mountains from adjacent areas and residences, no such views currently exist
due to the siting of the residences to the south of the proposed Project Area. Nor will
the Project cause a substantial degradation in the existing visual character or quality of
the site or its surroundings, for the reasons set forth above in the previous paragraph
concerning aesthetics. Therefore, the Project will not have any significant impacts to
views, (Ibid,)
As to lighting, the Project will not cause spillover of lighting onto additional
properties. Additional lighting elements which could be added within the proposed
Project Area in the form of increased security lighting, new parking lot lighting, new
business signage, or improvements to existing street lights will be regulated by the City
of Arcadia Zoning Ordinance which restricts the height and orientation of lighting
structures and requires the shielding of glare-producing activities. Moreover, as
indicated above, any proposed development is subject to additional environmental
review by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, Therefore, any impacts associated with
light and glare to adjacent residential properties will be effectively prevented and no
significant impacts will occur, (Ibid.)
As to shadows, the Project will not create any element or structure that would
cast a shadow onto a residential property for more than three hours during the Winter
Solstice, the Summer Solstice, the Spring Equinox, or the Fall Equinox, when shadows
are longest. Even if a three-story building were constructed within the minimum
required set-back on a parcel that is immediately adjacent to residential properties, no
shadow encroachment on those properties would occur. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project
will not cause any significant shadow impacts. (Final EIR, p, 4.1-4 - 4,1-8,)
2, Cumulative Impacts
Although the Project's ultimate redevelopment and redesign of various areas
within the Project Area will improve design aspects, it will not result in adverse impacts
to aesthetics, views, lighting, or shadows, The EIR identified one commercial
(redevelopment), one commerciallindustrial, and three housing projects to be
considered in evaluating the Project's cumulative impacts, Due to their locations and
natures, none of these projects would cause cumulative impacts to aesthetics, views,
5
6232
lighting or shadows in the Project Area, (See, Final EIR, p. 5,0-2,) First, redevelopment
of Las Tunas Drive will enhance the urban design qualities of the region, Second, the
Foothill Maintenance Facility would not even be visible from the Project Area, Finally,
the projected residential uses would not result in any impacts to aesthetics, view,
lighting or shadows within the Project Area, (Ibid,) Consequently, no adverse
cumulative impacts will occur. (Ibid,)
SECTION III
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the Final
EIR which would 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 would reduce them to a less than significant
level are as follows:
A. Cultural and Historic Resources
1, Potentiallv Siqnificant Impacts - Historic Resources
According to the historic register search conducted in connection with the
Environmental Impact Report for this Project, there are no historic properties within a
one-mile radius of the proposed Project Area. (EIR, p, 4.3-3.) However, should a
currently unknown historic resource be encountered, the renovation and construction
activities contemplated by the Project could potentially demolish or materially alter in an
adverse manner the physical characteristics of the historic resource. Accordingly,
without appropriate mitigation, the Project could have potentially significant impacts on
historic resources, '
2. Findinqs - Historic Resources
Impacts to historic resources will be mitigated with implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
CR2 For all agency-funded or sponsored projects where a building is to be removed
that is older than 50 years, a determination shall be made regarding its historical
and/or architectural significance. Among other factors, criteria established for the
National Register of Historic Places or the California Register shall be used for
this purpose. If eligible resources are found, then the Agency shall encourage the
incorporation of the resource into the proposed project. Rehabilitation of
significant buildings shall meet the US Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation, (Final EIR, p, 4.3-4,)
6
6232
CR3 New development or infrastructure improvements sponsored or funded by the
Redevelopment Agency adjoining a historic or architectural resource or district
shall be compatible in size, scale, materials, fenestration and massing, (Final
EIR, p. 4.3-5,)
3. SupportinQ Explanation - Historic Resources
When the Project proposes to remove buildings that are older than 50 years, this
mitigation measure will require the Agency to determine the building's historical and/or
architectural significance using the criteria established for the National Register of
Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Mitigation measure
CR2 will ensure that older buildings which may potentially qualify as historic resources
are properly evaluated, thereby eliminating the possibility of inadvertent destruction or
adverse modification of a historic resource that is currently undetected. In the event
such a resource is found, Mitigation Measure CR2 will encourage the alteration of the
construction plans to incorporate the historic resource, Mitigation Measure CR3 will
likewise protect historic resources by ensuring that new development is compatible with,
. and thus does not detract from, historic resources. Because these measures ensure
that the Project will not inadvertently lead to the destruction or adverse modification of
currently unknown historic resources, they reduce the potentially significant impact to
historic resources to a less than significant level.
4. Potentially SiQnificant Impacts - ArchaeoloQical Resources
The Project Area is located in an area that has been developed and urbanized
for many years. Within a one-mile radius of the Project Area, no historic archaeological
sites or prehistoric sites have been identified, and, according to the Native American
Heritage Association, there is no indication that the Project Area or the surrounding
vicinity contains any site with sensitive Native American Resources. (EIR, p, 4.3-3.)
However, during the development of the proposed Project, presently unknown
archaeological resources could be encountered, Though unlikely, grading activities
associated with the construction phase of the proposed Project have the potential to
uncover arehaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures will be required to
ensure that all feasible precautions are taken and damage or destruction of such
resources does not occur. (Final EIR, p, 4.3-4.)
5, FindinQs
Impacts to archaeological resources will be mitigated with implementation of the
following mitigation measure:
CR1 For ageney-sponsored or funded projects, if evidence of archaeological
resources is discovered during demolition, grading, or excavation, construction
on that site shall be halted and thereafter the Agency shall require the use of
archaeological monitors on that site, The monitors shall have the authority to
direct construction away from archaeological resources and to facilitate the
7
. 6232
disposition of any discovered resources in accordance with state law. The
agency shall not require monitors if it has been determined through a Phase I
archaeological survey of the project site that encountering archaeological
resources is unlikely, (Final EIR, p. 4.3-4.)
6. Supportinq Explanation - Archaeoloqical Resources
Though no archaeological or paleontological resources are known to exist within
the boundaries of the proposed Project, there is a remote possibility that such resources
could exist on site and could be unknowingly damaged as a result of construction
projects contemplated by the Project. Mitigation M!lasure CR1 will ensure that sites
proposed for development are evaluated and a determination is made as to whether
archaeological resources are likely to be encountered at these sites, This will eliminate
the potential that such resources are inadvertently destroyed or adversely modified as a
result of Project activities. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR1 will ensure
that the potential impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a level of less than
significant. (Final EIR, p, 4.3-5.)
7, Cumulative Impacts - Cultural and Historic Resources
Because the Project's potentially significant impacts to cultural or historic
resources have been mitigated to a level of less than significant, it will not cause any
cumulative significant impacts to these resources, Moreover, the lack of known cultural
or historic concerns anywhere in the vicinity of the Project Area further confirms that no
cumulative significant impacts to these resources will occur.
B. Land Use and Planninq
Existing land Use Conflicts
The proposed Project will not significantly, alter any existing land uses, The
existing mix of commercial, retail, office space, light industrial and interspersed
residential uses will remain, though some rearranging will occur. (Final EIR, p, 4,5-5.)
Therefore, the Project will not cause any conflict with existing land uses, (Ibid,)
City of Arcadia General Plan
The Project will not conflict with the City of Arcadia's General Plan. The General
Plan acknowledges the Central Redevelopment Project Area ("CRPA") and establishes
goals for the downtown revitalization portion of the CRPA. While the Project will amend
the City of Arcadia's Central Redevelopment Project Plan, the CRPA, as amended,
remains subject to the requirements of the General Plan. Any new building or
construction activities will be subject to the approval of the Agency, which will evaluate
consistency with the mandatory, fundamental policies of the City's applicable General
Plan, Therefore, the Project will not cause any conflict with the enforceable provisions
of the City's General Plan. (Ibid,)
8
6232
City of Arcadia Zoning Ordinances
While the proposed Project includes the provision for up to 50 units of housing,
the current zoning within the proposed Project Area allows residential uses within
commercial zones only with a conditional use permit. As long as conditional use
permits were secured for such residential development, the proposed Project will not
create any conflict with the City's zoning ordinances. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-6.) However,
without this mitigation measure, implementation of the Project could allow construction
of up to 50 residential units in conflict with applicable zoning.
Development Review Policy
Except for single-family residential housing on an individual lot, any new
development done under the proposed Project would be subject to the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency's Development Review Program. (EIR, p. 4.1-2.) This review
considers elements such as parcel size, location of the structure on the lot (siting),
building massing, building setbacks, and site lines. (EIR, p. 4.1-2; see, generally, EIR,
p.4.1-3.) The general urban design development performance standards established in
the Implementation and Monitoring section of the City of Arcadia's General Plan apply to
such development. (EIR, p. 4.1-2.) Because new development under the proposed
Project (except for single-family residential housing on individual lots) will be subject to
the Development Review Program, the Project will not conflict with the Development
Review policies.
Airport land Use
The EI Monte Airport is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed
project area. (EIR, p. 4.5-5.) The Project is not located within the planning boundaries
for the airport. (EIR, p. 4.5-5.) Thus, the Project will not conflict with the land use and
planning for the EI Monte Airport. No other airports are in the vicinity of the Project
Area. Therefore, the Project. (EIR, p. 4.5-6.)
SCAG Regional Policies
The Southern California Association of Governments has adopted certain
policies to facilitate regional planning. In response to the Notice of Preparation for the
EIR, SCAG identified which of its policies were potentially relevant to the Project. The
Project is consistent with all relevant SCAG policies. As to SCAG's policies relating to
the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Nos. 3.01 and 3.03; the Project is
consistent because it takes into account the population, housing, and jobs forecasts
adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and the timing, financing, and location of public
facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. The Project is consistent with
relevant SCAG policies concerning Growth Management to Improve the Standard of
Living (Nos. 3.04, 3.05, 3.08, 3.09, and 3.10). The Project will assist the Agency's
efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs it seeks to attract and housing
9
6232
prices, encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduce costs of
infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities, define an economic
strategy to maintain the economic viability of the Project Area, contribute to
infrastructure improvements and the provision of services, and minimize red tape and
expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality. The Project is also
consistent with relevant SCAG policies concerning Growth Management to Improve the
Quality of Life (Nos. 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.21 and 3.23). The
Project will provide incentives to attract job growth, encourage the use of public
transportation by developing businesses within a commercial corridor already served by
public transit, maximize the use of an existing urban area through redevelopment
activities, potentially increase the density of development within a commercial corridor
already served by public transit and a major arterial, encourage a range of urban
development densities, encourage planned development in an infilllocation that is
unlikely to cause environmental impacts, encourage the implementation of measures
aimed at the preservation and protection of cultural resources and historic sites, and
encourage measures aimed at reducing noise and reducing exposure to seismic
hazards.
The Project is also consistent with relevant SCAG Growth Management policies
related to Social, Political, and Cultural Equity (Nos. 3.24 and 3.27). The Project is
consistent with the Arcadia General Plan, which includes measures ensuring the
development of affordable housing in Arcadia, and will provide support to public facilities
within the Project Area as tax increment funds allow. The Project is consistent with
relevant SCAG policies relating to Regional Transportation Plans (Nos. 4.04 and 4.16),
as it prioritizes transportation control measures and the maintenance and operation of
the existing transportation system over expanding capacity. The Project is consistent
with relevant SCAG policies relating to Air Quality Chapter Core Actions (Nos. 5.07 and
5.11). The Arcadia General Plan addresses alternatives to command and control
regulations to improve air quality, and the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
The Project is also consistent with the relevant Air Quality Management Program.
Finally, the Project is consistent with relevant SCAG Water Quality policies (Nos. 11.07
and 11.08). Mitigation measures adopted with this Project will encourage reclamation of
wastewater, and the Project's projected population is consistent with the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide growth forecast and will not require unanticipated
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Thus, the Project will not conflict with
any relevant SCAG policies. (Final EIR, pp. 4.5-6 through -9.)
2. Findings
Impacts to land use and planning will be mitigated with implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
lU1 Prior to approval, projects proposing housing in land zoned for commercial or
manufacturing uses must apply for a conditional use permit and obtain approval
from the City of Arcadia Development Services Department.
10
6232
3. Supportino Explanation
The Project's only potential conflict with existing land use and planning policies
results from the fact that the Project contemplates construction of up to 50 residential
units, but the City of Arcadia's applicable zoning for the Project Area is commercial and
prohibits construction of residential units unless a conditional use permit is obtained. Of
course, if conditional use permits are obtained for each residential unit constructed, then
the new residential development will be in compliance with the applicable zoning. By
requiring developers to obtain a conditional use permit for each residential unit to be
constructed, the mitigation measure eliminates any conflict with the zoning applicable to
the Project Area and thus mitigates this potentially significant impact below a level of
significance.
4. Cumulative Impacts
As mitigated, the proposed Project does not conflict with existing land uses, the
City of Arcadia General Plan, the City of Arcadia zoning ordinances, or any other
applicable local plans or land use regulations. Moreover, no significant alterations to
planning elements would occur and neither the Project nor its land use mitigation
measure described would impact properties outside of the Project Area. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts regarding
conflicts with land use or planning regulations. (Final EIR, p. 5.0-3.)
C. Noise
1. Potentially Sionificant Impacts - Construction Noise
Generally, demolition and construction activities resulting from development
within the Project Area would result in slight increases in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the construction site on an intermittent basis. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-7.) These
activities may pose a temporary annoyance to some adjacent residents. Noise levels
would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of
use, distance between noise source and listener, and presence or absence of barriers
between noise source and listener. (Ibid.) In residential areas where daytime ambient
noise levels may range from 50 to 60 dBA, ambient noise levels for sensitive land uses
within 400 to 800 feet could increase by more than 5 dBA. This level of change
represents a potentially significant noise impact as it approaches the maximum exterior
noise performance standard for residential housing, as set by the City's General Plan.
In commercial corridors affected by traffic-related noise, ambient levels typically
range between 65 and 75 dBA. In these areas, construction noise would likely affect
sensitive uses within 75 to 150 feet of the construction site. (Ibid.)
11
6232
2. Findinos - Construction Noise
Impacts from noise during construction will be mitigated with the implementation
of the following mitigation measure:
N1 For all new construction sponsored or funded by the Agency, within 500 feet of a
school or residence, a noise abatement program shall be developed. At a
minimum, this program shall address construction practices, hours of
construction, days of construction, signs and notification of noisy events, as well
as the designation of haul routes and staging areas away from adjacent
residences. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
3. Supportino Explanation
The mitigation measure will require implementation of an abatement program to
reduce the level of construction noise experienced by schools and residences within
500 feet of any construction site. The noise abatement program will have to take into
account the noise standards set forth in the City's General Plan. By requiring
construction noise to be abated to adhere to these standards, the construction noise
resulting from the Project will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
4. Potentially Sionificant Impacts - Proiect Operations Noise
Project operations will have a potentially significant impact on noise. Even at full
build-out, the Project will not add more than 10% to thevolume of average daily traffic of
any arterial street or add 1,000 or more vehicles in the peak hour on roadways adjacent
to the Project Area. However, mechanical equipment used within the Project at full
build-out, such as air conditioners and delivery trucks, could create a potentially
significant impact by exceeding the noise development standards adopted by the City in
the General Plan. Moreover, the Project Area is located within an area in which
ambient noise levels are already above the 60 dBA CNEL noise threshold established
by the Arcadia General Plan. Pursuant to the General Plan, when a residential use is
proposed and the 60 dBA threshold is exceeded, an acoustical analysis must be
prepared by an acoustical engineer.
5. Findinos - Proiect Operations Noise
Impacts to noise caused by Project operations will be mitigated with
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
N2 For all new construction sponsored or funded by the Agency, within 500 feet of a
residence or school, the Agency shall require that a comprehensive assessment
of stationary noise sources shall be conducted by a noise consultant or
equivalent. The assessment shall make noise abatement recommendations
regarding location of loading and trash areas, rooftop equipment enclosures,
driveway or parking lot surfaces, the location ingress and egress points away
12
6232
from adjacent residences, location of amplified sound speakers as well as the
feasibility of set back or landscape buffers, perimeter walls or berms. The overall
objective seeks either to keep project related stationary noise sources at or
below a 5-db increase at the adjacent residential property line or to keep interior
noise levels at or below 45 db. The Agency shall use site planning or other
abatement techniques to further this goal. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
6. Supportino Explanation
Mitigation Measure N2 sets a performance standard requiring the adoption of a
noise abatement program to keep the Project from exceeding the 45 dBA CNEL
maximum interior threshold for residential uses and schools set by the City's General
Plan. Thus, Mitigation Measure N2 ensures that any increase in ambient noise levels
resulting from the Project does not impact the interior noise levels of schools and
residences located within 500 feet. In this manner, Mitigation Measure N2 mitigates the
potentially significant noise impacts resulting from Project operations below a level of
significance.
7. Cumulative Impacts - Noise
Construction-related noise would be site-specific and temporary in nature.
Because this noise would be short-term and localized, and because noise dissipates
exponentially with distance, construction-related noise will not contribute to noise levels
in the area surrounding the Project or at the other project sites. Therefore, the Project's
construction-related noise impacts will not lead to cumulative noise impacts. (Final EIR,
p. 5.0-3.) Likewise, operational noise from stationary sources will not result in a
cumulatively significant impact because it is not expected to increase significantly and it
dissipates exponentially with distance. (See, Final EIR, p. 5.0-3.) As for operational
noise generated by Project traffic, the EIR's analysis of projected future traffic conditions
included traffic due to the related projects. According to this data, traffic caused by the
Project will not result in cumulatively considerable noise impacts. (Ibid.)
D. Population, Housino and Employment
1. Potentially Sionificant Impacts
As to housing, the proposed Project would merely lead to construction of 50
additional residential units over the 30-year life of the Project, which would not stimulate
growth beyond the level anticipated for the City or for the SGVCOG subregion by
SCAG. Therefore, no significant housing impacts would occur. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-2.)
As to population, the Project would create an increase in population of only 417.
This increase represents only 13% of the total population increase projected by SCAG
for the City of Arcadia. Thus, the Project will not stimulate population growth beyond
the level anticipated for the City or the SGVCOG subregion and no significant impact
will result. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-3.)
13
6232
As to future employment, the Project will lead to an increase in employment
capacity of approximately 292. That 8% growth rate is within SCAG's employment
growth forecasts for the City and the SGVCOG subregion and therefore does not
constitute a significant impact.
As to existing employment, the Project contemplates changing the development
mix in a largely developed commercial corridor. As a result, some of the businesses
currently located within the Project Area may be displaced or relocated. For purposes
of the preparation of the EIR for the Project, it was assumed that 20% of the existing
development in the Project Area may be displaced or relocated over the 30-year period
of the Project. This change, without relocation assistance or other business assistance
services, could create a potentially significant impact. (Ibid.) While CEQA does not
require mitigation measures to reduce these social and economic impacts (see, Pub.
Res. Code SS 21100(b)(3), 21150; State CEQA Guidelines S 15126.4(a)(1 )(A)), the
Agency has adopted some measures to address these issues.
2. Findinos
Impacts to population, housing and employment (potential displacement) will be
mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures:
PHE1 The redevelopment plan shall contain provisions to provide relocation assistance
to businesses displaced through redevelopment activity at comparable locations,
as well as to retain businesses and jobs within the proposed project area. (Final
EIR, p. 4.7-3.)
PHE2 The Agency shall phase and permit development in the proposed project area in
a manner that will attempt to reasonably ensure that when existing businesses
and jobs are displaced that there are offsetting opportunities in place for business
relocation in new projects as well as employment opportunities for displaced
workers. (Ibid.)
3. Supportino Expl1mation
Redevelopment of the Project Area will cause some of the businesses currently
located there to be displaced or relocated. While CEQA does not require mitigation of
these purely social and economic impacts, Mitigation Measures PHE1 and PHE2 are
intended to address the situation by requiring the Agency to provide relocation
assistance to displaced businesses, to include efforts to retain businesses within the.
Redevelopment Plan, and to phase development in a manner designed to ensure that
there will be offsetting employment opportunities for workers formerly employed by
displaced businesses. These mitigation measures will offset the Project's potential
effects on existing businesses and workers.
14
6232
4. Cumulative Impacts
Even when combined with the effects of related projects, Project-stimulated
growth in employment, housing and population is consistent with the SCAG forecasts
for the City and the SGVCOG subregion. Accordingly, the Project does not have
cumulatively considerable impacts on population, housing, or employment. (Final EIR,
p.5.0-3.)
E. Public Services
1. Potentially Siqnificant Impacts
The proposed Project will not create a significant impact to fire services, as it will
not result in the need for new or altered services or inadequate emergency vehicle
access. Given that the Project will apply the most current and stringent fire safety
requirements to all new construction and will eliminate some older buildings that may
not meet current fire codes, the Project will not increase the demand for fire services.
As to paramedic and police services, an increase in population within the Project
Area resulting from the Project could increase demand for these services. However, the
population increase is within SCAG's projected population increase for the City, and the
City has already committed, in its General Plan, to evaluate and expand public services
as necessary to keep pace with this projected growth. Moreover, the population would
increase by only 417 pursuant to the Project and the ratio of police officers to population
would increase a de minimis amount from 1.45 per 1,000 to 1.44 per 1,000. Therefore,
the Project will not have a potentially significant impact on paramedic or police services.
The Arcadia Public Library has approximately 51 ,400 cardholders and serves the
Project Area and surrounding areas. Existing capacity can handle the potential
increase in demand for library services resulting from the Project's projected increase in
population by 417 over the next 30 years. Thus, the Project will not have a significant
impact on library services. (Ibid.)
Demand for park services could be increased by the expected 417
increase in population pursuant to the proposed Project. Again, though, demand for
parks and recreation services could be met by existing capacity so that the Project has
no significant impact on park services. (Final EIR, pp. 4.8-6 and -7.)
The Project could have a potentially significant impact on schools. The
maximum housing increase that would occur as a result of the proposed Project is 50
units. Using the student generation rate of 0.4 students per housing units, local schools
would need to accommodate 20 additional students as a result of the Project. (Final
EIR, p. 4.8-6.) Consultation with the local school districts has indicated that most
schools are currently operating at or nearmaximum enrollment capacity; however, the
schools have sufficient capacity to absorb 20 additional students over the next 30 years.
(Ibid.) Increased classroom enrollment resulting in school overcrowding is not, in itself,
15
6232
a significant environmental impact under CEQA. (Goleta Union School Dist. v. Reoents
of University of Calif. (1995) 37 Cal.AppAth 1025.) Moreover, school enrollment
impacts are appropriately and fully mitigated with the payment of mitigation fees, as
indicated by the Government Code and adopted by the local entity with jurisdiction.
However, construction activity of site-specific developments within the proposed Project
Area could interfere with school activities such as student pick-up and drop-off,
evacuation routes, parking, and school bus transportation. (Ibid.) In addition, student
safety along walking routes could be affected. Significant impacts could occur as to
construction activity. (Ibid.)
2. Findinos
Impacts to public services will be mitigated by the following measures:
PS1 Proposals for site specific development will be referred to the Arcadia Fire
Department to determine projected response times to the project site and to
provide appropriate fire hazard management recommendations for inclusion by
the City as project conditions of approval. Roadways and internal circulation
systems shall be designed to accommodate fire suppression equipment with
adequate turnaround areas as determined by the Arcadia Fire Department. All
site specific development shall be provided with the water facilities needed to
meet fire flow requirements as determined by the Arcadia Fire Department.
Where necessary, existing fire hydrants are to be tested to confirm adequate fire
flows.
PS2 For agency-sponsored or funded projects the Agency shall ensure that
developers of private prepare security plans in consultation with the Arcadia
Police Department prior to approval of site-specific developments within the
proposed project area to the extent that such plans are required by the Arcadia
municipal code. The security plans should include consideration of issues such
as on-site security during construction, security lighting and surveillance
equipment for interior and exterior building areas.
PS3 Additional police personnel and equipment shall be provided as reasonably
determined by the City of Arcadia in order to maintain an adequate level of police
protection to the proposed Project Area. Sources of funding for additional
personnel and equipment could include fees generated by new development as a
result of implementation of the proposed Project.
PS4 The Agency shall coordinate with the appropriate school districts for all housing
development. If the project's impact on enrollment is shown to be significant,
based on impact criteria mutually agreed to by the school district and the City,
then mitigation measures shall be established which may include donation of
land, provision of portable classrooms, transport funding, or payment of the
statutory fee as required. (Final EIR, p. 4.8-7.)
16
6232
PS5 For proposed development located within the vicinity of a public school, the
Agency shall coordinate with the appropriate school district when the Agency's
environmental review of the development has determined that it would result in
any of the following effects:. 1) interference with student pickup/drop-off zone; 2)
closing off of streets affecting school evacuation routes; 3) reduction of on-street
parking used by school staff, visitors, or parents; 4) creation of unsafe conditions
along designated student walk routes; 5) reduction in the level of service at an
intersection adjacent to a school; 6) impeding of vehicular access to a school or
endanger students en route to and from school; or 7) detours in established
school bus routes. Coordination with the school district shall result in a
determination of appropriate mitigation measures to minimize safety and access
concerns. Measures shall include consideration of designated walk routes, prior
contractor notification, traffic controls (including crossing guards or flag persons),
modified construction schedules to reduce conflicts, safety barriers and fences,
and construction site security.
3. Supportino Explanation
The Project's only potentially significant impacts to publiC services are to school
enrollmenUfacilities and school safety. These impacts are addressed through Mitigation
Measures PS4 and PS5. PS4 requires that, when a housing development project's
impact on school enrollment is shown to be significant, the developer shall be required
provide land or materials sufficient to mitigate the potential school facilities impacts, or
to pay a school impacts mitigation fee as required by Government Code section
65995(b). Either way, the potential school enrollmenUfacilities impacts are fully
mitigated and thus reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure PS5 mitigates the Project's potentially significant impacts on
school safety. When the Agency determines that proposed development would create
potential safety or access concerns, it must determine and employ appropriate
measures to minimize these concerns. At the Agency's discretion, such measures may
include designating walk routes, requiring contractors to provide prior notification of their
work, requiring traffic controls (including crossing guards or flag persons), modifying
construction schedules to reduce conflicts, erecting safety barriers and fences, and/or
providing construction site security. Adoption of this performance standard thus
ensures that development under the Project will not create potentially significant
impacts on school safety. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure PS5 reduces this potentially
significant impact below a level of significance.
4. Cumulative Impacts
The Project will not have significant cumulative impacts on public services.
Regarding fire and paramedic services and police services, the Project will not have any
cumulatively considerable impact on these services as the related projects are served
by different service providers. While the City does have a mutual aid agreement with
the service providers serving the other jurisdictions, the increased demand on these
17
6232
service providers that will be generated by the Project's projected population growth of
417 persons is negligible and thus not cumulatively considerable. School impacts will be
fully mitigated pursuant to the Government Code provisions for school impact fees and
the performance standard ensuring school safety. Therefore, school impacts are not
cumulatively considerable. Use of library and park facilities tends to be fairly localized.
Therefore, the population increases resulting from the related projects will not create
additional demand for library or park services within Arcadia. Furthermore, the existing
library and park capacity is well able to serve the Project's projected addition of only 417
people. Accordingly, there are no cumulatively considerable impacts to library or park
services.
F. Transportation and Traffic
1. Potentially Sionificant Impacts
The proposed Project is expected to create a significant impact to traffic at the
intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. (Final EIR, 4.9-11.) The
Project is expected to generate 11 additional a.m. peak hour transit trips, 35 additional
p.m. peak transit trips, and 399 additional daily transit trips. (Final EIR, 4.9-12.)
Incremental, but not significant, impacts are forecast for the remaining nine intersections
studied in connection with the preparation of the environmental impact report for this
Project.
2. Findinos
Impacts to traffic will be mitigated with implementation of the following measure:
T1 Mitigation for the intersection of Santa Anita/Live Oak consists of restriping both
the northbound and southbound approaches to provide one left-turn lane, two
through travel lanes, and one combination through-right turn lane. This
installation would require modification of the existing roadway striping of Santa
Anita Avenue to provide an adequate traffic transition for the existing roadway.
(Final EIR, p. 4.9-13.)
3. Supportinq Explanation
To alleviate a potentially significant impact to traffic at the intersection of Santa
Anita Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, the mitigation measure requires restriping Santa
Anita Avenue to provide one left-turn lane, two through travel lanes, and one
combination through-right turn lane. When the street is reconfigured in this fashion,
traffic flows will improve, thereby' decreasing traffic ratios in the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours below the threshold of significance. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure T1 will
reduce the proposed Project's potential traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level.
(Ibid.)
18
6232
4. Cumulative Impacts
As indicated above, the EIR's analysis of projected future traffic conditions
included traffic due to the related projects as well as the proposed Project. Thus, the
analysis already encompasses potential cumulative impacts. According to this data,
there will be cumulatively considerable impacts to traffic at only one intersection, Santa
Anita Avenue at Live Oak. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T1, traffic
impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (Final EIR, p. 5.0-3.)
Consequently, with implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project will not have
any cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic.
SECTION IV
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED
TO A lEVEL OF lESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of many useful measures
outlined in the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included
herein:
A. Air Quality
1. Insionificant Air Quality Impacts
Insignificant air quality impacts are anticipated with respect to the operations
phase of the proposed Project. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-16.) When redevelopment occurs as
anticipated by the Project, the Project will cause two forms of air emissions: stationary
emissions due to energy consumption within the Project Area and mobile emissions
from vehicular traffic. The traffic report conducted in connection with the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project indicates that, at full build-out, the proposed Project would
generate an additional 8,395 daily vehicular trips. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-13.) However,
even with this level of increased traffic, emissions generated by the proposed Project
would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold for any of the four criteria
pollutants (C02, ROG, NOx, and PM1o). Therefore, Project operations will not cause
any significant air quality impacts. (Ibid.) In addition, the proposed Project will not
result in any toxic emissions or objectionable odors. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-14.)
2. Potentiallv Sionificant Air Quality Impacts
Construction-related emissions emanating from the proposed Project would be
generated by construction activities including site preparation (grading), demolition,
construction workers traveling to and from Project sites, delivery and hauling of
construction supplies to and from the Project Area, and geocombustion by on-site
construction equipment. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-12.) Daily construction emissions would
include carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), hydrogen oxides (NOx),
19
6232
sulphur oxides (SOx), and particulates (PM10). (Ibid.) The estimates of daily PM10
emissions assume the proper implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403, which applies to
any activity or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires the
use of best available control measures to suppress fugitive dust emissions. (Final EIR,
p. 4.2-13.) Nonetheless, daily emissions of PM10 caused by construction of the Project
would still exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 150 Ibs. per day. In addition,
NOx emissions estimated at 217 Ibs. per day during Project construction, which are
likely attributable to vehicle equipment exhaust, are also anticipated to exceed the
SCAQMD daily significance threshold of 100 Ibs. per day. Therefore, significant
impacts to air quality caused by Project construction are anticipated with regard to PM10
and NOx emissions. (Ibid.)
3. Findinos
Implementation of the following measures will partially mitigate impacts to air
quality with regard to construction-related emissions:
AQ1 The Agency shall ensure that best available control measures are employed to
reduce the creation of inhaleable dust particles during the construction process
for Agency-sponsored or -funded development. Developers shall use
appropriate measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, including site-wetting,
covering of haul trucks and storage piles, and periodic street sweeping. (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-15.)
AQ2 To reduce vehicle travel and related tail pipe exhaust emissions, the
Redevelopment Agency shall require that agency-sponsored or funded projects
construct or make fair share contributions to pedestrian amenities, bus shelters,
bus and transit passes, or participate in or create transportation demand
management programs. (Ibid.)
4. Supportino Explanation
Impacts due to construction activities will be minimized through the imposition of
control measures as outlined in the above-referenced mitigation measures. Fugitive
dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil, silt content, soil
moisture content, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles/equipment pieces,
depth of evacuation or disturbances, etc.). (Final EIR, p. 4.2-16.) Regulatory agencies
typically use a universal dust generation factor based on the area disturbed, assuming
that average conditions, such as soil moisture and silt content, wind speed, etc., prevail
on the site. Fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be approximately 100 Ibs. per day
per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied. (Ibid.)
The sector estimated for total suspended particulates while the ambient air quality
standard is for PM1o, which make up only a part of the total suspended particulates.
CARB estimates that 64% of construction-related total suspended particulate emissions
are PM1Q, which yields approximately 64 lbs of PM10 per acre per day. (Ibid.) This
amount is an approximate value and does not reflect site-specific conditions and
20
6232
operations. Site-watering is generally assumed to reduce this rate by 50%, and
reduction up to 90% is possible through the use of other aggressive dust control
measures. Nonetheless, even with the implementation of the above-referenced
mitigation measures, an intermittent significant impact would remain with respect to
NOx and PM10 during the construction phases of the site-specific Project undertaken as
a result of the proposed Project.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Regarding air quality impacts created by traffic, the EIR's analysis of projected
future traffic conditions included not only the proposed Project but also the related
projects considered in evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of this Project. (EIR,
p.5.0-2.) Thus, the emissions analysis for traffic for the proposed Project already
includes the Project's potential cumulative impacts. Even with these related projects
being taken into account, air quality impacts relating to future traffic conditions will not
exceed the threshold of significance. Thus, the Project will not have significant
cumulative air quality impacts relating to traffic. However, the Project will have
significant construction-related impacts to ambient levels of PM10 and NOx, and these
incremental exceedences will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.
B. Hazards
1. lnsionificant Impacts - Exposure to Tsunami or Volcanic Hazards, Creation
of Flood Hazards
The Project Area and its surrounding environs are not located in an area at risk
from volcanic hazards or tsunami. (EIR, p. 4.4-8.) The Project does not contemplate
any water development projects that would create new flood hazards. Accordingly, the
Project does not result in potentially significant impacts concerning exposure to volcanic
hazards or tsunami or creation of new flood hazards.
2. Potentially Sionificant Impacts - Exposure to Seismic Hazards
Due to its location close to the Sierra Madera fault zone and the Raymond Hill
fault zone, the Project has the potential to place persons or property at risk of known
seismic hazards because it contemplates renovating or constructing buildings in an area
that is potentially subject to seismic activity. Moreover, a small portion of the proposed
Project Area has a potential for ground liquefaction, although the Project Area does not
pose any liquefaction risks that would be considered unusual for the area.
3. Findinos - Exposure to Seismic Hazards
Impacts with respect to hazardous materials would be mitigated with
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
21
6232
H2 For site-specific development within the proposed Project Area, a geological
investigation shall be performed by a qualified geologist. The scope of the
investigation shall be developed in coordination with the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department. The geological investigation shall
reasonably address settlement, corrosive soils, ground-shaking, liquefaction, and
subsidence.
4. Supportino Explanation - Exposure to Seismic Hazards
Pursuant to the requirements of the City of Arcadia's applicable General Plan, all
buildings constructed pursuant to the proposed Project must employ building techniques
and/or standards specified in the most recent Uniform Building Code or increased
requirements as necessary to reduce geologic and seismic risks to acceptable levels.
(Final EIR, p. 4.4-7.) Mitigation measure H2 will require geological investigations to
determine what requirements are necessary for the particular parcels where
construction activity is proposed. By applying the Uniform Building Code standards
appropriate for the particular property, the mitigation measure ensures that new
buildings will be designed to resist strong ground motions approximating the Design
Basis Earthquake standards and the associated ground accelerations expected to occur
in the vicinity of the Project Area. Applying these standards will ensure that the
proposed Project, at build-out, will not expose persons or property to a known seismic
hazard. (Ibid.) In fact, because these buildings will replace existing construction and will
be built to more exacting modern standards designed to eliminate seismic risks, the
Project, with this mitigation measure, will reduce the potential for exposure to known
seismic risk below current levels.
5. Potentially Siqnificant Impacts - Exposure to Hazardous Materials
The Project contemplates renovation or demolition of buildings within the Project
Area. Due to the age of buildings within the Project Area, some of these buildings may
contain hazardous materials, human exposure to which constitutes a potentially
significant environmental impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-6 - 7.) For example, renovation
and/or replacement of asbestos-containing buildings could create a health hazard to
workers at construction sites within the proposed Project Area, as well as to residents
and employees within the vicinity of the site. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-4.) Likewise, improper
disposal of lead-based paint removed during renovation or demolition could pose a
hazard, as could disposal of PCB-containing units. (Ibid.)
6. Findinos - Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impacts with respect to exposure to hazardous materials will be mitigated with
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
H1 A Phase I type environmental assessment shall be required for all Agency-
sponsored or -funded development involving the rehabilitation or acquisition of
property. The assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental
22
6232
Assessor (REA) in accordance with applicable California standards/guidelines
and shall address hazardous interior conditions (I.e., presence of asbestos, lead
or PCBs) as well as exterior site conditions. Findings of the assessment and
redemption shall be incorporated in the conditions of approval for the proposed
development. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
7. SUDDortino Explanation - Exposure to Hazardous Materials
The Project contemplates the renovation or demolishing of buildings that may
contain hazardous materials or substances. Renovation or destruction of these
buildings creates a potentially significant environmental impact in that there is a
reasonably foreseeable potential for release or need for disposal of hazardous
materials. Mitigation Measure H1 requires a Phase I environmental assessment for all
Agency-sponsored or -funded development involving the rehabilitation or acquisition of
property. This assessment will determine whether the building to be rehabilitated or
acquired contains hazardous materials, thereby indicating whether the renovation or
demolishing of that building would pose a risk of exposure to those materials.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure H1 requires that the assessment's findings regarding
any hazardous materials detected be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the
proposed development, which ensures hazardous materials will be handled properly
and human exposure will be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation Measure H1
therefore mitigates the potentially significant impact of exposure to hazardous materials
to a less-than-significant level. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
8. Sionificant Impacts - Exposure to Extreme or Unusual Flood Hazard,
Seichino
The Project creates the potential for exposure to an extreme or unusual flood
hazard. Although the Project Area is in a location of undetermined status regarding
flood plains, the Project Area is potentially subject to inundation in the event of a dam
failure, conditions of excess precipitation, or seiching. (EIR, p. 4.4.-7.) While the risk of
any of these events occurring is extremely remote, the Project does contemplate
development in an area potentially subject to extreme inundation, and, thus, does pose
a potentially significant impact regarding exposure to extreme or unusual flood hazards
or seiching.
9. Findinos
There is no feasible mitigation measure available to eliminate the possibility that
development within the Project Area will be exposed to extreme or unusual flood
hazards or seiching. Neither the Agency nor the City owns the dam and thus neither
has the jurisdiction and authority necessary to take measures to eliminate risk of it
bursting. Obviously, the City and the Agency cannot control the amount of precipitation
that occurs. Thus, the City and the Agency are not able to mitigate the remote risk of
exposure to extreme or unusual flood hazards or seiching.
23
6232
10. Supportino Explanation
Due to the Project's location, there is an extremely remote risk of exposure to
extreme or unusual flood hazards or seiching. Because there is no mitigation measure
available to reduce this potentially significant impact below a level of significance, this
risk of exposure must be deemed a potentially significant impact.
11. Cumulative Impacts - Hazards
The Project will not have any cumulatively significant impacts regarding seismic
hazards. (Final EIR, p. 5.0-2.) To the contrary, because the development constructed
by the Project will have to meet modern, more exacting seismic standards,
implementation of the Project will actually improve the seismic safety of the construction
in the Project Area and decrease regional seismic concerns.
Nor will the Project have any cumulatively significant impacts regarding exposure
to hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials encountered during implementation
of the Project are likely to be solid materials that have been incorporated into existing
(older) construction. Because the hazardous materials likely to be present are solids
rather than gases, exposure to such materials is likely to be site-specific. (See, EIR, p.
5.0-2.) Moreover, with implementation of Mitigation Measure H1, exposure to
hazardous materials (if any) will be avoided. Therefore, the Project will not have
cumulatively considerable impacts regarding exposure to hazardous materials.
The Project will not have any cumulatively significant impacts concerning
exposure to an extreme or unusual flood hazard. While the Project contemplates
development within an area that is potentially subject to dam inundation, this is a
redevelopment project and the construction proposed will merely replace already
existing structures. Thus, the Project does not alter the regional exposure to potential
flood hazard in any way.
The Project will not have any cumulatively significant impacts regarding exposure
to an extreme or unusual flood hazard, creation of a new flood hazard, or exposure to
tsunami or volcanic hazards.
C. Utilities
1. Potentially Sionificant Impacts
The proposed Project would increase the overall demand for all utilities. (Final
EIR, p. 4.10-4.) However, as to water supply, the water demand generated by the
Project would not exceed or create a significant impact upon the supply available from
existing local infrastructure, nor will the demand be so great as to place an undue
burden on eXisting, available, or projected regional resources. The City's General Plan
indicates that the City will replace water lines, construct new parallel lines, and provide
cross-ties as necessary to maintain adequate fire flow, residual pressures, and system
24
6232
reliability. The Project will be able to be served either from existing or from this already
contemplated infrastructure, and the Project will not exceed or create a significant
impact upon the supply available from the City's infrastructure. Moreover, the Project's
incremental increase in demand for water will not be so great as to place an undue
burden on existing, available, or projected regional resources. Assuming population
growth as indicated by SCAG, by the year 2020, the City will have a water demand of
approximately 16.5 million gallons of water per day. Although implementation of the
proposed Project would increase this demand by an estimated 33,021 gallons per day,
this is only a 0.2% increase in the total future water demand, and this small amount of
additional demand will not place an undue burden on existing, available or projected
regional water resources. Thus, the Project will not have a potentially significant impact
on water supply.
As to wastewater and sanitary sewers, the demand for these facilities that the
Project will generate will not exceed or create a significant impact upon the existing
local infrastructure, nor will it be so great as to place an undue burden on existing,
available, or projected regional resources. The City of Arcadia Public Works
Department is aware of only one sewer facility deficiency at or near the Project Area,
which will be repaired. Assuming population growth as estimated by SCAG, by the year
2020, the City will generate approximately 13.8 million gallons of wastewater per day.
(EIR, p. 4.10-4.) The proposed Project would increase wastewater production by an
estimated 27,518 gallons per day. As this is only a 0.2% increase in the total future
wastewater generation, it is a negligible contribution which is well within the capacity of
existing, available or projected wastewater treatment facilities.. This minimal level of
increase in wastewater generation will not exceed or create a significant impact upon
existing local infrastructure, nor will it place an undue burden on existing, available, or
projected regional wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, there is no potentially
significant impact to wastewater generation.
As to electricity, although there are currently power supply disruptions in the
market place due to de-regulation, overall, Southern California Edison has indicated that
electricity supply is adequate to serve the proposed Project and the proposed Project
would not cause an undue burden on this utility provider. Therefore, no significant
impact will occur. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-5.)
As to natural gas, the Southern California Gas Company has indicated that it has
adequate supplies and facilities available to serve the proposed Project. Because gas
service to the proposed Project could be provided without exceeding or creating a
significant impact on existing local infrastructure or placing an undue burden on existing,
available, or projected regional gas resources, the Project does not pose any potentially
significant impact to gas resources. (Ibid.)
As to solid waste generation, according to the City of Arcadia Department of
Public Works, the increased solid waste generation caused by the Project would not be
considered significant because it would create a negligible 0.5% increase in existing
waste generation. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-4.) However, the City of Arcadia is not yet in
25
6232,
compliance with AB 939 because the percentage of its solid waste disposal diversion
has not been established to be at least 25%, as of 1995, and 50%, as of 2000, of all
solid waste from landfills and transformation facilities. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-3.) Therefore,
the incremental addition of solid waste could exacerbate the City's inability to comply
with AB 939, which will result in a potentially significant impact. (Ibid.)
2. Findinas
Potential impacts to solid waste disposal will be mitigated with implementation of
the following measures:
U1 The Agency shall require that adequate areas on-site be set aside for solid waste
source separation and collection. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-5.)
U2 For major development within the proposed Project Area, the Agency shall
require the incorporation of an on-site recycling and conservation program,
including waste management techniques and aggressive use of recycled
materials and furnishings. (Ibid.) .
3. Supportino Explanation
Although immediate significant impacts regarding solid waste disposal are not
anticipated, the incremental addition of solid waste could exacerbate the City's failure to
comply with AB 939. Mitigation Measures U1 and U2 require that Project development
set aside adequate on-site space for waste source separation and collection.
Additionally, major development within the Project Area will be required to incorporate
an on-site recycling and conservation program. These mitigation measures are both
designed to increase the amount of recyclable materials diverted from the waste
stream, and, thus, to facilitate the City's compliance with AB 939. Thus, implementation
of the above-referenced mitigation measures would render the Project's incremental
impacts to solid waste disposal less than significant. (Ibid.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
The Project will stimulate economic growth within the Project Area and result in
an overall increase in demand for utilities. However, the utility providers have indicated
they are capable of providing services to the Project Area under their existing
capacities. Regarding water supply and wastewater, many of the projects evaluated for
the Project's potential cumulative impacts will be served by a different water company,
so the Project will not have cumulatively considerable impacts on these services. (EIR,
p. 5.0-4.) Project-related impacts to electricity and gas are de minimis and therefore not
cumulatively significant.
However, the Project will have a significant cumulative impact on solid waste
generation. According to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, there is a
countywide shortage of landfill space. While the solid waste refuse collectors have the
26
6232
capacity to collect and process solid waste and recycling generated by the Project, even
the incremental increase in solid waste generation will strain the County's available
landfill resources and thus will result in a cumulatively significant impact for which there
is no feasible mitigation measure.
SECTION V
RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR address any
significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused if the proposed
Plan were implemented. An impact would come under this category if: 1) the Project
would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; 2) the primary and
secondary impacts of the Project would generally commit future generations to similar
uses; 3) the Project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental incidents associated with the Project; and 4) the proposed
consumption of resources are not justified.
The Project does not meet any of these four criteria. First, the Project will not
involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. Use of fossil fuel-derived
energy sources such as gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, and natural gas will be
necessary for the transport of workers and materials during construction. The provision
of electricity, natural gas, and fuel for vehicles during the life of the proposed Project will
also be required. Although the fossil fuel consumption associated with the proposed
Project would constitute the depletion of a resource that is irretrievable and irreversible,
the amount of resources consumed would not be of an extraordinary nature. Second,
although implementation of the proposed Project would define land uses within the
Project Area, the entire Project Area has previously been developed and is currently a
mixed-use area containing commercial and residential structures. Thus, neither the
Project nor its impacts are committing future generations to these land uses; rather,
they are pre-existing. Third, the Project contemplates only standard commercial,
manufacturing and residential development. It does not involve any uses in which
irreversible environmental damage could result from environmental incidents. Finally,
the consumption of resources by this Project is fully justified. Indeed, in enacting the
California redevelopment laws, the Legislature has sought to foster and encourage infill
redevelopment activity precisely such as this in order to combat conditions of blight,
avoid conversion of greenfields, and stimulate business activity where there is existing
infrastructure available for providing services, among other reasons. Accordingly, the
expenditure of resources on this Project is fully justified by the benefits that the
community will reap in return.
27
6232
SECTION VI
RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address
the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project. (Final EIR, p. 5.0-4.) More
specifically, that section states that the assessment of the growth-inducing impacts
discussed in the EIR must describe the "ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." (Ibid.) New employees from commercial
and industrial development, and new population from residential development,
represent direct forms of growth. However, under the State CEQA Guidelines, growth
inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significance to
the environment.
Redevelopment Projects such as the proposed Project are intended to stimulate
growth and development activity in neighborhoods and commercial areas that have
lagged behind the rest of the City and that exhibit blight and under-utilization. The City
of Arcadia, including the proposed Project area, is urbanized and developed. The
proposed Project would result in improvements to infrastructure as well as other
redevelopment activity. However, because this is an infill project, the infrastructure
would not be extended to outlying areas, and the Project would promote reuse and
redevelopment of urban land. The Project will create a marginal increase in housing
and employment. This growth is anticipated to slightly increase population in the vicinity
of the proposed Project area. Here, the increase in population in the vicinity of the
proposed Project Area is well within the level predicted by SCAG and thus there is no
significant growth-inducing impact.
SECTION VII
RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the
alternatives identified in the Final EIR as 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 technological factors
involved. An EIR only need 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
environmental 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
28
6232
which make the alternative infeasible. The Final EIR identifies the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency's objectives for the proposed Amendment No.5 to the Central
Redevelopment Plan, the major objectives of which are to implement a Project that
would serve to provide the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency with fiscal and
administrative tools to eliminate blighted and unsightly conditions, stimulate
modernization, business reinvestment and business revitalization, along with the
financing of infrastructure and other service improvements to the Project Area. (Final
EIR, p. 2.0-1.)
SECTION VIII
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
A. Alternative Proiect Location
The Central Hedevelopment Project, which the Agency now proposes to amend,
encompasses an area within the City of Arcadia. The proposed Project Area has been
selected based upon its need for redevelopment due to the existence of blighted land
uses. Thus, there is no feasible off-site alternative because an off-site location would,
by definition, fail to accomplish the Project objective of eliminating economic blight in the
Project Area. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-2.)
SECTION IX
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. No Proiect Alternative
Under this alternative the proposed plan amendment would not be approved and
the amendment to the plan would not be implemented. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-3.) If the
proposed Project is not approved, growth and development in the area of the proposed
Project is still expected to continue. (Ibid.) However, without significant public
intervention, the magnitude and level of growth that would occur is expected to be
minimal. (Ibid.) As to traffic impacts, if the Project is not approved and the amendment
to the Plan is not implemented, fewer vehicle trips over both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours would occur over the next 30 years. Therefore, traffic impacts would be
significantly lower under the No Project Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project. (Ibid.)
As to air quality and noise impacts, the No Project Alternative would result in less
traffic than if the proposed Project is implemented and therefore traffic-related air quality
emissions and noise impacts would be lower. Moreover, due to a reduced level of
construction, the potential for construction-related air quality and noise impacts would
be reduced. (Ibid.)
29
6232
As to population, housing and employment impacts, the No Project Alternative
would result in a decreased growth in population, housing and employment as
compared to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) As a result of the reduced population growth,
the No Project Alternative would lead to reduced population-driven impacts such as the
need for public services, including fire and police protection, schools, libraries and
parks, as well as the need for utility services or changes for utility infrastructure. (Final
EIR, p. 6.0-4.)
As to utilities, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced demand for
water, electricity, natural gas and a reduced generation of wastewater and solid waste
as compared to the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
While the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed
Project, it is not feasible because it would not meet the Project's objectives. Under the
No Project Alternative, the Project Area would not be amended and therefore the
Agency and City would not be provided with the physical and administrative tools to
eliminate blighted and unsightly conditions within the Project Area and to stimulate
modernization, business reinvestment and business revitalization. Likewise, under this
alternative, financing of infrastructure and other service improvements to the Project
Area would not be provided. (Ibid.)
B. Alternative 1
Under Project Alternative 1, approximately 301 ,000 square feet of development
would occur which is approximately the same square footage as the proposed Project.
Development under this alternative would include mixed-use residential. A total of 150
low to moderate income or market rate housing units could potentially be built, as
compared to the 50 units provided for by the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
As to employment, housing and population impacts, Alternative 1 would increase
the housing supply in the City of Arcadia by 150 units. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-5.) However,
these units would not exceed the FCHE forecast for housing growth for years 2020 and
beyond. Residential projects would be undertaken based upon demand for housing,
which may change over the 30-year time frame for the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Any
increase in the development of housing units under this alternative would decrease the
level of available commercial development and therefore employment and population
impacts would be reduced and no significant impacts would occur. (Ibid.)
As to impacts upon public services, Alternative 1 would lead to significant
impacts to public services, schools, libraries and parks because demand for those
services would be slightly increased as compared to the proposed Project based upon
increases in housing and population generated by the additional housing provided.
As to impacts upon utilities, Alternative 1 would decrease the impacts to solid
waste and electricity demands but would increase the impacts to demands for water
and natural gas and would increase wastewater generation. (Ibid.)
30
6232
As to impacts upon traffic, Alternative 1 would lead to less vehicle trips in the
Project Area than under the Proposed Project with the exception of outbound a.m. peak
hour trips. Therefore, overall traffic impacts would be reduced from the proposed
Project, though the marginal increase in outbound a.m. peak hour trips could increase
the level of impact during the contemplated 30-year period. (Ibid.)
As to impacts upon air quality and noise, Alternative 1 would result in an overall
decrease in traffic compared to the proposed Project. As a result, traffic-related air
quality emissions and noise impacts over the next 30 years could potentially be reduced
under this alternative. Construction-related air quality and noise impacts would be
similar to the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
CEQA Guidelines, section 15126(e)(2) requires that an environmentally superior
alternative be identified among the selected Project alternatives. From a strictly
environmental standpoint, not considering social or economic issues, the No Project
Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as compared to the proposed
Project. The No Project Alternative would substantially reduce all potentially significant
environmental impacts that could occur with the proposed Project or alternatives to the
proposed Project. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-7.) However, these impacts would not be
completely eliminated. Moreover, the No Project Alternative would not meet the
objectives of the proposed Project as identified by the Agency and the City.
Because CEQA does not allow the No Project Alternative to be identified as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, Alternative 1 has been selected as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative 1 shows a greater potential for a
reduction in traffic, air quality and noise impacts than Alternative 2 does. Moreover,
solid waste and electricity impacts have also been found to be lower under Alternative 1
than Alternative 2. (Ibid.)
Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 1 would result in mixed overall
impacts to the environment and does not offer significant environmental advantages.
Moreover, because Alternative 1's residential housing component is much larger (three
times the size) of the proposed Project's, Alternative 1 would not meet the Project
objectives of stimulating business reinvestment and business revitalization as well as
the proposed Project. Furthermore, Alternative 1 is infeasible due to specific economic,
environmental, social and technological factors in that Alternative 1 encourages the
development of up to 150 units of residential housing in an area that is zoned for
commercial and manufacturing uses. For all these reasons, the City finds Alternative 1
infeasible and rejects it.
C. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, 20% (approximately 159,000 square feet) of the existing
development in the Project Area would be demolished and replaced by new
development. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-6.) One hundred percent of the build-out capacity of
31
6232
the proposed Project Area would be realized. Under this alternative, residential
development would not be provided for, but instead all new development would be
commercial in nature. (Ibid.) Therefore, all of the available 301,000 square feet would
be developed with new or improved commercial facilities to be phased in over 30 years.
The net result over existing conditions would be an additional 142,000 square feet of
commercial development.
As to aesthetic impacts, the urban design character of the Project Area would
become more commercial in nature, and the residential component of the Project Area
would be reduced or eliminated. As to population, housing, and employment impacts,
Alternative 2 would decrease the housing growth in the Project Area as compared to the
proposed Project and would increase the population and employment growth caused by
the proposed Project over the next 30 years. (Ibid.) However, increases in population
and employment would not exceed the level predicted by SCAG and therefore would
not result in a significant impact.
As to impacts to public services, the implementation of Alternative 2 would
decrease housing growth but would increase the population and employment growth,
and therefore impacts to police services would be approximately the same for
Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed Project. Impacts to schools and parks would
be reduced because of the reduced residential use of the Project Area under Alternative
2. Impacts to fire and paramedic services, as well as libraries, could be slightly higher
under the Proposed Project because of the increased population that would be
generated in the area by Alternative 2.
As to impacts upon utilities, Alternative 2 would reduce the incremental impact to
water demands, wastewater generation, and natural gas, but would increase the impact
to solid waste and demand for electricity over the next 30 years. (Final EIR, pp. 6.0-4
and 6.0-6.)
As to impacts to traffic, Alternative 2 would result in the generation of greater
traffic trips with the exception of outbound a.m. peak hour trips. (Final EIR, p. 6.0-6 and
6.0-7.) Therefore, traffic impacts are likely to be heightened under Alternative 2 as
compared to the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
As to impacts to air quality and noise, the increase in traffic-related impacts could
increase impacts to air quality and noise as compared to the proposed Project.
Construction-related air quality noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project.
(Final EIR, p. 6.0-7.)
While Alternative 2 would further the proposed Project objectives of eliminating
blight and allowing for the physical and economic revitalization of the Project Area with
approXimately the same effectiveness as the proposed Project, it does not offer
significant environmental advantages in comparison with the proposed Project. In fact,
Alternative 2 may result in greater environmental impacts. Consequently, the City finds
that Alternative 2 is infeasible and rejects Alternative 2.
32
6232
SECTION X
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of
the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts
may be considered "acceptable."
The City hereby declares that the 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 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 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 hereby declares that, to the extent any mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation
measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that
would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this
Agency finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City further finds that except for
the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would
prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic, social and
other benefits that the City finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the
alternatives.
The City 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 has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse
impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based
upon the following overriding considerations:
. The Project will provide the Arcadia Redevelopment with physical and
administrative tools to eliminate blighted and unsightly conditions and influences
and correct environmental deficiencies in the Project Area. (Final EIR, p. 2.0-1.);
. The Project will assemble land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated
development;
33
6232
. The Project will provide for the re-planning, redesign, and development of
underdeveloped areas that are stagnant or improperly utilized;
. The Project will provide opportunities for owners and tenants to participate in the
revitalization of their properties and thus will foster a sense of community;
. The Project will provide for aesthetically pleasing and uniform development, in
conformance with current design review standards and requirements;
. The Project will strengthen the retail and commercial base in the Project Area
and this will have spillover effects on surrounding areas;
. The Project will strengthen the local economic base;
. The Project will generate additional employment;
. The Project will improve the local jobs-to-housing ratio and reduce the number of
City residents who have to commute outside the area to their jobs;
. The Project will increase sales tax revenue for the City of Arcadia;
. The Project will improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area;
. The Project will stimulate modernization in the Project Area;
. The Project will stimulate business investment and business revitalization in the
Project area; and
. The Project will provide financing for infrastructure and other service
improvements to the Project Area.
The City hereby declares that the foregoing benefits, or anyone of them
individually, 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. The City finds that each of the Project benefits outweighs the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds
those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION XI
RESOLUTION REGARDING EIR
The City finds that it has reviewed and considered the information in the Final
EIR in evaluating the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective
statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, State CEQA
34
6232
Guidelines and the Agency's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the
Agency's and the City's independent judgment and analysis.
The City declares that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City or the Agency after
circulation of the Final EIR that would require recirculation.
The City finds that the Final EIR was certified by the Agency acting as "Lead
Agency" for the Project, and further finds, confirms, and ratifies, based on the following
findings and conclusions, that the Final EIR is adequate for use by the City Council:
A. Findinos.
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and
will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (direct and cumulative), hazards (direct-
exposure to flood hazards and/or seiching), and utilities (cumulative - solid waste
disposal).
B. Conclusions.
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for
the impact(s) listed in Section A above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project which potentially
could feasibly achieve t~e basic objectives of the proposed Project have been
considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project.
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 XII
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby confirms, ratifies, and adopts the mitigation measures
and conditions identified in the Final EIR and, pursuant to section 21081.6 of the Public
Resources Code, 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 Program, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program shall control.
35
6232
SECTION XIII
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these Findings have been based are located at the Arcadia City Hall, Office of the City
Clerk/Agency Secretary, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 574-5410.
The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION XIV
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within five
(5) working days of final Project approval.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 2001
M'~ tL
City of Arcadia
ATTEST, \
2.. Ap~~
Ci lerk
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,
~~ P ~1/kL
Step en P. Deitsch
City Attorney
36
6232
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No. 6232 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 10th day of July, 2001 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Councilmember Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Kovacic
lerk of the
37
6232
EXHIBIT A
TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 6232
Final Environmental Impact Report for Amendment NO.5 to the Central Redevelopment
Plan dated June 2001
EXHIBIT B
TO
CITY COUNCil RESOLUTION 6232
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program