HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 3, 1996ANNOTATED
• A C E 111 ® A
Arcadia City Council
and
f�OOBpoaesty -''> Redevelopment Agency
Meeting
September 3, 1996
7:00 p.m.
Arcadia Council Chamber
INVOCATION Rev. Ron Fraker, Victory Chapel, Church of the ACTION
Foursquare Gospel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chief of Police, Ronnie Garner
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Young and Kuhn All present
1. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA
ITEMS.
MOTION Read Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading. Adopted 4-0
in full
2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW COUNCIL MEMBER,
GARY A. KOVACIC
Comments from Council Member Kovacic
3. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO M. spencer
ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL C. Doan
(NON- PUBLIC HEARING FIVE - MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) G. Marshall
4. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items
RECESS CITY COUNCIL
5. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn All present
a. Minutes of the August 20, 1996 regular meeting.
ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to September 17, 1996 @ 7:00 p. m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL
6. CONSENT ITEMS
a. Minutes of the August 6, 1996 joint City Council /School District
Governing Board meeting and August 20, 1996 regular meeting .
b. Recommendation to install temporary street banners on City owned
street light poles for the California Arboretum Foundation.
C. Report and recommendation to enter into an agreement with the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District to provide indemnity protection at
Puente Hills Landfill.
ACTION
Approved 4 -0
w /one abstentior
Approved 4 -0
w /one abstention
Approved 5 -0
Approved 5 -0
d. Report and recommendation to approve Final Map No. 52089 for a Approved 5 -0
14 unit residential condominium project at 314 -320 Genoa Street.
e. Report and recommendation to direct the City Engineer to file a report Approved 5 -0
with the City Clerk calling for the annexation of certain parcels benefiting
from street lights installed in the Consolidated Lighting Maintenance District.
f. Report and recommendation to approve the purchase of weapons and Approved 5 -0
less- than - lethal munitions for the Police Department from Aardvark
Technical at a cost of $36,566.
g. Report and recommendation to approve an Employment Agreement Approved 5 -0
to retain Gerald R.Gardner to complete the Library Expansion /Renovation w /gi0,000 limit
Project and provide other services as needed.
h. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5947 - A Resolution Adnpted 5 -0
of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, fixing the amount of
revenue required,to be raised from property taxes necessary for the
Fiscal Year 1996 -1997 to pay the authorized maintenance and operation
costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts.
2
7
El
10.
CITY MANAGER
a.
0
Adoption of 1996 Arcadia General Plan:
F-1
1. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5945 - a Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate for the
Adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, including required
findings and adopting a mitigation monitoring program pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act.
ACTION
2. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5946 - A Resolution Ada , 5-0
of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California approving
the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and adopting a statement of
overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Declaration of vacancy on Planning Commission - Consideration
of appointment to the Planning Commission.
C. Report and recommendation to appropriate funds to place Measure M
on the ballot for the City of Arcadia Special Municipal Election on
November 5, 1996.
d. Status Report - Street Light Conversion Project for the Upper Rancho
Area.
CITY ATTORNEY
a. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5943 - A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California Approving and
Accepting Negotiated Exchange of Property Tax Revenue Resulting
from Reorganization No. 1 -96, Parcels 1 and 2 (Detachment from
City of Monrovia, Annexation to the City of Arcadia).
Vacancy. d_�e ,.dared.:
Appointment held_,
over to 9 -17 mtg.
Approved 5 -0
Receive & file
report
Adopted 5 -0
ADJOURN to September 17, 1996 @ 7:00 p. M. Adjourned at 9:33 p.m. in memeory of:
Russell Hugh Simon
3
i
a .o•
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 3, 1996
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mohammad R. Mostahkami, Acting City Engineer AW
Prepared by: Tom A Shahbazi, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REQUEST BY THE CALIFORNIA
ARBORETUM FOUNDATION TO INSTALL TEMPORARY STREET
BANNERS ON CITY -OWNED STREET LIGHT POLES ON MEDIANS
SUMMARY
The California Arboretum Foundation is requesting permission to install approximately
thirty -six (36) double sided temporary banners on City -owned street light poles on
Baldwin Avenue (Cambridge Drive to Huntington Drive) from September 25, 1996 to
October 28, 1996. Staff is recommending approval of this request and has attached the
permit application package for City Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with City Ordinance No. 2004 which stipulates the City's conditions of
approval for the installation of temporary special event signs /banners, the applicant is
required to do the following:
Submit permit application.
2. Pay for all the fees and inspection charges associated with this permit.
3. Provide insurance and hold harmless protection to the City.
4. Submit an installation and removal plan subject to approval by the
Development Services Director.
5. Provide any other information as deemed necessary by Development
Services�Director consistent with the need to review the request of the
applicant.
The Ordinance also requires the staff transmit for City Council's consideration the
completed application with the necessary report and recommendation.
LASER IMAGED
AA0rOJF'
NAM
ADD
CIT
PF IT NO. 2 to - 97 M001
CITY OF ARCADIA
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
ENCROACHMENT PURPOSES:
1. NATURE /DESCRIPTION
2.0 LOCATION:.I�`c, X,) N
INSTALL /CONST.
PERMIT FOR:L
5. CHECK MARK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WHICH APPLIES:
INSURANCE: �� 1. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE WITH '$
COMBINED BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE NAMING
THE CITY OF ARCADIA AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED.
( COPY ATTACHED) * ti k Y) �4_C \ �,� .
OR ��� `L
2. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT (SIGNED COPY ATTACHED).
DATE: 19 e SIGNED BY: l / /1�E'_ „I =/ .- f%W (,e
�^ (.APPLICANT) j
FOR CITY USE ONLY RECEIPT NO. 9470 DATE:
1. PARKWAY WIDTH: y1rlet 6:A M// (d, 40 (Z,
2. REMARKS: Ca lr*pri1 iw Nr(�Of"G7�rr� OVndcr fro h /S reCDan.l'i JC
L•9s 24, // 4 2� r a C,,. cl rc m &y c,/ o.c cLCU In 4CL 0111 ri 4, e- 71n -AA e- o A-S4, &4 o •�
6F -I% e- S_e,_VJ C.-ed _ D_ir -e-ch _-, 1 _)..t_ _cam 11= v
'0 7
i Lr
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY:
DATED:
19
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
NOTE: 1. Permittee is required to notify Engineering Inspector at
(818)574 -5490 24 hours prior to start of work.
2. Permit,�ee will be billed monthly for inspection of public
improvements (off -site work) with minimum of half hour
(1/2) per inspection.
*Subject to approval by City Attorney.
CC: Ron Carle
Engineering Inspector
File
Exhibit "A”
Revised: 2/95
NA
-W - ik
0
%"� 27 � 19 9 b
a � 7 3 " �ou�,�atton
� g � �a prbo�tium
0
SOO
Benefidr� �e �° q,
�Xhlblt `
.r
VOW
f�cORPORATtO.
STAFF REPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
August 26, 1996
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James S. Dale, Director of Administrative Services IlJ
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 5947 - Fixing the Amount of Revenue Required to Be Raised
from Property Taxes Necessary for the Fiscal Year 1996 -97 to Pay the
Authorized Maintenance and Operation Costs of the City Lighting & Parking
Districts
SUMMARY
The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 to establish Lighting
Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts (Exhibit "A ") were
formed pursuant to the Street Lighting Act of 1919 (Division 14 of the California Streets
and Highways Code Section 18,000 et. seq.) to provide a source of revenue for the cost
of power, maintenance and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The
City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs
collected from the property owner from funds derived from a tax applied to land values.
The City also formed two (2) Parking Districts in the downtown area,(Exhibit "B ") in
accordance with the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. Funding for the maintenance
of these districts is derived in part from property assessments and in part from
contributions from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency.
DISCUSSION
Each year, a resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from
property taxes to pay the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting
and Parking Districts.' This information is the basis for establishing tax rates which are
forwarded to L A County and applied to properties in the specific districts. A separate
schedule (Exhibit "C ") is attached to provide expanded detail of assessed valuations,
beginning balances, estimated expenditures and the proposed tax rate for FY 1996 -97 for
the districts identified.
4)? rd e_d LASER IMAGED
,--� 6 A/. 4 4,
can
The proposed tax rates are impacted by the additional costs associated with major
replacement of obsolete equipment. Where major replacement cost are anticipated, the
proposed rates attempt to capitalize such costs over a fixed period rather than recover
them through a single year rate increase. Capitalizing the costs over an extended period
avoids significant rate fluctuations in any particular year.
Attached also is a report from the Development Services and Maintenance Services
Departments which identifies the annual operating costs as well as the cost to replace
obsolete equipment. These costs serve as the basis for establishing the proposed rates.
FISCAL IMPACT
The rates established for Fiscal Year 1996 -97 will recover the costs eligible for
reimbursement within the established districts.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve Resolution No. 5947, fixing the amount of revenue required to be
raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 1996 -97 to pay the authorized
maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts.
Approved:
William R. Kell
�. Y
City Manager
JSD:mlp
See attachments.
�I 2
641 to
°R'°°mot' STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 3, 1996
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator 61)/.
SUBJECT: Resolution 5943 - a joint resolution of the City Council of the Cities of
Monrovia and Arcadia, approving and accepting negotiated exchange of
property tax revenue resulting from "Reorganization No. 1-96, Parcels 1
and 2" (Detachment from City of Monrovia, Annexation to City of
Arcadia) 41
SUMMARY .
Attached for the City.Council's consideration is Resolution 5943, a joint resolution of the
City of Monrovia and the City of Arcadia approving and accepting the negotiated
exchange of property tax revenue resulting from Reorganization No. 1-96, Parcels 1 and 2
(detachment from the City of Monrovia and annexation to the City of Arcadia). [See
Exhibit A.]
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In October, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a request filed by
Bluth Development for a City Boundary Reorganization between the City of Monrovia
- and the City of Arcadia. The City Council approved the request and directed staff to
prepare the appropriate resolution consenting to the annexation and the appropriate
ordinance zoning the property R-M (Residential Mountainous).
• i
On November 21, ; 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution 5883 recommending
approval of a boundary reorganization between the City of Monrovia and on December 5,
1995, adopted Ordinance 2041 zoning the subject property to R-M (Residential
Mountainous).
The boundary reorganization consists of approximately 2.56 acres of undeveloped
property located east and south of Tract 42936 (Whispering Pines Phase II in the City of
Arcadia). The organization is comprised of three distinct areas:
j r Resolution 5943 Report
o. p S y V-3 4do,7kP� September 3, 1996
Page 1
•
.
1._
Area 1 are "sliver" lots which were daylighted (graded) by Mr. Bluth, with approval from
the City of Monrovia, as part of Tract 42936. There are three distinct graded areas which
are part of the vacant adjacent lots 15, 16 and 17 of Tract 42936. These are not buildable
areas.
Area 2 is a point lot which was graded after the Monrovia Planning Commission granted
approval in 1989. It is currently vacant and access to the Lot is through Lot 20 of Tract
42936 in Arcadia. There is no available access in Monrovia.
Area 3 is a new lot which was graded as part of the Whispering Pines Phase II
subdivision in Arcadia. This parcel is located in Monrovia and is part of an existing lot
which has two distinct pads at different elevations. The lower building pad will remain in
Monrovia and the upper pad which contains approximately 0.92 acres is proposed to be
annexed to Arcadia through an easement on Lot 22 of Tract 36895 (Whispering Pines
Phase I development in Arcadia.
As noted above, all properties to be annexed are vacant, however, the boundary
reorganization will eventually result in the construction of two new dwellings.
Mr. Bluth has filed the request for municipal reorganization ("Reorganization No. 1-96,
parcels 1 and 2") with LAFCO (the Local Agency Formation Commission).'In order to
proceed with the processing of the reorganization, both the Arcadia and Monrovia City
Councils must adopt a resolution providing for the exchange of property tax revenue.
Upon adoption,the resolutions will be forwarded to LAFCO for further processing.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be a property tax revenue transfer to the City of Arcadia in the amount of
$197.00 from the City of Monrovia in the fiscal years beginning July 1, 1997, which are
attributable to the subject properties. In addition, for each fiscal year commencing July 1,
1997 or the July 1 after the effective date of the jurisdictional change, a portion of the
annual tax increment attributable to the Tax Rate Areas with this area shall be transferred
from the City of Monrovia to the City of Arcadia. The formula is set forth in Resolution
5943..
Jim 'Dale, Administrative Services Director has reviewed the proposed Resolution arid-
concurs with the figures set forth in said resolution.
Resolution 5943 Report
September 3, 1996
Page 2
•
• ( `tom
i
t A
RECOMMENDATION
that the City Council adopt Resolution 5943, a joint resolution of the City Council of the
Cities of Monrovia and Arcadia, approving and accepting negotiated exchange of
property tax revenue resulting from "Reorganization No. 1-96, Parcels 1 and 2"
(Detachment from City of Monrovia,Annexation to City of Arcadia).
Attachments: Resolution 5943
Map of Subject Properties
Approved by:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
. i
I ,
Resolution 5943 Report
September 3, 1996
Page 3
SY Oh �-'.3 / C- \
�� N
t Y 4•
• ARCAD s
STAFF REPORT
Rf'ORA'Tg�
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 3, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration of (1) Resolution 5945 certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report SCH No. 95121059, including required findings and a
mitigation monitoring program; and (2) Resolution 5946 approving the
1996 Arcadia General Plan and adopting a statement of overriding
considerations
SUMMARY
Attached for the City Council's consideration are:
• Resolution 5945 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate for the
adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, including findings and adopting a
mitigation monitoring program; and
• Resolution 5946 approving the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and adopting a statement
of overriding considerations pursuant to he California Environmental Quality Act.
• Exhibit A - Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations
• Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Program
On July 8 and July 10 the City Council held public hearings on the General Plan Update
and related Draft Environmental Impact Report As part of the public hearing process,
the City Council considered the recommendations of the Planning.Commission and made
modifications to the Planning Commission's recommendations relating to Transition
Area 1.
The City Council at its July 16 meeting considered the EIR and the General Plan and
directed the Development Services Department staff to:
(1) finalize the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and circulate the responses to
comments to the commenting agencies; and
95 gp\9-3 ccstaff report GP Final EIR Report
Page 1
o 7.4;1 a✓'-S September 3 1996
6-5' Y��" a«u/ S9 y 6. �.s'=o ud*>
(2) revise the wording on the General Plan per the recommendations of the City Council.
On August 9, the "Responses to Comments" were delivered to all commenting agencies
per Public Resources Code Sections 21092.5 and on August 13, copies were delivered to
the City Council for their review.
The revised General Plan was distributed to the City Council on August 26, 1996.
The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council adopt
Resolutions 5945 and 5946.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council in March, 1995 authorized the Development Services Department to
begin work on the General Plan. After almost one and a half years, this assignment has
been completed. The 1996 Arcadia General Plan with the revisions recommended by the
City Council during their hearing process, is being presented to the City Council for
adoption. However, prior to taking any action on of 1996 Arcadia General Plan, the City
Council must certify the Final EIR as described below.
The 1996 Arcadia General Plan document delivered to you on August 26 was revised to
reflect City Council direction during the deliberation process. If the City Council
approves the document and the related Resolutions including the findings, statement of
overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program, the Council should move
to adopt Resolutions 5945 and 5946 as set forth below.
ACTION
Final EIR- City Council Motion
Motion .
The City Council should .move-ro adopt- Resolution 5945, a Resolution of the City
Council=lof<the-:City.of sArcadia-.certifying':the, Final Environmental Impact Report as
adequate fot"the,;adoptiont.ofthe 1996 Arcadia:General Plan including required findings
• and adopting a'niitigatiot monitoring..irogranz-,pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act.
95gp\9-3ccstaff report a ` GP Final EIR Report
Page 2
September 3, 1996
\
General Plan
Motion
The City Council should move to adopt Resolution 5946, a Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Arcadia approving the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and adopting a
statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Attachments: Resolutions 5945 and 5946
Exhibit A - Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Program
Approved by ii //6'(,r/
//X;
William R. Kelly, City Manager
/1
�1
i�
•
95gp\9-3 ccstaff report GP Final EIR Report
Page 3
September 3, 1996
g
e. /9. 1q
•
•
•
�J 1 5945
•
•
\ „ _„5-_,0
, ,,VS”
S
RESOLUTION 5945
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
CERTIFYING.THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS
ADEQUATE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL
PLAN, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arcadia ("City") has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for a comprehensive amendment of the Arcadia General
Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections
21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act(14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.) ("State Guideline "), and
procedures adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia("City CEQA Procedures"), ielating
to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and
WHEREAS, the comprehensive amendment of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan (Ex ibit C)
is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Ac ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is also the Planning Agency in the consideration of such
matters; and
WHEREAS, agency consultation letters were sent to public agencies in July, 1995 to obtain
input as to whether an EIR should be prepared for the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation was distributed on Decem er 26,
1995 indicating that a Draft EIR was required and inviting comments from Responsible Aglencies,
public agencies and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Notice of Preparation was distributed on January 8. 1996
documenting revisions to the project description; and
WHEREAS, comments that were reviewed during the Notice of Preparation period have
been appropriately addressed as part of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a community workshop was held on the update of the General Plan n May
17, 1995; and
-1- 5945
I' r
R
. 1
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1995, a joint public workshop with the Planning Commission and
City Council was held to discuss the formulation of alternatives to be addressed in the EII , and
comments reviewed during the meeting were considered in formulating the alternatives t at are
presented in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 95121059) was prepared in
compliance with CEQA to address the environmental effects of the comprehensive amendment of
the Arcadia General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft E R and
thereafter, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft EIR to th State
Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the
Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, requesting comments of such persons and
agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been publicly noticed for the required forty-five (41) day
public review period from February 21,1996 through April 5, 1996, and was extended by the City
through April 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, response to comments were delivered to public agencies commenting qn the
Draft EIR on August 9, 1996, at least ten(10) days prior to consideration of this Resolution y the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Final EIR, incorporating the City's responses to comments on the Draft EIR,
has been submitted to the City Council as part of the Report to the City Council, pertaining to the
1996 Arcadia General Plan; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on April 29, April 30,
May 14, May 16, May 30 and June 25, 1996 on the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and the EIR,
following duly and regularly given notice as required by law, and all interested persons expressing
a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments
thereon and responses thereto have been considered; and
WHEREAS, after review of the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
1535 on June 25, 1996 recommending that the City Council adopt the 1996 Arcadia General Plan
with certain revisions and certify the EIR; and
-2- 5945
J r
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the City Council on July 8 and July 10, 1 96, on
the Arcadia General Plan EIR, following duly and regularly given notice as required by law, and
all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and EIR in public
session on July 16, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and evaluated the Final Environmental Impact
Report and all comments thereon and responses thereto and determined it to be adequate, complete,
and in compliance with CEQA, State Guidelines, and City CEQA Procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Final EIR for the Project consists of:
1. The Draft EIR. This document includes the complete text of the Draft EI . and
Appendices, Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and comments received on the proposed sc pe of
the Draft EIR from interested persons, organizations, and public agencies;
2. The Response to Comments. This document includes comments and recommend tions
received on the Draft EIR during the public review period; official City responses to all corn ents
and suggestions; and a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR.
3. The July 18. 1995 Alternatives Assessment Report. This document identifies three
strategies for managing the future of the City of Arcadia. The intent of the report was to document
existing community issues which need to be addressed as part of the 1996 General Plan process;
provide general policy direction to City staff in the development of General Plan policies,
programs and implementation measures; and evaluate and discuss the range of poLtial
alternatives as required by CEQA.
Section 2., Review and Independent Judgement. The Final EIR reflects the independent
judgement and analysis of the City and that:
1. The Final EIR for the 1996 Arcadia General Plan has been completed in compliance
with CEQA as well as State Guidelines and City CEQA Procedures.
-3- 5945
F \
r , �,
).
2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the City
Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to app-oving
said project; and
3. The City contracted with the environmental consulting firm of LSA Associates, nc. to
assist the City in preparing the EIR; that all work done by the consultant was review d and
analyzed by City staff, including the Community Development Division, City Attorney, and the
City's special legal counsel. In addition, the City's traffic consultant reviewed and analyzed all
consultant traffic work efforts.
4. All documents and records which constitute the records and proceedings, are currently
located in the Community Development Division of Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia.
Section 3. Findings of Fact. The City hereby makes the following findings set forth in
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated fully by this reference for each of the potential
significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and further approv s the
Environmental Findings of Fact set forth in Exhibit "A." Based on such Environmental Findings
of Fact, the City Council hereby finds:
1. That, based upon the information set forth in the Final EIR and the findings set forth as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated fully by this reference, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the following
significant adverse environmental effects below a level of significance: land use and pl nning
considerations, population and housing; earth resources (partially); water resources; bioll gical
resources; mineral resources (partially); cultural/scientific resources; aesthetics (partially); traffic
and circulation (partially); noise; public health; public services and facilities; and recreation; and
2. That, based upon the information set forth in the Final EIR and the Environmental
Findings of Fact set forth as Exhibit "A" and incorporated fully by this reference, significant
unavoidable impacts will still remain from: primary and secondary hazards resulting from reiional
seismic activity, loss of access to significant mineral resources underlying the vacant parcel
adjacent to the Livingston-Grahm quarry; existing and projected traffic volumes on Michillinda
Avenue between Sunset and Colorado Boulevards will exceed the Citywide Criteria of LOS D; Air
-4- 5945
r - I
1
pollutant emissions in excess of identified SCAQMD thresholds; significant localized visual
impacts to land uses adjacent to the Transition Area 1 and existing views from Huntington Drive;
and availability of water supply to accommodate projected growth within the City and legion,
since the City cannot control implementation of all mitigation strategies outlined in the Upper San
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and MWD Urban Water Management Plans and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth on pages 65 through 71 of Exhibit 'A" is
proposed for adoption in the Resolution approving adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan.
3. That the final 1996 Arcadia General Plan document as directed by the City Council does
not raise any environmental issues not addressed in the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit "A. '
Section 4. The City hereby adopts as the official mitigation monitoring program I r the
project the Mitigation Monitoring Program as set forth in Exhibit "B" and incorporated fully by
this reference.
Section 5. Upon approval and adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, the Com unity
Development Administrator is hereby instructed to file a Notice of Determination with the C unty
Clerk of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to the provisions of Section.21152 of the ublic
Resources Code and the State Guidelines and City CEQA Procedures adopted pursuant here o.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Arcadia at a regular meeting
held on the 3rd day of Sept , 1996, by the following roll call vote.
fSlBAR D. HN
Mayor of the BARA City of Arcadia KU
ATTEST:
ISI JUNE D. ALFORD
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney of theCity of Arcadia
-5- 5945
r .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5945 adopted by the City
Council of the City of Arcadia, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd da' of
sep tembe 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/S/ JUNE D. ALFORD
June D. Alford, City Clerk
-6- 5945
//\
R:N,SOL,UTIOI� 5946
r 57) C -10
■
•
�� S '/G
c
RESOLUTION 5946
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS,updating the City's General Plan has been a long-term goal of the Development
Services Department; and
WHEREAS,the City's last General Plan update was completed in 1990 and the last technical
studies were completed in the 1970s and do not adequately reflect the current land uses, noise ssues,
and circulation patterns within the City and its sphere of influence. In addition, since 1990 there
have been changes in State laws relating to required information which have been incorporated in
the new 1996 Arcadia General Plan; and -
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 15, 1995, authorized the Development Services
Department to proceed with a comprehensive amendment to the General Plan and enter into a
professional services agreement with LSA Associates, Inc. for the preparation of the 1996 Arcadia
General Plan (the"1996 General Plan") and related Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS,the City of Arcadia(the "City") has prepared an Environmental Impact report
(the "EIR") for a comprehensive amendment of the Arcadia General Plan pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA'), the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California C de of
Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.) (the "State Guidelines"), and procedures adopted by the City
Council of the City of Arcadia("City CEQA Procedures"), relating to environmental evaluation of
public and private projects; and
WHEREAS, a community workshop was held on the General Plan on May 17, 1995; and
WHEREAS, a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on
July 19, 1995 to discuss General Plan alternatives; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on April 29, April 30,
May 14, May 16, May 30, and June 25, 1996 on the Arcadia General Plan and General Plan EIR,
-1- 5946
following duly and regularly given notice as required by law, and all interested persons ex pressing
a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard; and
WHEREAS, after review of the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Re olution
1535 on June 25, 1996 recommending that the City Council adopt the 1996 Arcadia Gene al Plan
with certain revisions and certify the EIR; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the City Council on July 8 and July 10, 1.96, on
the 1996 Arcadia General Plan and EIR, following duly and regularly given notice as reqLired by
law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been
heard, and the Final EIR and all comments thereon and responses thereto have been considered,
including Planning Commission Resolution 1535, and;
WHEREAS,the proposed Draft General Plan document and EIR were available for public
review at the following locations:
Arcadia Community Development Division
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California
Arcadia Public Library
240 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, California
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code, the State Department of Housing
and Community Development(HCD)reviewed the Housing Element of the Draft General Plan and
changes pursuant to the comments made by HCD were considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(g) and 2762(b) (c),
applicable sections of the Draft General Plan were distributed to the Division of Mines and Geology
of the State Department of Conservation for review; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mines and Geology of the State Department of Conse ation
did not provide comments in regard to the Draft General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, the proposed action h s been
referred to the appropriate entities on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Mailing List on file
in the office of the Community Development Division and the City Clerk's office,and incorporated
-2- 5946
•
,
•
fully by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the final 1996 General Plan and all its constituent parts are properly inte•rated,
internally consistent and compatible; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to State Government Code Section 65400(b)requiring an annual report
to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and its implementation, the General Plan
includes an annual General Plan Review and Update Program as an integrated component of the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of this date herewith has adopted a Resolution
certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) relating to the comprehensive
amendment of the Arcadia General Plan is complete and adequate and that the Final EIR was
completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines, and the City CEQA procedures' and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia a d the
Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approvi g the
1996 Arcadia General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of this date herewith adopted a Resolution
making certain findings regarding the environmental effects of the proposed General Plan; a d
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the Final EIR and has considered the information
and public testimony presented in the public hearings and in the proposed documents and staff
reports, all of which are included in the public record and incorporated herein by reference, prior to
acting on the 1996 Arcadia General Plan itself.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearings, within the staff report,
and within the 1996 Arcadia General Plan document and the Final EIR, the City Council adopts a
comprehensive amendment to the Arcadia General Plan, subject to the conditions set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program, (Exhibit B to the Resolution certifying the Final EIR).
Section 2. Specific economic, social, or other considerations as described on pages 59
through 63 of Exhibit"A".which are incorporated fully by this reference,make infeasible the Project
alternatives identified in Chapter 5, pages 5.6 through 5.36 of the Final EIR.
-3- 5946
ti
Section 3. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed 1996 Arcadia General
Plan project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the 1996
Arcadia General Plan, and has determined that the benefits outweigh the significant effects which
are not substantially mitigated, and finds that such adverse environmental effects are acceptable, as
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth on pages 65 through 71 of Exhibit
"A" and incorporated fully by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, California, held on the 3rd day of Sept, 1996.
. KUHN
/S/BARBARA
Mayor City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
/Sl JUNE D. ALFORD
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7rit41,4
l
City Attorney of the City of Arcadia
-4- 5946
J
j y
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, California, hereby certify t at the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5946 adopted by the City Council of th- City
of Arcadia, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of Septembgrl9°6, by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
IS! JUNE D. ALFORD
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
-5- 5946
•
•
•
•
. • . • . , _ . •�XHIBIT. A . .
- .
..
. . .
. . . . . . •
, . .. :. , , . . . . ,
. , ,. .
. . ,
. . . . .
. .
. , .
• .
. .
, .
__
. ..
•
..
. ,
., . . . •
. . _, .
. .
.. _. .
,• : • • _ . . , . ,
• .
• ,
•
. .
, . , .
. . •, , , , . , . ._. .
, .
•
.. . . . ... . , • ., , . -
, . , _ .. ,
, .
• .
. ,
. . .
. .
• .
•
. ,
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 1996 ARCADIA GENE L
PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS. AND
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPEiCT
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
•
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public
Resources Code Section 21081.0, the City of Arcadia cannot approve a project for
which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would-occur if the project is approved or
carried out unless both of the following occur:
1. The City makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each
significant effect:
a) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on he
environment§21081.(a)(1).
b) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and
should be, adopted by that other agency§21081.(a)(2).
c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other cons d-
erations, including considerations for the provisions of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report§21081.(a)(3).
2. Where a finding is made pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.(a)(3), the
City further finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects
on the environment.
EXHIBIT "A"
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
•
EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
•
Land Use and Planning Considerations
Conflicts with General Plan Designations and Zoning
The primary purpose of the 1996 General Plan project is to assess the land use desi,
nations of the existing General Plan, and to modify those designations as necessary to
balance maintenance of existing levels of public services with environmental and
community constraints. Due to the developed nature of the study area and the stable
nature of the community, the General Plan and zoning designations of the majority of
the City, including the single family residential neighborhoods, will not be modified
by the 1996.General Plan. Modifications to the land use designations of the proposed
1996 General Plan will be primarily limited to: 1) downtown, 2) the Santa Anita race
track's southerly parking area, and 3) multiple family land use designations to estab-
lish maximum allowable densities of 12 or 24 dwelling units per acre in the various
portions of the City currently designated for multifamily use. Modification of land
uses within these two areas is included in the 1996 General Plan. Where the 1996
General Plan will place more differing intensities of land use adjacent to each other,
performance standards and/or buffering requirements are established. Thus, conflicts
are not anticipated to occur.
Impacts on Agricultural Resources or Operations
There are no known agricultural resources within the City of Arcadia and its sphere of
influence.
•
Direct Land Use Impacts:Santa Anita Race Track Transition Area
•
-The 1996 General Plan would permit development of new commercial uses in the area
south of the racetrack grandstands and east of the mall. The Community Development
Chapter of the proposed 1996 General Plan permits commercial uses that "should add
to and enhance the range of existing retail(mall)and entertainment(racetrack) uses."
New development within this Transition Area is intended by the General Plan to
create vehicular and pedestrian links between the racetrack, new
commercial/entertainment uses,and the mall.
The potential development area identified in the 1996 General Plan for this Transition
Area is physically separated from existing residences by the Santa Anita Park race-
track, Fashion Park Mall, and the wide expanse of Huntington Drive. Required set-
backs from the roadway provide further buffering. As a result, disruption of residen-
tial uses arising from direct impacts from development within the Race Track Transi-
tion Area.
•
•
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 2
•
•
1 J
•
• Direct and Indirect ,Land Use Impacts: Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive
Transition Area
As identified in the 1996 General Plan, land use designations within this transi ion
area are being modified to reflect the area's transition from industrial to commercial
land uses. The majority of the transition area will be designated Mixed Use-Com-
mercial/Multiple Family Residential (C/MFR). Land use designations «ithin this
transition area will not substantially alter the existing land use pattern within this
portion of the City. The potential for significant indirect land use impacts has not
been identified in the other topical sections of the Final EIR. where implementation of
General Plan requirements is considered. Thus. land use impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan as they affect the Santa Clara Street/Huntington
Drive Transition Area are below the level of significance.
Direct and Indirect Land Use Impacts: Downtown Residential Transition Area
The 1996 General Plan continues the trend of land use conversion from single to
multiple family uses in the downtown area, which has been well established and was •
recognized under the previous General Plan. The effect of the 1996 General Plan is to
establish maximum allowable intensities within the areas designated for multiple
family use, replacing the previous 7+ du/ac land use designation. Land se
'designations within this transition area are consistent with existing zoning, and N. ill -
not substantially alter the area's existing land use. The potential for signific nt
indirect land use impacts has not been identified in the other topical sections of t e
Final EIR. Thus, land use impacts associated with the implementation of the 19 6
• General Plan as it affects land use within the Downtown Residential Transition Ar a
are below the level of significance.
•
Direct Land Use Impacts:Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
The 1996 General Plan retains the existing Industrial land use designation and t e
existing/past land use type that existed within 85 acres of this area from 1967, until t,e
cessation of mineral extraction activities in 1990. Reclamation of a depleted sand a d
gravel quarry remaining from mineral extraction operations is an appropriate u e
within the Industrial land use designation under both the previous General Plan a d
the 1996 General Plan.
In order for industrial development to occur, the existing pit will need to be filled a d
reclaimed. The City of Arcadia has approved CUP No. 92-003, including .n
•
Operations Plan,and Reclamation Plan,and certified a Final EIR(Rodeffer Final EI• )
for the fill operation. The inert landfill operation will occur over a relatively lo g
period(8-12 years),and was therefore analyzed in the Final EIR as an interim land u e
for the northern portion of the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area.
•
As identified in the proposed 1996 General Plan, the design concept for this transition
area requires access to be taken from Lower Azusa Road;.no direct access is to be
permitted from existing residential streets. A transition from the adjacent residential
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 3
•
4
•
uses would be achieved utilizing physical and visual buffers, such as intesratine a
system of building setbacks and landscaped berms located in such a manner as to
visually shield the adjacent industrial development from adjacent residential. Thus,
direct land use impacts from the ultimate industrial use of this transition area are
anticipated to be less than significant.
The direct impacts of an inert landfill within the former Rodeffer quarry site in the
Lower Azusa Road Transition Area will be similar to the impacts allowed under the
approved CUP for the quarry operation occurring between 1967 and 1990. As noted
above, the 1996 General Plan requires that access to this transition area be taken from
Lower Azusa Road, and that no access be taken through residential neighborhoods.
This requirement is also incorporated into the approved CUP for the reclamation of
the quarry pit. In addition, the physical and visual buffers required in the 1996 Gen-
eral Plan (setbacks and berm) are also required for site reclamation. With implemen-
tation of these 1996 General Plan provisions, direct land use impacts are anticipated to
be less than significant.
Direct and Indirect Impacts: Balance of Incorporated Area
Land use designations identified in the 1996 General Plan for the balance of lands
• within the City of Arcadia correspond to, and are consistent with, existing land uses.
The only new development that is anticipated to occur within these areas will be
upgrading of commercial buildings, limited multiple family development within areas
already designated and planned for such uses, and approximately 12 new residential
dwellings in the hillsides of north Arcadia. Because new development within those
portions of the City that are outside of the four transition areas will consist of limited
infill development that has long been planned and is consistent with adjacent land
uses, the land use impacts of future development within these areas are considered to
be insignificant.
Direct and Indirect Impacts: Sphere of Influence
Land use designations identified in the 1996 General Plan for Arcadia's sphere of
influence correspond to, and are consistent with, existing land uses and the existing
General Plan designations of the County of Los Angeles. As a result of this consis-
tency, adoption of the proposed land use designations within the City's sphere of
influence will have no land use impacts.
The 1996 General Plan does not identify any changes to land use designation within
the portions of the City adjacent to the sphere of influence; thus, there will be no
compatibility impacts to existing land uses within the sphere of influence as a result of
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
Population and Housing
Exceedence of Adopted Population and Housing Forecasts
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) ' 4
•
As evidenced by the comments of the Southern California Association of Go‘.rn_
ments(SCAG). the growth that would be permitted by the 1996 Arcadia General Elan
is consistent with regional growth forecasts.
Displacement of Existing Housing
The intensification of residential development intensities in the downtown area has the
potential to displace existing housing. However, the 1996 General Plan provides for
the replacement of existing affordable housing, as well as for new housing to meet the
needs of all economic segments of the community. Thus, displacement of existing
housing is not considered to be a significant effect of the 1996 General Plan.
Earth Resources
Soil,Slope and Geologic Hazards
Although the 1996 General Plan will allow limited future hillside residential develop-
ment on currently undeveloped land located in the northernmost portion of the C ty,
below the San Gabriel Mountains, such hillside development would also occur in the
future under the existing General Plan. Grading and building requirements for hills de
areas are outlined within the City's Residential Mountainous Single Family zo-ie,
outlined in Article 9, Chapter 21, Part 5, Division 0, et seq, of the Arcadia Municipal
Code. Implementation of these standards will mitigate potential hazards.
The Water Resources Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix C of the Fi al
EIR identifies the pumping of groundwater from local aquifers as the primary method
of obtaining potable water for the City. Although the depth of the groundwater table
ranges from approximately 150 to 300 feet below the surface, as pumping of wa er
from the San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins increases, the potential or
local subsidence to occur may increase. However, the Raymond Basin Managem nt
Board and Main San Gabriel Basin Master Water Boards have established"safe yieli"
for extraction that limits the total amount of water that can be pumped from the basins,
as well as lower limits of water table elevations. Compliance with the safe yield limit
prevents significant subsidence from occurring.
Compliance with Article 9, Chapter 2, Part 5, Division 0, et seq., the 1994 Unifotp
Building Code and Development Performance Standard 41 of the proposed 1996
General Plan which requires site specific technical assessments and mitigation of solil,
slope and geologic hazards for new development to reduce potential effects of non-
seismic hazards to less than significant levels.
Known Slope Instability
The 1996 General Plan will allow for future industrial uses to be located within the
existing quarry site in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area. Prior to construction of
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 5
•
any structures on :ire site, the Rodeffer property IA ill have to be completely tilled.
Additionally, future industrial structures constructed on top of the till material could
be subjected to the effects of settlement, which could potentially occur if the landfill
materials are not properly compacted. However, proper standards for compaction are
provided in the approved Reclamation Plan for the site. Filling of the quarry pit has
previously been approved by the City (Conditional Use Permit No. 92-003), and the
environmental effects of this operation have been evaluated in the Rodeffer Inert
Landfill FEIR (City of Arcadia, 1994.) Existing mitigation measures have been
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Lund/ill
(City of Arcadia and Engineering-Science, 1993) to prevent slope failure, erosion, and
settlement from occurring during reclamation activities and are hereby incorporated
by reference. As outlined in the Rodeffer FE1R, implementation of these measures
will reduce the potential slope failure, erosion and settlement during reclamation of
the pit impacts to below a level of significance.
Seismic Hazards
The 1996 General Plan will allow development and redevelopment in close proximity
to the Raymond Hill Fault Zone. Structures built astride the surface traces of active
faults may experience various degrees of damage if there is further fault movement,
including damage resulting from surface rupture and ground failure. To assure that
homes, offices, business complexes, public buildings, and other structures for human
occupancy are not built on active faults, the Alquist Priolo Zone Act requires a geo-
logical investigation before a local government can approve most development pro-
jects in earthquake fault zones. Properties within 50 feet of an active fault are pro-
jected to be underlain by active branches; therefore, before any structure can be built
within the zone, a geologic investigation and submission of a report by a geologist
registered by the State of California are required with the exception of individual
single family residences. Through compliance with this Act during the permitting
process for specific projects,as required by State law, primary seismic hazards associ-
ated with ground rupture are considered to be less than significant.
•
Water Resources
Changes in Currents, or the Course or Direction of Water Movements
Water bodies that exist within the study area consist mainly of regional flood control
facilities, the majority of which have been channelized. No changes will occur to
these regional facilities, and no alterations to currents or water movement in these
facilities will result from the proposed 1996 General Plan. Standing water resulting
from off-site drainage into the existing quarry pit adjacent to Lower Azusa Road
occurs and has created an artificial body of water. Reclamation of the quarry will fill
the pit and preclude future ponding on this property. Runoff from off site would be
accommodated on site utilizing a channel system. This alteration of existing runoff
flow patterns on this site is considered less than significant.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 6
,
Biological Resources
General Biological Resources
The General Plan study area is nearly fully developed and, therefore, has relatii.elv
few significant biological resources. The proposed changes to the General Plan Ind
• use designations are concentrated in the developed portions of the City. «here no
significant biological resources occur. There will be no impacts to biological re-
sources within any of the transition areas, specifically. The Los Angeles Cou tv
Arboretum, located west of Santa Anita Fashion Park and the Arcadia Wilderness P rk
in the northern section of the study area are designated as public facilities and re
protected from development. Similarly, the proposed 1996 General Plan does nm
change the City's policies protecting significant oak tree species via the Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
Chapter 2.0 of the 1996 General Plan specifies preservation of the remaining natural
open space areas to protect important environmental resources, for public health and
safety purposes, for public recreation, and for the managed production of resources.
These areas include the Arcadia Wilderness Park, Los Angeles County Arboret4lm,
Arcadia County Park, local parks throughout the City, Santa Anita Golf Course, Pa
Golf Course, Peck Road Spreading Basin and 197 acres of land for water conservat on
purposes along the Santa Anita Creek Corridor, below the Santa Anita Dam. In
addition, the proposed 1996 General Plan states that 158 acres of natural hillside shall
remain as open space adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, northeast of Arcadia.
The designated open space areas include steep natural hillsides, natural canyons and
watersheds, and flood control channels and facilities. The 1996 General Plan stipu-
lates design criteria to provide a margin of safety and protection against slope failure.
A portion of the remaining natural hillside areas in the northeastern part of Arcadia
will be developed at very low densities. The 1996 General Plan does not alter tte
existing land use designation and/or development intensity of low density single-
family residential for the undeveloped hillside areas in the northern portion of t)te
study area identified in the existing General Plan. The 1996 General Plan specifies
that high to moderately sensitive habitat areas (as identified in Figure 4.5.1) must be
protected in place unless certain criteria or conditions are necessary, such as impro)e-
ments for flood control or water conservation purposes. These areas will require s to
specific biological studies/assessments prior to determination of potential impacts due
to proposed land development.
Development Performance Standards 31, 32 and 33 require that areas of high to
moderate value are to be protected in place (unless one of five conditions occur); that
proposed developments adjacent to biologically sensitive areas are designed wilth
adequate buffer or setback to avoid significant impacts to those areas; and that the
City and/or project proponents must comply with all required permitting procedures
for species categorized as either endangered, rare or threatened by USFWS and/ r
CDFG. As part of the permitting procedures,surveys may be required at the appropii-
ate time of year prior to the development in or adjacent to these areas, to determine
whether sensitive species are present on such properties. After compliance with 1996
• 7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 7
- r
r i i
General Plan Performance Standards 3I. 32 and 33. effects to sensitive biological
resources:are considered less than significant.
Santa Anita Wash
•
It is anticipated that the riparian and oak woodland zones along Santa Anita Wash that
are within the Public Facilities land use designation in the northern portion of the
study area will not be impacted by increased development intensities resulting from
the 1996 General Plan,-since those habitats are preserved as open space for public
safety(flood control facilities)or as wildlife habitat. However, there could potentially
be additional public facilities proposed for these areas that would affect those habitat
areas. Should there be any future proposals for land development or facilities expan-
sion that would directly or indirectly affect the viability of these important habitats.
compliance with Performance Standards 31, 32 and 33 which have been designed to
maintain the integrity of the resources for wildlife usage and wildlife habitation, will
result in effects to sensitive biological resources that are considered less than signifi-
cant.
Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
Managed production of sand and gravel has occurred in the southern portion of the
study area near Lower Azusa Road. Industrial uses are designated for the area in the .
proposed 1996 General Plan. The City of Arcadia has approved a Conditional Use
Permit(CUP) for the reclamation(landfill)on the Rodeffer property. Site reclamation
will occur prior to development with industrial uses.
No significant high value habitat or sensitive species have been observed during
several site surveys of the Rodeffer property. A site survey was undertaken specifi-
cally for the 1996 General Plan confirmed a lack of wetlands habitat in this Transition
. Area. The 1995 biological survey is contained in Appendix J of the Final EIR. Thus,
site reclamation and future industrial development of the property will not cause
significant adverse impacts to biological resources.
Wildlife Dispersal or Migration Corridors
Wildlife within the study area is limited in distribution due to the developed nature of
the community. No migration corridors are known to exist within the study area,
although the potential for such areas exists within the Los Angeles County Arboretum
and the Arcadia Wilderness Park, both of which will be preserved. Thus, the 1996
General Plan does not include any policy or land use designation change that would
affect these potential resources.
Adopted Conservation Plans and Policies
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 8
7 •
Areas of biological resources within the General Plan study area exist primarily \''thin
the Arcadia Wilderness Park and the Los Angeles County Arboretum. Outside hese
designated areas, biological resources are limited due to the developed nature of the
community. The 1996 General Plan contains City policies relevant to resource
conservation: however, there are not any specific policy or land use changes that
«ould impact affect adopted conservation plans and policies.
Mineral Resources
The land use designations and densities proposed in the 1996 General Plan do not alter
the availability or non-availability of the four sites determined to have si_nifi ant
mineral resources.
Drainage Areas
The spreading basin and flood control areas in Santa Anita Wash are planned to
remain in use for flood control purposes and, therefore, are not now available for
mineral extraction, nor will they be in the future. As such, no impacts to mineral
resources will occur in these areas from implementation of the 1996 General Plan
Rodeffer Property
The Rodeffer property is proposed to be filled and reclaimed to allow development of
future uses consistent with the site's current and proposed Industrial land designation.
Further aggregate extraction will not occur since the prior mining operations expended
the available mineral resources on site.
•
South East Industrial Area
•
The 1996 General Plan retains the previous Industrial land use designation for the
vacant portion of the Livingston-Graham Quarry within the City of Arcadia. Tlhe
1996 General Plan also allows aggregate resource extraction on this property. Thus,
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will allow continued access to
mineral resources on this property and will allow extraction in the future, subsequ nt
to approval of a Conditional use permit by the City. If the property remains vacant or
quarrying activities are undertaken, the potential effects to mineral resources are
considered less than significant.
Potential future mining activities west of the Livingston-Graham Quarry could cause
potentially significant environmental impacts. The Industrial designation for the
portion of the quarry within the City of Arcadia provides the most compatible use�of
the site, assuming mineral extraction activities expand onto the adjacent site. Any
future extraction activities will be required to comply with Article 9, Chapter 5, of the
City of Arcadia Municipal Code(Ordinance 1678), which sets forth the procedure for
preparation and approval of mining and reclamation plans. With compliance with
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) - 9
•
Article 9, Chapter 5, of the Arcadia Municipal Code, potential secondary impacts
resulting from future mining activities are considered to be less than signitcant.
CulturaUScientific Resources
Physical Changes Which Might Affect Unique Ethnic Cultural Values
The Arcadia General Plan study area has existed as an urban area whose residents
have maintained a diverse spectrum of ethnic cultural values since the incorporation of
the City in 1903. While physical changes could occur with implementation of the
policies contained in the.1996 General Plan, the likelihood of these changes impacting
any unique ethnic cultural values is speculative and remote.
Restrictions on Existing Religious or Sacred Uses
The 1996 General Plan does not contain any restrictions on existing religious or sacred
uses, nor would any provisions of the 1996 General-Plan have the result of restricting
known existing religious or sacred uses within the General Plan study area.
Archaeological Resources
Unknown archaeological resources may be encountered during grading activities for
•
new and redevelopment within the General study area. With compliance with Devel-
opment Performance Standards 37, 38.and 39 of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
potential effects to unknown archaeological resources within the study area are con-
sidered less than significant.
Historic Resources
Most of Arcadia's historic resources are within publicly owned properties (i.e., the
Los Angeles County Arboretum or U.S. Forest Service property). These protected
resources include the Queen Anne Cottage and Coach House, the Hugo Reid Adobe,
the Santa Anita Depot, and Historical Site CA-LAN-1868H. The proposed 1996
General Plan will not alter the existing land uses at the Los Angeles County Arbore-
tum or Forest Service property and, therefore, these resources will not be directly
affected and no impact will occur.
•
Future development proposals within privately owned historic sites could potentially
have indirect effects on historic structures if not designed with their protection in
mind. The provisions of the 1996 General Plan (Chapter 4.0, Cultural Resources
Approach),ensure that new development will not be permitted to adversely impact the
historic context of significant historic resources. .
The Santa Anita race track, including the grandstand,paddock, circular receiving barn,
clubhouse, saddling stalls and stables, appears to be eligible for the California Regis-
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 10
•
,
ter. The 1996 General Plan retains the Horse Racing land use designation for the -ace
track facility itself. eliminating potential impacts. Potential future development
proposals within the Commercial portion of the race track could adversely affect the
visual integrity of these facilities, although no direct physical impacts are anticipated
from site development. Thus, the General Plan approach section outlining_ General
Plan requirements for future commercial development within the southerlv•race track
parking area provides for the retention of view corridors to the race track grandstands.
and specifies that the architecture of future development is to be compatible ‘‘ith the
architecture of the grandstands.
Scientific Resources
Based on a review of scientific (paleontological) resources, development within the
study area would have little or no effect on paleontological resources with future
development projects due to the lack of geological formations that are known to have
. a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of proposed l996
General Plan Development Performance Standards 37, 38 and 39 pertaining to
paleontological resources will further reduce any potential impacts to these resources,
if found.
Aesthetics
Implementation of the 1996 General Plan will result in incremental development
•
throughout the City. Development opportunities outside of identified Transition Areas
are limited, and will be consistent with the existing character of the area; therefore,
potential visual effects are considered less than significant. In addition,
implementation of the 1996 General Plan Strategies CD-1 through CD-22 and
Development Performance Standards 1 through 18•further reduce potentially visulal
effects for the portions of the City outside the Transition Areas identified.
Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition Areas
The land use designations for these Transition Areas reflect the development which
has already occurred, and provides for additional housing to meet identified nee Is.
. Development of these areas will therefore be visually consistent with existing su-
rounding uses. Since implementation of the 1996 General Plan within these transiti n
areas will be consistent with the existing uses, potential visual impacts are considered
less than significant. In addition, implementation of 1996 General Plan Strategies
CD-1 through CD-22 and Development Performance Standards 1 through 18 will
further reduce potential visual effects.
•
Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
Although this transition area is vacant, the quarry site detracts from its surroundings, .
is visually incongruous with distant views,and is generally a negative visual element.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 11
The site is barren of vegetation and has little variation in colors to provide isual
interest. Future development has the potential for improving the visual character of
the site by transforming the site to a developable parcel.
Because industrial development sometimes results in large-scale buildings and site
designs that are out of scale and character with existing residential development, the
1996 General Plan contains specific provisions for industrial development within this
Transition Area, including requirements for setbacks, landscaped berms. and site
design to achieve visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods to the west and
south. In addition, the 1996 General Plan recognizes that security lighting of
industrial uses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods has the potential to
introduce light into adjacent residential neighborhoods and provides performance
standards to ensure that light and glare from industrial developments do not impact
residential neighborhoods.
Implementation of the General Plan Approach provisions for this Transition Area,
along with Performance Standards 1, 2, 7, 9 will mitigate potential impacts to the
quality of existing viewsheds to a level that is less than significant.
Traffic and Circulation
Waterborne and Air Traffic
No waterborne traffic currently exists within the study area. The General Plan study
area includes two rail lines (only one of which is currently operating), and the
southern portion of the General Plan study area is located within the planning area of
the El Monte Airport. No increases in the amount of rail traffic are proposed in the
1996 General- Plan. In addition, the traffic volumes which will result from
implementation of the 1996 General Plan will not impact or reduce the utility of
existing rail lines. The provisions of the 1996 General Plan are consistent with FAA
and State Department of Transportation rules and land use compatibility guidelines;
therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
Parking
Current City ordinances outline off-site parking requirements for proposed
development. The land use changes contained in the 1996 General Plan will not
modify these requirements, which will be applied to subsequent development on a
project by project basis. Compliance with the City's Parking Ordinance will result in
potential parking impacts that are considered less than significant.
Congestion Management Plan
• New, non-residential development or redevelopment projects of 25,000 or more gross
square feet are subject to the requirements outlined in the City's Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1984). In addition, all
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 12
1
development projects within the City requiring an EIR are subject to Resolution No.
5780, which requires an analysis within the EIR that assesses impacts on the rezional
transportation system. After compliance with Ordinance No. 1 984 and Resolution No.
5780, impacts related to implementation of the CAP will be less than siggnificant.
Roadway Levels of Service
A detailed analysis of the traffic impacts of the 1996 General Plan was undertake as
part of the EIR, and is included in Appendix D of the Final EIR. The traffic stkdv
demonstrates that, with the exception of Holly Avenue (between Huntington Dive
and Duarte Road)and Michillinda Avenue(between Colorado and Sunset boulevards),
•all roadways will operate at Level of Service D or better, and thus, no significant
impacts will result.
Air Quality
Air Movement,Moisture, and Temperature
Based on the proposed revisions to General Plan land uses, building heights within the
study area will remain below levels that could potentially affect subregional air mol e-
ment patterns. No uses are proposed to be allowed under the 1996 General Plan that
would have the capacity to significantly alter surrounding levels of moist ire,
temperature, or climate.
Localized CO Hot Spots
Roadway links carrying the greatest volumes of vehicles were modeled for potential
CO hot spots, including Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Color ido
Boulevard and Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Aven e.
These links are projected to carry 3,072 and 3,074 vehicles, respectively during he
peak hour. If a CO "hot spot" were to occur, it would have its greatest likelihood of
happening along either of these routes. If no hot spots occur here, the remainder of he
General Plan area would not be expected to generate hot spots, either.
The microscale worst case analysis,which is presented in Appendix E of the Final IR
shows that a receptor would be exposed to a maximum one hour CO concentration of
5.1 ppm,with 3.7 ppm of this value due to background concentrations. The eight hour,
value is 3.7 ppm, with 2.7 ppm contributed from the background. These values are
below the one hour standards(i.e., greater than or equal to the CAAQS of 20 ppm or
NAAQS of 35 ppm)and eight hour standards(greater than the CAAQS of 9.0 ppm or
NAAQS of 9 ppm). Therefore, no CO hot spots will be produced along either
roadway. Other roadways carrying lesser volumes of traffic would realize even lower
CO concentrations, and thus no significant impacts are projected.
•
1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
7/3C/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A). 13
Chapter 4.0 of the 1996 General Plan outlines the City's approach to implementation
of AQNIP strategies. 1996 General Plan Strategies ER-I and ER-2 address public
information and community involvement ER-3 and ER-4 regarding coordination v.ith
regional planning efforts. ER-5 and ER-8 regarding identification and implementation
of transportation system management programs. ER-9 through ER-13 regarding
implementation of transportation demand management strategies. ER-14 and ER-15
regarding location of new development and redevelopment within the City. All of
these strategies are geared to 1) educate the citizens of Arcadia regarding opportuni-
ties for use of alternative modes of transportation, 2) identify physical improvements
and programs that result in reduced congestion and emission levels and 3)
development of a land use program and development standards that facilitate demand
for transit and other alternative modes of transportation through provision of increased
densities and clustered urban design.
•
Since Arcadia is a mature community with limited opportunities for substantial new
development, the land use program in the 1996 General Plan focusses on the
intensification of existing uses through redevelopment with multifamily and
commercial/industrial. In particular, the Mixed Use designation identifies locations
within the City that are appropriate for development of residential/commercial mixed
use projects. Although this intensification will result in increased population and
vehicle trips generated within the City, the growth projected in the 1996 General Plan
is less than SCAG projections utilized by SCAQMD in the AQMP, and is therefore
consistent with the AQMP. Further evidence of this consistency is provided in
SCAG's comment letter on the Draft EIR. Through implementation of the 1996
General Plan Strategies identified above, existing and projected traffic volumes,
vehicle miles traveled and pollutants will be minimized, consistent with the goals of
the AQMP and, therefore, the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the 1994 AQMP.
•
Regional Comprehensive Plan
Growth Management Chapter. As evidenced by SCAG's comments on the Draft EIR,
the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the Growth Management Chapter. The
increase in population that would result from implementation of the 1996 General
Plan is less than and consistent with the SCAG projection. Intensification of
employment generating land use designations, "particularly the creation of new
commercial development adjacent to the Santa Anita race track will generate
additional jobs within the City and will assist in achieving the six percent increase in
jobs from 1990 to 2015, projected by SCAG. Employment projections are also
consistent with SCAG projections,as evidenced in responses to SCAG's comments on
the Draft EIR.
Implementation of the strategies and the land use program included in the 1996
General Plan will minimize future projected traffic volumes, vehicle miles traveled,
and pollutant emissions by encouraging redevelopment of existing properties with
more intensive land uses. Infill development and redevelopment utilize existing infra-
.
structure, and provide opportunities to facilitate use of alternative modes of
transportation,such as transit;they also eliminate the need to extend existing facilities
into undeveloped areas,consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Chapter.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 14
i
Regional Mobility Chapter. As evidenced by SCAG•s comment letter on the Draft
EIR, the 1996 General Plan is consistent with the Regional Mobility Chapter.
According to SCAG. the 1996 General Plan contains an admirable transportation
program which incorporates transportation system management, transportation
demand management and land use policies, thereby minimizing projected traffic `'ol-
umes and vehicle miles traveled, consistent with the goals of the Regional Mobility
Chapter.
Congestion Management Plan
Although the 1996 General Plan itself is not subject to the provisions of the Los
Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), Arcadia has adopted a •
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Ordinance 1984), and has a land
use analysis program for development projects (Resolution 5780) as required by he
County CMP. With implementation of Ordinance 1984 and Resolution 5780, all
new development resulting from build out of the 1996 General Plan will be
consistent with the requirements of the Los Angeles County CMP.
Noise
Long-Term Effects
Noise levels for major roadways in the City were modeled for the following scenari.s:
1) existing; 2) future background (i.e., no additional growth within the city); and 3)
implementation of the 1996 General Plan. The noise model was based upon he
FHWA noise model, and used project specific traffic volumes and speed charac-
teristics. Future traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by LSA
(Appendix D of the Final EIR). Noise calculations are provided in Appendix F of he
Final EIR).
The results of the future noise modeling shows that noise levels 100 feet from the
roadway centerline will stay the same or increase one dBA to two dBA over the
existing and future background noise levels due to increases in future traffic volumes
for all roadway segments except one, Huntington Drive between Colorado Place aid
Santa Anita Avenue. Noise level increases below three dBA are generally rot
perceptible. Compliance with 1996 General Plan Performance Standards 44 throuh
51 will further reduce any potential noise impacts. Therefore, potential noise level
increases associated with the 1996 General Plan are considered less than significant at
all locations modeled.
Public Health (Hazards)
Hazardous Materials
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 15
•
Asbestos. Many of the buildings in the City. particularly within the Santa Clara
Street/Huntington Drive and Downtown Residential Transition Areas, were
constructed prior to the 1979 ban on the use of asbestos building materials. The 1996
General Plan provides for increased residential densities and redevelopment within the
downtown area, which may spur the modification or replacement of older buildings.
Construction workers involved in such demolitions could be exposed to asbestos
containing materials. Prior to issuing demolition permits, the Arcadia Building
Section requires that all applicants submit a completed "Notification of Demolition
and Asbestos Removal" form, per SCAQMD requirements. Also, pursuant to the
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 25915 to 25924), building owners must
post specified warning signs in areas where construction, maintenance, or remodeling
work is conducted with a potential for employees to come in contact with asbestos
containing materials. With implementation of California Health and Safety Code
requirements and demolition permit requirements, potential asbestos impacts resulting
from demolition activities are considered less than significant.
Hazardous Materials Storage/Hazardous Waste Generation. Industrial facilities
typically use and generate significantly greater quantities of hazardous materials than
other types of land uses(i.e., residential, commercial, etc.). Future reclamation of the •
quarry site in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area would increase the city's total
acreage of land available for industrial development. The quantities of hazardous
materials being transported into and out of the City could incrementally increase, and
the potential for spill or release incidents could increase, depending on the type o1
industrial uses on site. The handling, transport, and cleanup of hazardous materials
are extensively regulated and enforced by California Health Department, Cal-EPA,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, California
Highway Patrol, and the County of Los Angeles. Compliance with these regulations
(many are enforced and monitored by the City's Fire Department) will limit handling
and storage hazards,resulting in less than significant effects. In addition, the City has
adopted a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the enforcement of which is identified
as Strategy EH-21 in the 1996 General Plan. Compliance with the existing regulatory
framework for hazardous materials/waste will result in a.public health risk that is
considered less than significant.
The City has also recognized that the residential sector is a major user of hazardous •
materials. Implementation of the 1996 General Plan will allow for increased densities
of residential development,which may subsequently increase the amount of household
hazardous waste. Both the City and County have existing household hazardous waste
programs in place to ensure that wastes are collected and disposed of in a safe manner.
Continuation of these programs will prevent any significant public health impacts
related to household hazardous waste from occurring.
'derground Storage Tanks. The 1996 General Plan will result in intensification of
-amercial land uses in the Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive Transition Area. Due
the proximity of this area to two major thoroughfares, it is logical that gas stations
or other uses that maintain underground storage tanks were located or could be located
in the future within this transition area. Underground storage tanks associated with
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 16
•
historical, existing. and future uses have the potential for developing leaks that pan
contaminate local =roundwater if not properly installed and maintained. With
compliance of existing and new development with federal and State regulations
regarding installation, maintenance and repair of underground storage tanks. potential
effects resulting from leaking tanks are considered less than significant.
Inert Landfill
The 1996 General Plan retains the industrial designation previously applied to tie
abandoned quarry site located adjacent to Lower Azusa Road. The quarry is plann d
to be filled with inert materials over approximately 8 to 10 years. as addressed in t e
"Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill" (City of Arcadia,
l994)-. Reclamation of the site has the potential to introduce hazardous materials as
part of fill operations.
As discussed in the FEIR, the Operations Plan for the planned landfill operation
outlines measures to ensure that the inert material used to fill the quarry pit would be
limited to soils, rocks and other non-hazardous materials. Measures outlined in the
plan to reduce the potential for receiving contaminated landfill material are divided
into two categories: those occurring at the excavation site and those occurring at the
planned landfill site. Measures at excavation sites include: 1) breaking of all materi I
into a maximum of 12 inch blocks (no crushing would occur at the landfill); 2)
inspectors visually checking all loads for the presence of non-inert or hazardous
materials and rejecting transfer of any loads with such materials; 3) completion of�a
freight bill by inspectors that documents that the load was inspected, and its place bf
origin; and 4) for larger excavations, laboratory testing of soils prior to excavation and
visual inspection prior to transportation of material. Measures to be completed at tl1e
landfill site include: 1)on-site inspectors reviewing the freight bill, and visual and gas
inspections on the load; and 2)secondary inspection after the material is unloaded aid
spread in a special area, prior to final disposition within the landfill. In additio ,
groundwater monitoring and periodic soil testing and field testing of waste materials
will be utilized to ensure that unexpected contamination of groundwater does not
occur from landfill operation. If contamination is detected, affected groundwater wil
be extracted by wells and cleaned until State drinking water quality standards ale
again achieved in the groundwater. With compliance of the fill operation with the
• measures outlined in the Operations Plan, potential hazardous materials effects
alsociated with filling of the quarry are considered to be less than significant.
Public Services
Fire Department
Currently,the Fire Department is able to provide fire protection service to all areas of
the City. In segments of the City that are located in deficient response time area ,
cities participating in mutual aid agreements with the City of Arcadia are able to
• provide service to those areas within the established five minute response time
standard. The 1996 General Plan provides for intensification of existing land uses
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 17
1•
•
throughout the City, primarily within the four identified transition areas: howe‘er.
these changes are not expected to increase demand for fire protection services. v ith
the exception of new commercial development adjacent to the Santa Anita race track.
Any significant commercial development in this area will likely generate an increase
in emergency medical services (EMS) for the City, and the EMS team at Fire Station
No. 32, located adjacent to the racetrack, will be fully occupied by calls from future
development within this area.
Because the EMS team for Station No. 32 also covers medical emergencies within the
response area of fire Station No. 33, an additional EMS trained team will be needed at
Station No. 33, and there is a potential need for one additional EMS dispatcher. The
existing engine company at Fire Station No. 33 will be trained as an EMS unit,
providing paramedic services to the portion of the City serviced by this station. •
Therefore, no additional staff will be required in the Fire Protection Bureau to meet
the EMS need. Ambulance service from this station would not be provided. The
timing of training of existing staff to fulfill the EMS need will assessed through the
Fire Department's annual budget and through the review process of new development
within the City (Performance Standard 26.) After implementation of Performance
Standard 26, potential effects on fire services are considered less than significant.
Compliance of new development with Performance Standards 24 and 25 will further
reduce potential effects on fire services.
Police Services
The City's existing police services are adequate to support build out of all land use
intensification outlined in the 1996 General Plan; incremental expansion of patrols and
police staffing is equivalent to population and employment increases in the City, with
the exception of proposed commercial development adjacent tot he Santa Anita race
track.
Incremental demand for patrol services and staffing and necessary resources will be
assessed through new development and redevelopment projects' compliance with
Performance Standards 27, 28 and 29 of the 1996 General Plan and as part of the
annual review of the Police Department budget. With implementation of Performance
Standards 27,28 and 29, potential impacts to police services are reduced to below the
level of impact.
Due to the anticipated scope and scale of future commercial development adjacent to
the Santa Anita race track, additional demands on existing service and facilities at the
City's Police Department headquarters are expected. Depending on the level of on-site
private security, future development within this area may increase demand for police
services anywhere up to 4 to 15 percent. Exact figures of additional police labor needs
and additional capital improvements will be established through the development
process for projects within Transition Area 1, consistent with 1996 General Plan
Performance Standard 27. With implementation of Performance Standards 27, 28, and
29, potential impacts to police services are reduced to below the level of impact.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 18
•
Hospital Services
The 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentially result in
additional demand for medical and emergency services provided by the Method st
Hospital. As identified in the Final EIR, according to Dennis Linson. Vice President
of Methodist Hospital. implementation of the 1996 General Plan would not require tale
expansion of facilities or addition of staff. beyond what is envisioned in the hospital's
current expansion plans. Based on the information provided by Methodist Hospit I.
effects to hospital services resulting from implementation of the proposed 196
General Plan would be incremental and are considered less than significant.
•
School Services
Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD). Existing elementary and middle schools
within the AUSD currently are approaching or are at capacity under existing land iAe
conditions. Arcadia High School is less impacted and is currently operating at i5
percent of capacity. Based on the number of residential dwelling units the 19916
General Plan would permit within the City (572), the Draft EIR determined thgt
General Plan build out would result in the generation of 229 new students, based on a
0.4/dwelling unit student generation factor. Because the Arcadia Unified School
District did not provide a student generation factor, this factor was derived from a
survey of student generation per dwelling unit in the Glendora, Glendale, and
Newport-Mesa Unified School Districts. These districts were used due to similar
student characteristics as the Arcadia Unified School District. The Final EIR also
found that an additional 35 students could be expected to register within the Arcadia
Unified School District by the place of employment of their parents as the result df
General Plan build out. The EIR's determination of the number of students that wound
be registered by the place of employment of their parents was based on a stude i t
generation factor derived from the current number of students registered in the District
by the place of employment of their parents and the existing square footage cf
commercial and industrial development within the City.
According to existing enrollment figures provided by the Arcadia Unified School
District, there is adequate capacity at the elementary and high school levels tlo
accommodate the projected increase in enrollment, while middle school capacity
would need to be expanded by 34 students, equivalent to one or two classroom.
Assuming an average of 1,500 square feet per new dwelling unit, build out of the 1996
• General Plan would permit within the Arcadia Unified School District would generate
a total of approximately $2,095,755 in school fees, which is more that sufficient for
the addition of one or two new middle school classrooms. The provision of State
mandated developer fees, along with the concurrency policies of 1996 General Plat
Performance Standards 21 and 22, which require provision of expanded facilities
equivalent to the impacts created by individual development, will reduce school
impacts of the General Plan to a level of insignificance.
- El Monte City School District (EMCSD) and El Monte High School District
(EMHSD). Current and proposed land uses for the portions of the City within the
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
boundaries of the EMCSD and ENIHSD. including the Lower Azusa Road Transition
Area, are designated industrial. As noted in the Final EIR. according to the E`1CSD.
commercial and industrial uses have been found to have an insigniticant impact on
EMCSD enrollment, and State mandated development fees have not been assessed on
past commercial and industrial development within the EMCSD. The EMHSD
. currently collects 40 percent of the standard fee for commercial/industrial
development, with the remaining 60 percent going to the appropriate elementary
school district, of which EMCSD is one. No additional fees are levied. Payment of
applicable state mandated developer fees to the affected school districts would offset
potential impacts to EMCSD and EMHSD due to new development resulting from the
1996 General Plan.
Other School Districts. No changes in land use or land use designations are proposed
in the 1996 General Plan within the portions of the City located within the Monrovia,
Pasadena, or Temple City Unified School Districts. Nearly all of the existing land
uses within the boundaries of these Districts consist'of nonresidential development,
and the potential for intensification of existing uses or the introduction of residential
uses is extremely low. Additional students generated by implementation of the
commercial/industrial land use designations in the 1996 General Plan would be very
small, and would be offset through payment of State mandated development fees.
Thus, effects are considered less than significant.
In addition, the 1996 General Plan requires that development projects not result in a
quantifiable reduction in the level of services provided to existing development and as
identified in Table 6-B of the 1996 General Plan document, which establishes the
school facilities performance standard as "maintain adequate capacity to meet
projected annual enrollment." Further, the proposed 1996 General Plan requires that
"all development projects must demonstrate that they will:
a. construct and/or pay fair share for the new on-site capital improvements that
are required to support the project;
b. ensure that all new off-site capital improvements that are required by the pro-
• ject are available prior to certificates of occupancy;
c. be phased, if necessary, so as to ensure that the capital facilities that will be
used by the new development are available prior to certificates of occupancy;
and
d. ensure that, in the event that public services or off-site capital facilities are
impacted prior to development, the level of service provided to existing devel-
opment will not be further impacted by the new development."
These General Plan requirements apply to school facilities and the school facilities
performance standard noted above. Thus, impacts on school facilities will be less than
significant.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 20
•
Library Services
The 1996 General Plan will increase residential densities and an increased demand on
library services. The existing facility and programs at the Arcadia Public Library are
currently being expanded, refurbished, and updated. As noted in the Final EIR.
according to Kent Ross, Librarian, the build out of the 1996 General Plan will pot
significantly impact existing City library facilities. With the current facility
expansion, the Final EIR also notes that Mr. Ross also indicated that the library wd.ild
be able to service the needs of the City by responding to public requests and offering
computers for more technological capabilities. Therefore, the additional demand
resulting from build out of the 1996 General Plan is considered minor, and any effects
to library services are considered less than significant.
The County of Los Angeles has indicated that its facility off Live Oak Avenue will not
be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
• Wastewater
Appendix G of the Final EIR, Sewer System Technical Memorandum, documents the
analysis conducted to assess the potential impacts of the 1996 General Plan on the
existing sewer system operated and maintained by the City of Arcadia. Oft the
232,000 linear feet of pipe that were evaluated, approximately 69,450 linear feet of
pipe are deficient. Deficient pipes were categorized into four priority groups: A
(critically deficient), B (deficient), C and D (marginally deficient). The results of the,
deficiency evaluation concluded:
• Approximately 1.3 miles of pipe are ranked Priority A and require evaluation
with potential for near-term construction. Priority A deficiencies result from •
wastewater discharge associated with existing land uses within the City of
Arcadia.
• Approximately 0.8 mile of pipe is ranked Priority. B and requires evaluation in
the near term and construction within 5 to 10 years. Priority B deficiencies
are marginal conditions today but will be exacerbated by development and
redevelopment in the short term.
• The remainder of the deficient pipe is ranked Priority C and D. Priority C ard
D deficiencies are not substantially affected by implementation of the
proposed General Plan.
All of the deficient pipes identified in Table 4-3 of Appendix G of the Final EIR,
except Huntington Drive, are located in areas of existing development where new
redevelopment potential associated with build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan
will be limited. Since the 1996 General Plan will allow for increases in development
intensities near these areas, the storm drain improvements recommended in the Sewer
System Technical Memorandum or other facilities deemed adequate through futurie
analyses will be implemented prior to or concurrent with development that may
increase the storm water runoff in these areas. With implementation of General Plah
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 21
Performance Standards 42 and 43 and Item d.. Coordination of Infrastructure.
Intergovernmental Coordination and Improvement Prouram of the 1996 General Plan.
potential localized flooding impacts resulting from implementation of the 1996
General Plan are considered less than significant.
As discussed in the Final EIR, projected growth with implementation of the 1996
General Plan will be less than projected by SCAG in the Regional Comprehensive
Plan (RCP). Since capacity for wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by
the Consolidated Sanitation;Districts of Los Angeles County is based on the growth
projections outlined in the RCP and since implementation of the proposed 1996
General Plan will be within these projections, impacts to regional wastewater
treatment facilities are considered less than significant.
Recreation
Conflicts with Adopted Recreational Plans and Policies
The 1996 General Plan contains the City's policies relevant to recreation issues;
therefore no conflicts with City plans and policies will occur. In addition, the General
Plan includes programs to coordinate the activities of the various agencies providing
services, including recreational services within the City. Thus, Arcadia will continue
to cooperate with the planning efforts of regional and subregional agencies, such as
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA, which
authored the San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Master Plan), and the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation.
• Provision of Park Land
Currently, active and passive parks are located throughout the City within a one mile
radius of all existing and proposed residential development. Therefore, additional
residents of the City will reside will have adequate park facilities within a one mile
radius. Potential effects to recreational resources associated with build out of the
proposed 1996 General Plan are considered less than significant.
Although no additional recreational facilities are necessary for build out of the 1996
General Plan, Performance Standard 23 requires that all new residential development
shall be required to pay development fees to be established by the City in the future
for adequate provision of parks and recreational facilities; implementation of this
standard would reduce any potential effects.
•
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following list corresponds to the impact sections of the Arcadia 1996 General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), for each adverse environmental im-
pact, a specific finding is made with a statement of facts supporting each finding.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 22
The City of Arcadia proposes to adopt an amendment and comprehensive update of
the Arcadia General Plan. Due to the potential impacts to the community and because
the proposed action constitutes a project under CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and
City CEQA Procedures, the City of Arcadia has prepared an EIR. The EIR identified
certain significant effects that may occur as a result of the implementation of he
updated General Plan. Further, the City Council has determined that the EIR is
complete and adequate, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. State
Guidelines. and City CEQA Procedures. Therefore, the following findings are set forth
herein pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 1509I of
the CEQA Guidelines.
LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Significant Effect Number 1
The build out of land uses within Transition Area 1 (Santa Anita Race Track area) tI r
General Plan Scenarios A. B, and C (1.5 million, 975,000 and 600,000 square feet bf
new commercial entertainment development, respectively) has a potentially
significant indirect impact on adjacent land uses and land use compatibility.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. These include the
standards of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, which states:
4.1-1 Prior to any discretionary approval of any development within the Santa Anita
• Race Track or Lower Azusa Road Transition Areas, the project applicant shalll
provide evidence to the City, for review and approval by the Development
Services Director(or designee), that the proposed development:
• Provides transitions and buffers between new development and
existing uses such that the bulk, massing, and architectural design of
new uses are compatible with existing development;
• Avoids placing new activities or creating nuisance conditions th t
would disrupt the intended activities,of adjacent existing and planned
land uses, make the intended use of adjacent lands undesirable, or
disrupt the physical arrangement of established neighborhoods and
non-residential land uses;
•
• Maintains roadway levels of service at or better than level of service
D, except along Michillinda Avenue between Colorado and Sunset
boulevards where level of service E is to be maintained;
• Does not cause an exceedence of applicable noise or air quality
standards, or a significant adverse impact to existing viewsheds; an
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 23
• Is consistent with applicable General Plan public facility performance
standards, and does not cause a reduction in the level of services and
facilities provided to existing development.
Facts in Support of Finding
Depending upon the configuration of future development within Transition Area I.
there is potential for massing of buildings in a manner incompatible with the low
intensity residential character of the community. The potential development area in •
Transition Area 1 has long been used as an open parking area. 1996 General Plan
requirements mandate that the architecture of future development within this
Transition Area be compatible with the existing architectural style of the racetrack
grandstands. The application of the design guidelines identified in the 1996 General
Plan, 1, along with the Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 ensure that the height, bulk,
massing, and architectural design of new buildings within Transition Area 1 will be
compatible with both the racetrack grandstands and with residential uses across
Huntington Drive. Thus, significant indirect land_use impacts related to land use
compatibility are not anticipated.
All significant land use effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided or
substantially lessened by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1.
POPULATION AND HOUSING •
No potentially significant or significant population or housing impacts have been
identified resulting from the proposed amendment and comprehensive update of the
Arcadia General Plan.
•
EARTH RESOURCES
Significant Effect Number 2
The proposed 1996 General Plan would allow for approximately 1,743 additional
• people from 1990 to 2015, and development of commercial and industrial uses.
Consequently,the population present in the City of Arcadia during the time of a large
earthquake would be greater than that present under existing land uses.
Finding
Compliance with Ordinances 2033 and 1924 and 1996 General Plan Development
Performance Standards 40 and 41 in the proposed 1996 General Plan will reduce
potential primary and secondary seismic impacts; however, the effects of a major
earthquake within the region will remain significant. These conditions exist today,
and the proposed General Plan provides additional residential and employment
opportunities that will increase the population in this seismically active region.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 24
f ,
Specific economic. legal, social. technological, or other considerations, inclu in,,
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trai ed
workers; make infeasible the reduction of seismic impacts to a level of insi`gniticaf ce.
Facts in Support of Finding
In the study area, seismic shaking that could occur as a result of a large regi•nal
earthquake or a great, relatively distant earthquake is considered potentially highly
destructive. There is currently no way to prevent or predict earthquakes with a high
degree of accuracy. The severity of the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCEs) for
the local and regional faults located near Arcadia range from an estimated 6.5 to 8.3
on the Richter scale. These MCEs correspond to ratings of VII to XII on the Modified
Mercalli Scale, indicating a potential for moderate to major damage to buildings dnd
infrastructure to occur.
The City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan outlines the potential consequences of a
large earthquake. These consequences include the presence of displaced and inju�j4ed
persons who could be caught by the earthquake and who cannot get out of the City clue
to infrastructure damage. Hospitals and other emergency service providers could
potentially be overtaxed, depending on the severity of the earthquake and number of
injuries.
Effects of seismic shaking can best be prevented by either replacing or strengtheni(Ig
existing structures, and by restricting new construction within known fault zones,
pursuant to requirements set forth in the Alquist Priolo Act. Damage to new buildi 1gs
caused by a major earthquake will be partially offset through compliance with t
ni
e
Uniform Building Code design standards in new building construction. Since
construction under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1988) generaly
takes into account shaking of up to approximately 0.5g, no additional seismic
requirements would be necessary. Maximum bedrock acceleration values re
applicable to design or analysis of one-story and two-story residential structures, and
most commercial and industrial construction on bedrock sites or sites underlain by
relatively thin, firm alluvium (most of the General Plan study area). For meditI�m
height or high-rise structures (four to ten stories and ten stories, respectively')
including all critical use or high cost facilities, development of a seismic response
• program may be necessary for the specific site under consideration.
Future development associated with implementation of the proposed 1996 General
Plan may be affected by.the following secondary seismic impacts: liquefactioln,
differential settlement, landslides/slope instability, and seiching. Potential seconday
seismic impacts to future development within the City are discussed below.
• Liquefaction. Due to regional seismic activity, liquefaction may occur n
portions of the City located within unconsolidated alluvium, depending on
the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction has been identified in portions of the
City near the Los Angeles County Arboretum. This condition exists today
and, although implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add
7/30/96(A:\EXHI3IT.A) 25
t >,
incremental development, no increase in the exposure risk within the City
would occur.
• Differential Settlement. Due to regional seismic activity, differential
settlement may occur within a majority of the City due to the presence of
thick alluvial deposits that underlie the study area. This potential exists today:
and although implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add
incremental development, it will not substantially increase the exposure risk
within the City.
• Landslides/Slope Instability. Due to regional seismic activity, future
residential and habitable structures within the portion of the study area along
the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern portion of the City may
be affected by landslides/slope instability: The potential exists for landslides;
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan does not propose
development within the identified area. Therefore, the risk does not increase
with implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
• Seiching. Seiching may occur in existing reservoirs, dams and water tanks as
a result of regional seismic activity and damage to these facilities or
downstream development. This potential exists today; although
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan will add incremental
development, this additional development will not substantially increase the
exposure risk.
These conditions exist today, and the proposed General Plan provides additional
residential and employment opportunities that will increase the population in this
seismically active region. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations
addresses primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional seismic activity that
cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against the
facts set forth and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
WA TER RESOURCES
Significant Effect Number 3
Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan could potentially result in an
incremental increase in the quantities of these urban pollutants draining into the City's
storm drain system. Increased automobile traffic, use of landscaping chemicals, and
industrial chemical use will incrementally increase with the increase in land use
intensity proposed by the 1996 General Plan.
•
Finding
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 26
r
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. With implementation of
Ordinance No. 2010 and the mitigation measure identified below, potential storm
water quality impacts associated with construction projects of less than five acres will
be reduced to below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-I states:
• 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for construction projects less than give
acres, the project applicant shall submit to the Development Services Director
(or designee) for review and approval, a Drainage/Erosion Control Plan that
identities site specific measures for the retention of siltation, sedimentation.
and other pollutants on site during construction. Measures identified in he
Plan shall be imposed as conditions of approval or otherwise incorporated i-to
the project. Such a plan shall be consistent with the requirements of
Ordinance No. 2010, and include instructions for preparation prior to and
during storm events, normal and emergency procedures, and procedures
following storm events.
Facts in Support of Finding
Future development is required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm water Permit as
• outlined in the Los Angeles River Watershed Management Plan and City Ordinance
No. 2010. Compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Management
Plan and City Ordinance No. 2010 will result in impacts to long-term storm wa er
quality that are considered less than significant.
Temporary impacts may occur during the construction of large-scale developmen s.
The disturbance of surface soils and construction materials usage can result in
temporary increases in the quantities of sediments and hydrocarbons contained in t e
storm water runoff. Implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMP ),
required as part of the NPDES Statewide Industrial Storm water Permit for Gene�al
Construction Activities, will result in impacts from urban runoff pollutants associated
with construction projects greater than five acres being considered less than
significant.
In addition, the Final EIR includes mitigation measures that require that prior to
issuance of grading permits for construction projects less than five acres, the proje t
applicant must submit to the Development Services Director(or designee) for review
and approval, a Drainage/Erosion Control Plan that identifies site specific measures
for the retention of siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants on site durirf g
construction. Measures identified in the Plan must be imposed as conditions of
approval or otherwise'incorporated into the project. Such a plan must also lie
consistent with the requirements of City Ordinance No. 2010, and include instructions
for preparation prior to and during storm events, normal and emergency procedures,
and procedures following storm events.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 2i
q 1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No potentially significant or significant impacts to biological resources have been
identified resulting from the proposed amendment and comprehensive update of the
Arcadia General Plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect Number 4
Loss of the availability of known significant mineral resources that would potentially
be of future value to the region and the residents of the State, as defined by the State
of California Division of Mines and Geology.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
Although the Industrial designation proposed for the Lower Outsize Road Transition •
Area would permit mining on the vacant properties known to contain commercial
grade mineral resources, other types of industrial use would also be allowed for
consideration by the City of Arcadia. If the City approves applications for non-mining
uses in the area west of the Livingston-Graham Quarry, the mineral resources within
the property could not be excavated for contribution to the local (and/or regional) need
for aggregate materials. Given the statewide importance of MRZ-2 mineral resources,
the loss of access to the resources at this location would be significant to the
community. Mineral resources extracted within a given region will generally be
utilized for aggregate needs in that region, prior to being exported to other.regions.
The reduction of available resources in Arcadia will expedite the eventual need to
import resource materials from other regions, which in turn will increase the cost of
building construction.
As such,the potential loss of access to the mineral resources in the western portion of
the Livingston-Graham Quarry, through potential future approval of non-mining
industrial uses, represents a significant,unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated.
CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Significant Effect Number 5
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 28
1 '
Although it is not anticipated that General Plan build out will significantly impact any
historic, archeological, or paleontological resource in the General Plan study area.
individual development projects will be required to comply with City Development
Performance Standards of the proposed 1996 General Plan.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project wliich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
Most of Arcadia's historic resources are within publicly owned properties (i.e.. the
Los Angeles County Arboretum or U.S. Forest Service property). These protected
resources include the Queen Anne Cottage and Coach House, the Hugo Reid Adoibe,
the Santa Anita Depot, and Historical Site CA-LAN-1868H. The proposed 1996
General Plan will not alter the existing land uses at the Los Angeles County
Arboretum or Forest Service property and, therefore, these resources will not be
directly affected and no impact will occur.
Future development proposals within privately owned historic sites could potentially
have indirect effects on historic structures if not designed with their protection in
mind. According to the proposed 1996 General Plan (Chapter 4.0 of the General
Plan, Cultural Resources Approach), new development will not be permitted to
adversely impact the historic context of significant historic resources.
The Santa Anita Park racetrack and its associated features, including the grandstand.
paddock, circular receiving barn, clubhouse, saddling stalls and stables, appear to be
eligible for the California Register. Potential future development proposals within the
portion of the race track designated Commercial could adversely affect the histor is
and/or visual integrity of these facilities, although no direct physical impacts Are
anticipated from site development. Each of the three development scenarios are
considered to have equal potential for disturbance of the historic setting and)or
visibility of the sites.
Outside of the Santa Anita racetrack, the remaining physical examples of the Ci 's
history and cultural heritage, other than those identified above, are located ■n
individual parcels throughout the City(such as the Anoakia School).
An evaluation of the significance of such sites and potential effects of new and
redevelopment would need to be conducted on a site by site basis using the Cit}i's
development review process. Significant historic and cultural sites that show merit for
preservation will be judged using the criteria provided in Development Performance
Standards 37, 38 and 39 of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Compliance with
Development Performance Standards 37, 38, and 39 in the proposed 1996 General
Plan will reduce any potential future project specific impacts to cultural and scientific
resources that are considered less than significant.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 29
Based on a review of scientific (paleontological) resources, development within the
study area would have little or no effect on paleontological resources w ith future
development projects due to the lack of geological formations that are known to have
a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of proposed 1996
General Plan Development Performance Standards 37, 38 and 39 pertaining to
paleontological resources will further reduce any potential impacts,to these resources.
if found.
AESTHETICS
Environmental Effect Number 6
Implementation of development within Transition Area I will result in a significant
localized visual impact to land uses adjacent to the transition area and existing views
from Huntington Drive.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
The visual character of lands within Transition Area I from adjacent off-site uses will
be significantly changed with development consistent with the proposed 1996 General
Plan. Overall, the open visual character of this area will be permanently altered and
the visual predominance of the grandstand structure will be lost as the open parking
areas, south of the existing racetrack grandstands, east of the mall, are filled with
commercial uses. Existing views of the racetrack grandstands from Huntington Drive,
and panoramic views of the San Gabriel Mountains from areas adjacent to the
transition area and Huntington Drive, will be limited due to the size of the land uses
proposed under any of the Development Scenarios identified in Chapter 3.0 of the
. Final EIR. In addition, development of commercial uses has the potential for
introducing substantial new lighting sources into the area, including security lighting
of parking areas and signage for new uses. The significance of these impacts is
localized and will be less noticeable from the remainder of the City due to distance
from the area and the existence of intervening structures such as the Santa Anita
Fashion Park mall and residential and commercial uses.
Implementation of development within Transition Area 1 will result in a significant
localized visual impact to land uses adjacent to the transition area and existing views
from Huntington Drive. Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan programs
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 30
•
included in General Plan Approach and Strategies CD-1 through CD-13 and CD 17
through CD-22 identified in Chapter 2.0, and Development Performance Standar s I
through 18, will reduce potential effects on the existing viewshed adjacent to Tra Isl-
.
tion Area l; however, residual impacts to localized views of the grandstands Will
remain significant and unavoidable. No mitigation measures have been identified that
can reduce this significant, unavoidable, adverse impact.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced a,aipst
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made belo v.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Significant Effect Number 7
Potential traffic related impacts from the planned Rodeffer Inert Landfill project n
• Lower Azusa Road were addressed in the Rodeffer Final EIR, City of Arcadia, 19 4.
The FEIR analysis projected that intersection levels of service would exceed thresh Id
levels of significance for Lower Azusa Road/I-605/Rivergrade Road northbound
ramps for all three peak hour periods, as well as one peak period of the southbound
ramp intersection. The remaining two peak hour periods for the southbound ra p
• intersection would operate at LOS D.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project th:t
•
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in t e
Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Rodeffer EIR traffic analysis concluded that no significant impacts would occur .t
the intersection of the site access and Lower Azusa Road, in that only 15 trucks p4r
hour would utilize the access for each of the 10 operating hours on the majority (72
percent) of the operating days. Therefore, the gaps in flow created by nearby
signalized intersections would allow truck egress even though the peak hour traffic oh
Lower Azusa Road will be high. Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer FEIR
included 1) construction of an exclusive right turn lane and maintenance of two
through lanes at the Lower Azusa Road/I-605/Rivergrade Road, westbound approach;
and 2) construction of an exclusive right turn lane and maintenance of two throug
lanes at the intersection of Lower Azusa Road/and I-605/Rivergrade Road, eastbound
approach. Based on the analysis conducted for the Rodeffer and General Plan FEIR ,
with,implementation of the mitigation measures identified, potential construction
traffic impacts are reduced to below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Number 8
31
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
As outlined in Appendix D of the proposed 1996 General Plan EIR. Hull% Avenue
between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road is projected to operate at LOS F ith
implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan, with any of the Development
Scenarios.
•
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
As described under General Plan Analysis Methodology contained in the Traffic and
Circulation section of the Final EIR, a general screening level analysis was applied,
based on the forecast traffic volumes and distribution of traffic, to determine which
roadways may have unsatisfactory operational conditions under any of the
Development Scenarios. For those roadway segments that indicated unsatisfactory
conditions under the General Plan capacity criteria, a more refined evaluation was
conducted, utilizing roadway capacities, projected conditions, and directional assump-
tions that are more specific to the locations under review. For each of the
. Development Scenarios, the refined analyses concluded that the levels of service for
all but two roadway segments would be acceptable and considered less than
significant. The roadways at unacceptable levels are Holly Avenue between
Huntington Drive, and Duarte Road and Michillinda Avenue between Colorado and
Sunset Boulevards.
Mitigation is required to offset impacts resulting from traffic generated by future
development within the adjacent Transition Area 1. Improvement of operations along.
this section of Holly Avenue to LOS D or better would require mitigating the impacts
of traffic generated by future, development within this designation through
intersection lane closures and directional traffic control, or widening the roadway
segment to four lanes.
With implementation of the EIR's Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, below, potential impacts
at Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road would be reduced to
below the level of significance as the result of either reducing the intensity of
development contributing traffic to this portion of Holly Avenue and/or by diverting •
• traffic from such development away from this portion of Holly Avenue.
4.9-1 Prior to any discretionary action within the Transition Area 1, the project
• applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Development Services
Director (or designee), a traffic study, prepared by a qualified traffic
engineering consultant,that analyzes the project's effect on level of service on
Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road. Where the study
indicates trip generation for the proposed development results in an
unacceptable level of service on this segment of Holly Avenue on a project
level, or contributes cumulatively to greater than LOS D, the traffic study
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 32
shall identify appropriate measures to achieve acceptable levels of service:
these measures either will become conditions of approval of the project or m.ill
be incorporated into the project. These measures may include, but are not
limited to. the following:
• Provision of neighborhood traffic control measures at Holly .Avenue/
Huntington Drive. such as turn lane restrictions, traffic diverters and
lane closures to divert traffic away from the roadway segment. or
• Designate Holly Avenue as a four lane roadway between Huntington
Drive and Duarte Road, and reserve right-of-way at such tim as
redevelopment of adjacent properties takes place.
Significant Effect Number 9
Michillinda Avenue between Colorado Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard currently
operates at LOS E, and will continue to operate at LOS E with implementation of the
proposed 1996 General Plan and any of the Development Scenarios.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in he
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As discussed previously, a more refined traffic evaluation was conducted, utilizing
roadway capacities, projected conditions, and directional assumptions that are mdre
specific to the locations under review. For each of the Development Scenarios, the re-
fined analyses concluded that the levels of service for all but two roadway segments
would be acceptable and considered less than significant. The roadways at .
unacceptable levels are Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive, and Duarte Road
and Michillinda Avenue between Colorado and Sunset Boulevards. As a result of t is
analysis, it was concluded that there are no feasible mitigation measures availablelito .
reduce the forecast levels of service on this roadway segment to acceptable levels and
resultant traffic impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses traffic impacts that cannot ibe
feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
AIR QUALITY
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 33
Significant Effect Number 10
Emissions from construction equipment from grading activities. construction activities
and building materials deliveries related to the build out of the General Plan will result
in short term increases in significant.air quality emissions in the General Plan study
area and within the South Coast Air Basin.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction equipment will create exhaust pollutants from grading activities,
construction activities and building materials deliveries. Quantification of pollutant
emissions associated with construction of the development identified in the proposed
1996 General Plan would be speculative at this time. Since estimates of construction
emissions are highly dependent on the location, size and construction schedule of a
project, any attempt to quantify construction emissions at this level of planning may
lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the significance of potential impacts. It is.
appropriate to require planned developments or individual projects to assess the
potential significance of their construction emissions.
Depending on the level of construction performed at any one time, potentially
significant impacts may be generated due to the use of heavy equipment and
associated equipment and construction vehicle trips. Depending upon the extent to
which these measures are applicable and actually applied, the proposed mitigation can
reduce construction equipment emissions by as much as 40 percent. With phasing of
construction and equipment selection,these impacts may be mitigated to a level that is
less than significant. The proposed dust mitigation measures would control
approximately 50 percent of expected dust generation. The Final EIR includes
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, which requires that:
•
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, project applicants
shall submit a mitigation plan for both construction equipment exhaust and
fugitive dust impacts to the Development Services Director(or designee), for
review and approval. No construction will be conducted prior to approval of
this plan. This Plan shall be included as a condition of approval for the
projector incorporated into the project design. The Plan shall include but not
be limited to the following (the City shall verify use of the plan measures
during regular site inspections):
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 34
• Trucks used for hauling excess material shall be covered to minimize
loss of material, and flagmen will be utilized to assist construction
trucks moving into traffic.
• The contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 40'_. 403. %AI ich.
restricts fugitive dust emissions. Measures outlined in the plan shall
include, but not be limited to: daily watering of graded areas. washing
of equipment tires before leaving the construction site, and use of
SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers or soil binders.
• During construction, the contractor shall discontinue all construction
activities on the project site during first and second stage smog alerts.
or when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly serviced
so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor will ensure tjtat
all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained
through written documentation to the Development Services Director
(or designee.) -
• The contractor shall provide evidence that low emission mobile con-
struction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investiga ed
and found to be infeasible for the project.
Since the City cannot control the amount of concurrent construction occurring at a v
given time, there is potential for pollutant emissions associated with constructi n
activities within the City to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria and result in
significant, unavoidable adverse short-term air quality impacts. Therefore, t e
• Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term air quality impacts that
cannot be feasibly avoided.
•
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced agairst
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Effect Number 11
Emissions resulting from the implementation of a proposed inert landfill within a
former quarry site (Rodeffer property) at the southern end of the study area, w ll
generate PM10 emissions which exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 35
Facts in Support of Finding
Regarding the potential impacts from implementation of the planned inert landfill on
the Rodeffer property in the southeast section of the General Plan study area, the
Rodeffer Final EIR (Engineering Science, 1994) concluded that the five day
construction period of that project (site preparation and road paving) ■,%ould generate
emissions from CO, ROG, NOc, and Sq that would be below the threshold levels.
Levels of PM,, over two of those days. however, would exceed threshold levels.
Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer EIR will reduce the significant
emissions to below threshold levels for all emissions with exception of PM,,,.
The operational phases of the project(8 to 12 years of filling of the existing quarry pit
with a total of 10 million cubic yards of inert material) would generate emissions from
mobile sources(truck trips to and from the property and off-site source locations, and
truck trips within the site to move the material around). Stationary source emissions
and PM,o were also projected for the landfill period. Concentrations of CO at five
receptors were also modeled, and determined to be less than SCAQMD threshold
levels. The total projected daily emissions exceeded the SCAQMD's thresholds of
significance for ROG, NO and PM„ on worst case (600 truck trips per day) and
average (300 truck trips per day) days and were identified as significant impacts.
Mitigation measures specified in the Rodeffer EIR to reduce emissions impacts
include: 1) discontinuation of operations during Stage II smog alert conditions; 2)
maintenance of all construction vehicles and equipment in proper tune; and 3) use of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on construction equipment, including
retarding the ignition timing of diesel engines and would reduce potential impacts.
Remaining air pollutant emissions were identified as significant, unavoidable impacts.
Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term air quality
impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Effect Number 12
Long-term operational emissions related to motor vehicles, on-site combustion (space
and water heating) as well as off-site generation of electrical power will increase air
quality emissions in the General Plan study area and within the Air Basin.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological,. or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
36
7/30/96(A:\EXJ- IT.A)
i
•
While long-term emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor vehicles to
access a site, nominal emissions are also generated indirectly «ith on-site combustlion
involved in both space and water heating and off-site generation of electrical poler.
Emissions associated with build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan includiing
Development Scenarios A. B, and C are identified in Tables 4.I0.D through 4.10. of
- the Final EIR. The breakdown of emissions for the existing General Plan build but
scenario is provided in Appendix H of the Final EIR. Implementation of the proposed
1996 General Plan will result in total daily emissions that exceed SCAQMD threshold
criteria. To identify the incremental increase associated with build out of the proposed
1996 General Plan, potential air quality impacts are based on a comparison of he
differential emission levels between the existing and the proposed 1996 General Plans
and SCAQMD criteria.
As outlined in Tables 4.I0.D, E and F, in the absence of mitigation, emissions from
each identified source will exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for all General Pan
scenarios, resulting in significant air quality impacts. Compliance with the Ci�t{{,,'s
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and Title 24 of the Uniform Buildig
Code, and implementation of General Plan Strategies ER-5 through ER-8 regarding
Transportation Improvements and System Management, ER-9 through ER-13
regarding Transportation Demand Management, ER-14 through ER-15 regarding land
use planning, ER-16 regarding waste recycling, and ER-21 through 30 ad nd d
Development Performance Standard 34 regarding energy conservation will reduce
potential emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Remaining emissions are expected
to continue to exceed the criteria, and would be significant unavoidable advere
impacts resulting from build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Therefore, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses long-term air quality impacts thlat
cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
NOISE
Significant Effect Number 13
Although the City is largely built out, implementation of the 1996 General Plan m.y
result in short-term noise impacts during construction.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project whic
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
4
7/30/96(A:\EXJ IT.A) 37
•
•
Facts in Support of Finding
Some noise disturbance in adjacent existing noise sensitive areas is expected during
construction of any development. These disturbances may result from demolition, site
preparation and construction of new buildings. Construction typically requires the use
of a number of pieces of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes. loaders.
concrete mixers, etc. In addition, trucks, both heavy and light, are often required to
move excavated material and to deliver gravel, concrete. lumber and other materials.
Typical noise impacts associated with construction activities are described in section
4.11 of the Final EIR.
Although construction noise is generally a short-term impact, there is a potential for
disruption of nearby sensitive receptors if steps are not taken to limit the intensity and
duration of their noise exposure. The City of Arcadia's Building Code limits any
construction related activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday, and prohibits construction work on Sundays and federal holidays.
Compliance with the City of Arcadia Building Code and Mitigation Measure 4.11-1
described below and contained in the Final EIR will reduce potential short-term con-
struction impacts resulting from general development within the study area to below
• the level of significance.
4.11-1 Prior to issuance of any entire structure demolition, grading or building
permit,the permit applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan to
the Development Services Director (or designee), for review and approval.
The Plan shall describe the measures that will be implemented during
demolition/construction activities to reduce off-site noise impacts from
construction equipment to within the instantaneous noise standards identified
in the City's Noise Ordinance. These measures shall become conditions of
project approval or incorporated into the project design. These measures shall
include but not be limited to the following:
• Use of quieter machinery
• Use of noise mufflers/silencers, hush kits, or other mechanical
methods to muffle external noise
• Locating stockpiling, vehicle staging areas, and other noisy activities
away from noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, schools, day-
.
care, and recreational facilities).
The Plan shall also provide for periodic monitoring reports, to the approval of
the Director, documenting Plan implementation.
The Final EIR(Arcadia, 1994) for the Rodeffer landfill project found that significant
noise impacts at nearby residences would result from the filling operation itself and
from trucks entering the site with fill material. Mitigation measures identified in the
FEIR include: limiting the allowable noise levels emitted from construction
equipment to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; limiting hours of operation and access
on site; construction of six foot high walls at adjacent residences for those residences
that do not currently have solid walls; and increasing the existing wall height from 6 to
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 38
12 feet at adjacent residences as the tilling operation moves closer to the residences
(approximately in the seventh year of the operation). ft was determined in the FEER
that. with implementation of these mitigation measures. potentially significant noise
impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance.
PUBLIC HEALTH(HAZARDS)
Significant Effect Number 14
Build out of the General Plan will have the potential to increase the demand for
emergency services and facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan will allow additional incremental developm-nt
throughout the City, and particularly in designated transition areas. The total number
of persons within the City at any one time that could be subjected to injury from •ne
of these catastrophic events would be greater than under the existing General PI:n.
Depending on the nature and scale of the event, the total number of emerge cy
personnel needed for adequate emergency response would vary substantially. W en
the City's resources are committed to an emergency response and when additio al
materials and/or personnel are required to respond to the emergency, requests or
mutual aid would be initiated. These requests would be directed to nearby cities, he
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and, ultimately, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). The presence of an incrementally greater
number of injured persons within the City would result in the City's emergency
personnel being overtaxed. In such a case, it is expected that surrounding jurisdictiolIns
would also be impacted and unable to provide sufficient emergency personnel backdp;
in these events, mutual aid assistance is provided from outside the immediate area.
Implementation of the proposed 1996 General Plan may result in additio al
congestion along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, the main evacuati n
routes out of Arcadia identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, durin a
large-scale evacuation from the central portion of the City. With implementation f
Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.12-2, the potential for increased evacuation delays
from the incremental increase in permanent residents, daytime work force and
nighttime patrons is reduced to below the level of significance.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 39
4.12-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for any development of 400.000 square
•
feet or greater, the Emergency Services Officer shall modify the City's
• emergency response protocol and available emergency response resources.
outlined in the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, to accommodate the additional
increment of development allowed by the proposed 1996 General Plan. Such
modifications shall ensure that the existing level of service is maintained.
4.12-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, project proponents shall demonstrate
that the proposed development will have a neutral effect on the City's ability
to implement the emergency evacuation procedures and routes identified in
the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. If a negative effect is identified,
alternative procedures for evacuation of new residents, employees, or patrons
shall be identified and documented for review and approval by the
Development Services Director (or designee). Alternative evacuation
procedures shall be conditions of project approval or shall be incorporated
into the design of the proposed development.
•
Significant Effect Number 15
Implementation of the 1996 General Plan may result in additional congestion along
Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, the main evacuation routes out of Arcadia
identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, during a large-scale evacuation
from the central portion of the City.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The 1996 General Plan will allow additional incremental development throughout the
City, and particularly in designated transition areas. As a result, traffic will be
increased along the evacuation routes identified in the City's Multi-Hazard Functional
Plan. With implementation_of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.12-2, identified
above, the potential for increased evacuation delays from the incremental increase in
permanent residents, daytime work force and nighttime patrons will be reduced to
below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Number 16
Build out of the General Plan will increase the demand for fire prevention and
suppression services.
7/30/96(A:\EXFiIBIT.A) 40
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project %%h ch
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
Conditions in the Angeles National Forest, located just north of the northern-most
portions of Arcadia, pose a high fire danger risk. The existing residences adjacent to
the mouth of Santa Anita Canyon are located in an area topographically conducive to
rapid spreading of wildland fires. Fires starting down slope from homes could quickly
travel up the steep slopes, engulfing residences. Fires started up slope of residences
within Santa Anita Canyon could be pushed down the canyon by strong Santa Ana
winds. Due to the high fire potential in this area, measures to protect existing aid
future residences are necessary. According to the local office of the U.S. Forst
Service, one of the primary lines of defense for fighting fires in these areas of the City
is the maintenance of Chantry Flats Road, which runs through three jurisdictions
(cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, and the Angeles National Forest), and must
remain clear and in good condition so as to offer adequate access to slopes above the
City.
The existing and proposed 1996 General Plan designations for the northernmo t
portion of the City are for residential uses with a density of 0-4 units per ac+
Presently, much of this area is vacant and undeveloped. Compounding this problem,
the Arcadia Fire Department has identified most of the area north of Elkins Avenue
be a Deficient Zone due to slower response times of more than five or six minutes to
reach this portion of the City ("Fire Station Location Study," City of Arcadia Fide
Department. See Figure 4.13.2).
The proposed 1996 General Plan includes several wildland fire management strategies
to reduce potential fire risks. Compliance with Development Performance Standards
24 through 26 and 30, Municipal Facilities and Services Performance Standards
outlined in Table 6-B,and Mitigation Measure 4.12.-3 will result in fire hazard effects
that are considered less than significant.
4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for projects located in designated fir)
hazard zones, proposed site plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshall (or
designee) and Development Services Director (or designee) for review and
approval demonstrating that sufficient evacuation routes and adequate wate
or fire flows exist. Grading permits will not be issued until sufficien
evacuation routes, water pressure, or fire flow facilities can be reliably))
provided.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Significant Effect Number 17
41
7/30/96(A:\EXHEBIT.A)
, y
Due to the existing local and regional transit opportunities in the City, the land use
changes provided in the proposed 1996 General Plan potentially generate additional
incremental demand on transit services in the City.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project '+.hich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
This increased demand may require expansion of existing services, including
increased frequency of service or addition of new transit lines. In addition, General
Plan Strategies FS-11 and 13 regarding pursuing shuttle service between major
destinations within the City and a station along the MTA light rail line and promoting
use of public transit through development of convenient and attractive facilities will
also contribute to increased demand for transit facilities and services. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 outlined below, potential additional
demands to transit facilities and services will be reduced to below the level of
significance.
4.13-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the permit applicant shall provide
written evidence to the Development Services Director (or designee) for
review and approval that the Metropolitan Transit Authority and/or Foothill
Transit as applicable has been contacted regarding potential construction and
operational effects to existing and planned facilities. Where potential
• construction and/or operational impacts would affect transit facilities or
routes, mitigation shall be identified in writing by the permit applicant, and
shall include but not be limited to:
• Provision and maintenance of acceptable clearance between construc-
tion activities and transit facilities.
• Transit purveyors must be notified a minimum of two weeks prior to
any roadway closure adjacent to existing transit facilities.
• Incorporation of bus stops, shelters, park and ride lots or other types
of facilities into project design.
This document must include documentation that the transit provider agrees
with the mitigation proposed by the permit applicant. Identified
improvements shall be conditions of project approval or incorporated into
project design.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 42
Significant Effect Number 18
The proposed 1996 General Plan provides for increased densities that will potentially
result in additional demand for telephone and cable television services.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the project hat
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Master EIR.
•
Facts in Support of Finding
The expected increase in demand may result in the extension of existing facilitie or
may impact facilities during construction. Implementation of General Plan Strat-gy
FS-20, which identifies ongoing coordination with utility providers to ensure long-
term provision of services, and Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 below will reduce potential
impacts to telephone and cable television services to below the level of significance.
4.13-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the permit applicant shall prov de
written evidence for review and approval of the Development Services
Director (or designee) that affected utility purveyors, including telephone,
cable television, natural gas, electricity, water, wastewater and solid waste.
have been contacted regarding potential construction and operational effects
to existing and planned facilities. Where potential construction and)or
operational impacts would affect existing facilities or system capacity,
•
specific mitigation shall be identified in writing by the permit applicant. This
document must include a statement that the utility provider agrees with the
mitigation proposed by the permit applicant. Identified improvements shall
be conditions of project approval or incorporated into project design.
Significant Effect Number 19
The estimated increase in demand for electricity and natural gas may require the
extension or expansion of existing facilities or may impact facilities during
construction.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
3
7/30/96(A:\EXF IT.A)
1 ,
Facts in Support of Finding
Daily natural gas and electricity consumption will increase by approximately 310. 469
cubic feet and 121.323 kilowatt hours under build out of the proposed 1996 General
Plan with Development Scenario A. Build out with Development Scenarios B and C
would have reduced levels of consumption, as illustrated in Table 4.13.C.
Development Scenario B build out is estimated to consume an additional 243,786
cubic feet and 76,971 kilowatt hours per day. Development Scenario C build out is
estimated to consume an additional 285,153 cubic feet and 94.215 kilowatt hours per
day.
Implementation of General Plan Strategy FS-20, which identifies ongoing
coordination with utility providers to ensure long-term provision of services, and
Mitigation Measure 4.13-2, outlined above, will reduce potential impacts to natural
gas and electricity services to below the level of significance.
Significant Effect Number 20
Potentially significant impacts to solid waste service may result with implementation
of the proposed 1996 General Plan. Specifically, build out of any of the proposed
General Plan Scenarios may require additional solid waste service facilities to
supplement the existing facilities at the Puente Hills Landfill and the Bradley Landfill.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Master EIR. •
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed General Plan approach for solid waste management is to implement the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE). The SRRE was prepared by
the City in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989,
commonly referred to as Assembly Bill(AB)939. AB 939 requires that all California
cities prepare and implement a plan to reduce the amount of waste going to regional
landfills by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.
According to the City's SRRE, the remaining landfill capacity in the entire County is
projected to be exhausted by the year 1999, or possibly as soon as 1996 given specific
limitations associated with certain landfills. The City's SRRE plans waste reduction
measures that are expected to achieve a diversion rate of nearly 56 percent by the year
2000. Measures implemented to date include mandatory residential and nonresidential
recycling. The actual waste diversion realized under build out of the proposed 1996
General Plan, and the additional development intensities therewith, may be slightly
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 44
� s
less than 56 percent since the estimates in the SRRE were based on 1990 %%2ste
generation data. However. the City will be required to comply with AB 919 and meet
the minimum 50 percent diversion. through the implementation of its SRRE as
included in Table 6-B of the proposed 1996 General Plan development performance
standards. The City will monitor the level of waste diversion throughout build oud of
the proposed 1996 General Plan in order to ascertain compliance with the c0 percnt
reduction mandate. As a result, no significant impact to solid waste facilities will be.
generated by the proposed 1996 General Plan.
RECREATION
Significant Effect Number 21
•
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase of residents to
the City, and an increase in the demand for recreational facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding •
Currently, active and passive parks are located throughout the City within a one mile
radius of all residential development. Since all potential residential areas of the City
have already been designated for residential uses, land use transitions provided for in
the proposed 1996 General Plan only intensify existing residential areas, and do not
propose changes of nonresidential uses to residential uses. Therefore, additional
residents of the City will reside in existing residential areas and will have park
facilities within a one mile radius. Any potential effects will be further reduced
through implementation of Development Performance Standard 23 of the proposed
1996 General Plan, which requires all new residential development to pay
development fees to be established by the City for the provision of parks and
recreational facilities. Potential effects to recreational resources associated with buil
out of the.proposed 1996 General Plan are thus considered to be less than significan .
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 1
The build out of the proposed General Plan would allow intensified development in
the transition areas, in combination with other future incremental development in
underdeveloped parcels throughout the remainder of the City and, as such, would
incrementally contribute to increased exposure of people, structures and property to
ground shaking and surface rupture as a result of earthquakes.
45
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
•
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
"porkers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environniental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
Additional residents in the City and its sphere' of influence would potentially be
exposed to primary and secondary seismic hazards under the proposed 1996 General
Plan due to the relatively close proximity of the Raymond Hill and Sierra Madre Fault
Zones. At a more regional level, seismic activity along the San Andreas Fault, which
traverses Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial Counties,
will likely affect a larger population with these impacts.
Standards and procedures required by the Alquist-Priolo Act will be required for
development projects in the City during application plan check and permitting phases.
• In addition, General Plan mitigation measures specified in Section 4.3 relative to re-
placement or strengthening of existing structures per City code, restriction of
construction in known fault zones, adherence of construction of new buildings to the
• Uniform Building Code, and geologic monitoring and implementation' of soil
techniques to reduce the potential for liquefaction in prone areas shall be
implemented, and will reduce these impacts to.below significant levels. However.
even with implementation of the standards and mitigation measures described above,
these potential primary seismic impacts are considered to be significant, since seismic
events cannot be prevented but are known to be an imminent danger. Th::=fore, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses primary and secondary cumulative
seismic hazard effects that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 2
Build our of the General Plan study area will increase the demand for water from
underlying regional water basins. Since this impact to water supply is regionally
significant without successful provision of additional sources, the City of Arcadia's
incremental demand for water supply remains a cumulatively significant unavoidable
adverse impact.
•
•
Finding "a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBTT.A) 46
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan land uses would contribute towards the cumulative
draw on the East and West Units of the Raymond Groundwater Basin and the Malin
San Gabriel Basin. Safe yields for City of Arcadia established for each basin by the
adjudication proceedings are as follows:
Raymond Basin (East Unit) - 3,526 acre-feet per year
Raymond Basin (West Unit) - 2,118 acre-feet per year
Main San Gabriel Basin - 9,308 acre-feet per year
Any amount of water used over the safe yield must be replaced by purchasing
replenishment water either from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) or othr
jurisdictions' groundwater supplies.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (RCP FEIR) divided the
potential regional water supply impacts into MWD and Non-MWD areas. MWIi
forecasts that, for their service areas, a 29.2 percent increase in water demand wild
result by the year 2010' due to the projected population growth. A water suppl
shortfall of 54,000 acre feet(average rainfall years) is projected for the MWD areas i
the year 2010 due to the constraints affecting future water sources combined with the
projected growth trends. This potential shortfall was identified as a significant impac:
to the MWD service areas prior to mitigation.
In accordance with the Upper District's Urban Water Management Plan, the State
Water Project'(SWP) may not be able to fulfill all of its contractual water delivery
requirements in the future. Sources and quality of SWP water directly affect its ability
to meet the contractual commitment; for example, as local use of water in northern
California increases, supply to the SWP may be reduced. Currently, the SWP can
deliver approximately 2.1 million acre-feet per year on a firm yield basis, whereas the
Project's contractual commitment is about 4.2 million acre-feet. As such, additional
supplies must be developed. The Monterey Agreement, finalized in 1994, is a
separate agreement reached by SWP contractors and is the basis for an amendment to
MWD's water supply contract with the State of California. The Agreement prescribes
actions by which water management can be improved through more flexible use by
the contractors of existing SWP storage and water conveyance facilities and through
the opportunity for urban contractors to purchase agricultural water entitlements
(Urban Water Management Plan, Chapter III).
Data was not available for 2015; however, the SCAG RCP FEIR states that
the population of the SCAG Region will increase by 1.5 million people
between the years 2010 and 2015 and that, if no additional water sources are
found by 2010, the significance of the impact will be worsened (RCP FEIR,
Vol. II, page 7.7).
47
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
i
The Regional Urban 6Vater .ttana.cement Plan for the .tfetropolitan Water District of
Southern California(MWD. October. 1995) projects seater demand for the municipal
and industrial uses in MIWD's service area utilizing forecasted long-term
demographics (population. housing and employment) from adopted regional urowth
management plans provided by SCAG and San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG). specifically the 1993 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (adopted
June. 1994) and the Preliminary Series 8 Forecasts issued by SANDAG (September.
1993). MWD's water demand forecasts also incorporate current and future water
conservation measures. The forecasts indicate a projected increase in demand of one
million acre-feet between 1994 and 2010. or an increase of 31 percent.
Mitigation measures specified in the RCP FEIR included development of incentives.
educational programs and policies for private and public areas to encourage water
conservation, thereby reducing water demand: obtaining 0.45 million acre feet (MAF)
of Colorado River water through implementation of certain programs (specific pro-
grams listed in FEIR Mitigation Measure 7.1b); obtaining 0.20 MAF of additional
water in an average year, and 1.13 MAF in a minimum year from the SWP through
specifically identified new water facilities and transfers (listed in RCP FEIR
Mitigation Measure 7.1c); implementation of water transfer programs to increase
water supplies; expansion and implementation of wastewater reclamation programs by
0.27 MAF per year; expansion and implementation of groundwater recovery programs
by 0.10 MAF per year; obtaining conservation of 0.56 MAF per year through
implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPS) in combination with existing
conservation practices; making optimum use of desalinization technology; optimizing
use of groundwater and surface water storage and conveyance facilities though
conjunctive use programs and approved and proposed capital improvement projects to
increase distribution system flexibility and reliability; improvement of water
distribution reliability and flexibility through the implementation of new conveyance,
treatment and storage facilities; and other processes and drought management
programs.
MWD has developed a water conservation program to achieve and maintain a high
level of water use efficiency in its service area. The primary components of the
conservation program include active participation in the statewide implementation of
BOPS; water conservation research and development to define the reliable yield from
existing conservation programs and to improve the design and targeting of future
programs; economic and financial incentives to encourage efficient use of water in
MWD's service area; and public information and education activities to spread
knowledge of water and techniques for its efficient use (Regional Urban Water
Management Plan, Demand Side Management (Conservation) and Public Affairs
Programs chapter). In the Memorandum of Understanding(MO U) Regarding Urban
Water Conservation Best Management Practices signed by MWD, other water
agencies,environmental and other public interest groups, commitments were made to
the implementation of the current BOPS (Table 1II-2 of the Water Management Plan)
and development of other, improved management practices.
The RCP FEIR concluded that the above measures will reduce the regional impact on
water supplies to below the level of significance. The City of Arcadia is responsible
for implementation of the General Plan Strategies prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 48
a '
EIR and the Development Performance Standards outlined in Chapter 6.0 of he
proposed 1996 General Plan. Therefore. all significant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been avoided or substantially lessened by miti_ation
measures identified in the Final EIR.
Finding "b"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency
Facts in Support of Finding
Although the City's demand for water supply incrementally contributes to the regioral
demand, the City's growth projections are well below those of SCAG and accounted
for by MWD forecasts. However, the reduction of cumulative impacts to the regioral
water supply is dependent upon successful implementation of the RCP and member
agency mitigation measures. In that the City of Arcadia does not have complete
control or responsibility for successful implementation of the SCAG RCP mitigation
measures, and that the impact to water supply is regionally significant without
successful provision of additional sources, the City of Arcadia's incremental dema d
for water supply remains a cumulatively significant unavoidable adverse impact.
Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses cumulative water
supply impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made belovi..
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 3
Increased stormwater pollutants generated in the General Plan study area would po-
tentially flow downstream into drainage in other jurisdictions, combining with
pollutants there to create a cumulative pollutant loading in surface waters downstream.
Finding "a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
•
Facts in Support of Finding
•
The RCP FEIR provides water quality data on regional surface water bodies; for the
San Gabriel River, water quality problems were identified as including threat of
elevated fish tissue levels,threat of toxic bioassay results, and threat of drinking water
impairment(Table 7-13, RCP FEIR, Volume I, State of the Region Report). The San
I
•
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) • :}9
ti
•
Gabriel Valley contains major groundwater basins that serve Arcadia and vicinity.
Regionally, 'groundwater quality is commonly impaired with salinity, nitrates and
sulfates.
Primary pollutants of concern within the cumulative study area are nitro=en and phos-
phorus compounds from urban lawns and plant bed fertilizers: pesticides. herbicides,
trace metals from street surfaces and urban products: and detergents and petro-
chemicals from vehicle and building maintenance. Future development allowed under
the proposed 1996 General Plan will increase the quantities of these pollutants in
storm water. Increased vehicular traffic, use of landscaping chemicals, and industrial
chemical uses will all contribute an incremental increase in the cumulative levels of
pollutants. Increased storm water pollutants generated in the General Plan study area
would potentially flow downstream into drainage in other jurisdictions, combining
with pollutants there to create a cumulative pollutant loading in surface waters
downstream.
BMPS and other water quality mitigation measures(including preparation of erosion
control plans as part of permits for specific development proposals) will reduce the
levels of pollutants carried in the storm water flow; however, the measures would not
completely eliminate the additional pollutants resulting from the increases in develop-
ment intensities allowed by the proposed 1996 General Plan.
The RCP FEIR concluded that, prior to implementation of regional mitigation
measures, there would be a significant impact of degradation of surface water quality
as a result of short-term construction impacts and long-term development and
additional highway runoff impacts. Both point and non-point source discharges will
be increased because of population growth and associated development projected for
the SCAG region. The RCP FEIR identified that surface water bodies that could be
potentially affected by generated pollutants include the west fork of the San Gabriel
River, approximately eight to ten miles south of Arcadia. Mitigation measures
prescribed in the RCP FEIR included SCAG's encouragement of watershed
management programs with local governments in the primary role; SCAG to play a
coordinating role in watershed management efforts at the subregional level; SCAG to
develop a priority listing of water quality projects and actively pursue federal and
State grants to obtain funding for these projects; and SCAG to work with jurisdictions
that have NPDES permits for storm water to prepare an evaluation of feasible BOPS
for use by member local jurisdictions. SCAG determined that implementation of these
mitigation measures would reduce the potential degradation of surface water quality,
groundwater quality, and decreased groundwater recharge(the latter two impacts were
also determined significant before mitigation).to below levels of significance at the
regional level. It is noted that SCAG is responsible for the successful implementation
of these RCP mitigation measures pertaining to water quality.
Implementation of the General Plan mitigation measures prescribed in Se- rl 4.4, in
combination with the Development Performance Standards contained in ter 6.0
of the proposed 1996 General Plan, will reduce the cumulative cons ion of
potential water quality impacts of the proposed 1996 General Plan to belo• .:eels of
significance.
50
7/30/96(A:\EXFIT.A)
�
f
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been a<oRled
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
Finding "b"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another pudic
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated above, SCAG is responsible for the successful implementation of these RCP
mitigation measures pertaining to water quality.
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 4
The potential construction of flood control facilities in the Santa Anita Wash could
involve removal of portions of the existing oak woodland and riparian plant com-
munities in the upper end of that flood zone. Removal of these sensitive habitats,
identified as at-risk habitats in the RCP, would create a significant cumulative
biological impact within the region and State.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
•
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan (Environmental Resources Chapter, Biological
Resources)specifies that sensitive habitat such as oak woodland and riparian/wetlands
must be protected in place unless certain criteria or conditions are met (e.g.,
• improvements necessary for water conservation or flood control). Project specific
mitigation (Section 4.5) and Development Performance Standards 31, 32, and 33 1n
Chapter 6.0 of the proposed 1996 General Plan require that any future flood control
facilities constructed in this zone must maintain the value of the area of wildlife usage
and habitation. The mitigation specifies that a qualified biologist will be engaged io
study any proposed developments of flood facility improvements and to speci
measures to ensure the retention of the habitat value.
Proposals for land development adjacent to biologically sensitive areas must consider
sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors. There is a potential cumulative biological
impact from future development adjacent to Arcadia Wilderness Park due to
disruption of wildlife movement through the Park to and from existing open space in
the City. (The same impact would occur under the existing General Plan.) Biological
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 511
habitat studies and permit requirements are specified as mitiaation for future develop-
ment proposals. These mitigation measures and proposed 1996 General Plan
Development Performance Standards will reduce the potential impact to a level less
than significant.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 5
The potential development of non-mining industrial uses in the area west of the
Livingston-Graham quarry would represent an incremental significant cumulative ad-
verse impact to the regional goals for mineral access and use.
Finding
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
•
Facts in Support of Finding
The proposed 1996 General Plan retains the existing General Plan designation of
Industrial uses on the western portion of the Livingston-Graham quarry resource area
that is in Arcadia(Clark Street and vicinity). However, the Industrial use designation
for this area does not guarantee mining of the known mineral resources within
Arcadia's portion of the Livingston-Graham site. If mineral extraction on this site
were to occur, that use would contribute beneficially towards the goals of the SCAG
region and State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act for provision of mineral
resources to the aggregate industry and development of policies for long-term
management of mineral resources. If other industrial uses were approved for the area
around Clark Street, the significant MRZ-2 resources in this area would not be
accessible to future extraction, and this portion of the regional resource would be lost
for production-consumption uses.
At the General Plan level, it cannot be ascertained absolutely whether the removal of
access to the resources contained within the subject property would or would not be
significant to the region. Future development applications for the property will
require separate environmental analysis, which will include specific investigations to
determine whether non-mining uses would be significant in relation to the San Gabriel
P-C Region and State reserves and,non-permitted resources. Although the vacant area
potentially available for mining adjacent to the existing Livingston-Graham sand and
gravel operation is relatively small(approximately 6.8 acres), the potential cumulative
impact of implementing other industrial development(non-mining)of this property is
determined to be significant, given the regional significance of the aggregate
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 52
• y
resources. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses
cumulative mineral use and access impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 6
Short-term cumulative impacts will result in impacts to local areas w ithin the
cumulative study area from exhaust emissions generated by grading equipm nt,
construction activities, and building material deliveries.
•
Finding "a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
All future approved projects within the cumulative study area must reduce emissions
to the extent feasible, since the region is an area of non-attainment for ozone a!nd
PM10. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 in Section 4.10 for construction
activities within the City requires preparation of a mitigation plan to control
construction vehicle/equipment emissions and dust. Implementation of the plan
components will reduce project construction air quality impacts to the degree feasible;
however, since the City cannot control the amount of concurrent construction activity
in the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB), nor the application of mitigation for all region-
wide construction work, the potential exists for pollutant emissions to exceed
established threshold criteria, resulting in a significant cumulative unavoidable
adverse impact.
The proposed mitigation measures included in the Arcadia 1996 General Plan EIR
Section 4.10 can reduce emissions from construction equipment up to 40 percept.�
There is the potential to reduce these short-term emissions to below a level of signifi-
cance, depending on the type of construction equipment used and the phasing of the
work. Yet, the potential remains for exceedance of construction emissions over the
threshold criteria, causing a significant, adverse short-term cumulative impact.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
Finding "b"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
• 7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 53
- ` y
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated previously, all future approved projects within the cumulative study area
must reduce emissions to the extent feasible pursuant to the regional Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), since the region is an area of non-attainment for ozone
and PM,,,. Although the General Plan includes air quality mitigation measure 4.I0-I
in Section 4.10 for construction activities within the City, the City cannot control the
amount of concurrent construction activity in the SCAB, nor'the application of
mitigation for all region-wide construction work. Therefore, the potential exists for
pollutant emissions to exceed established threshold criteria, resulting in a significant
cumulative unavoidable adverse impact.
Finding "c"
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report,"
Facts in Support of Finding
As is concluded in the previous findings,the potential exists for pollutant emissions to
exceed established threshold criteria, resulting in a significant cumulative unavoidable
adverse impact. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses
short-term air quality impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 7
The AQMP EIR concluded that regional long-term air quality conditions will be
• significant in the build out year 2015 for NOR, CO, and ROG.
Finding."a"
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
• Facts in Support of Finding
The FEIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures specified in the
AQMP EIR would reduce the potential long-term emissions to below levels of
7/30/96(A:\EXFiIBIT.A) 54
1 `1
•
significance. However, successful implementation of the regional measures is
dependant.upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specified in the FEIR. The
City of Arcadia, however, is responsible only for its fair share of those regional
measures, including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4.10. and cannot
guarantee the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP requi-ed
mitigation. Therefore, the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by build
out of the City's General Plan will remain significant, given the significant. basel ne
condition. y `
Finding "b"
Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated above, successful implementation of the regional measures is dependant
upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specified in the FEIR. The City of
Arcadia. however, is responsible only for its fair share of those regional measures,
•
including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4.10, and cannot guarantee
the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP required mitigation.
Therefore, the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by build out of the
City's General Plan will remain significant, given the significant, baseline condition.
Finding "c"
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
As stated in the previous findings,successful implementation of the regional measures
is dependant upon multiple jurisdictions and certain factors specified in the FEIR.
The City of Arcadia, however, is responsible only for its fair share of those regional
measures, including the mitigation measures specified in EIR Section 4.10, and cannot
guarantee the successful and complete implementation of all AQMP required
mitigation. Therefore, the potential long-term air quality impacts generated by buid
out of the City's General Plan will remain significant, given the significant, baseline
condition.Therefore,the Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses short-term
air quality impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
7/30/96(A:\EXFiIBIT.A) 55
•
•
Significant Cumulative Effect Number 8,
The ambient noise level will be increased incrementally due to the proposed 1996
General Plan land use intensification.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project «Bich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding
The noise model for the General Plan noise analysis incorporated the forecast traffic
volumes contained in the traffic analysis (Appendix D of the FEIR) for regional and
local arterials. The noise analysis projected noise levels for the baseline year 2015, as
well as the baseline with the proposed 1996 General Plan, including three alternative
development scenarios for Transition Area I. The projected noise levels within the
proposed 1996 General Plan represent the cumulative noise condition as described
above under "Cumulative Study Area."
The noise analysis determined that most of the additional traffic that could be gen-
erated by build out of the proposed 1996 General Plan would not raise ambient noise
levels above significant levels (65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior).
Only one roadway segment, Huntington Drive between Colorado Boulevard and Santa
Anita Avenue, would potentially have traffic noise levels of three dBA CNEL or
• above (the threshold of audible noise) over existing noise levels. The noise level is
projected to be 68 dBA CNEL with the proposed 1996 General Plan compared to 65
dBA CNEL with.the future no project baseline. Mitigation prescribed in Section 4.11
will reduce the potential noise level to below the interior and exterior noise standards
for existing and/or proposed residential development. The, specific mitigation for
future development applications under the proposed General Plan includes detailed
site specific noise analyses and resulting noise reduction mitigation measures;
adherence of residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour adjacent to
roadways or transit lines to California Noise Insulation Standards; and compliance of
commercial and industrial development applications with maximum noise level
standards at the property line of adjacent uses.
Although the majority of the roadways are not projected to generate traffic noise
levels above the perceptible level (three dBA CNEL), increases of one or two dBA
will incrementally add to the ambient community noise,contributing to the cumulative
noise environment. Based on the cumulative thresholds of significance, the project's
contribution will not be significant; the majority of the cumulative study area is
already developed, experiencing typical urban noise levels from traffic and commerce
sources. In addition,sound walls have been incorporated along the north side of[-210
between Santa Anita Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, and additional walls are planned
for other sections on the north side of 1-210. These existing and planned barriers will
help reduce the cumulative noise impacts to residences along the freeway.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 56
•
The reclamation process for transition of the abandoned quarry along Lower Azusa
Road will generate significant noise levels that will affect nearby residences i Rodeffer
Inert Landfill FEIR. March, 1994.) The process, which will involve operation of
construction equipment to fill the existing pit. is projected to last between 8 and 1
• years. Without implementation of mitigation measures, the noise generated by he
reclamation work would be significant upon the adjacent sensitive receptors. The E1R
for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill (City of Arcadia. March. 1994) prescribes standard
noise construction mitigation measures, such as limitations on the timing of
construction activities, in addition to construction of six foot walls at adjacent resi-
dences that currently do not have solid walls separating them from the Rodeffer s to
and, subsequently, construction of 12 foot walls along adjacent properties as t e
reclamation work expands closer to the residences (approximately the seventh year f
work). The Rodeffer EIR concluded that, with implementation of these mitigation
measures, which have been incorporated into the 1996 General Plan and General Plan
EIR there would be no significant adverse noise impacts to the surrounding sensiae
land uses.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been avoided
or substantially lessened by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
PROJECT AL TERNA TI VES
The 1996 General Plan Alternatives are based on different views of how to manage
the community's future. These different views represent a menu of potentially feasible
alternatives the City could employ when making decisions about future growth, lan
use changes, circulation improvements, infrastructure improvements or housing
programs. The three alternatives provide a reasonable range of alternatives,
formulated to address concerns identified in community workshops and meetings with
the City staff, and to address opportunities, constraints and issues identified during
initial General Plan research and issues identification. The initial .formulation o
General Plan alternatives was described in a report entitled Alternatives Assessment
Report, dated July 18, 1995, which is part of the Final EIR, and was presented to th4
Arcadia Planning Commission and City Council at a workshop. Based on comments
that were received from the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as o
• n
initial results of the environmental analysis of the proposed 1996 General Plan, the
initial alternatives were refined to achieve the basic objectives of the 1996 General
Plan, while offering opportunities to reduce the impacts of the proposed 1996 General
Plan.
•
No Project Alternative
CEQA requires discussion of the No Project Alternative. State CEQA Guidelines
• Section 15126(d)(4)sets forth the following discussion of the No Project Alternative.
The specific alternative of"no project"shall also be evaluated along with its impact.
The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and
7/30/96(A:\EXH BIT.A) 57
community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no hrop:L t"
alternative, the EIR shall also iclentifi?an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives. -
For the General Plan EIR, build out of the land uses.as specified in the existing
Arcadia General Plan for property within the City and build out of land in
unincorporated County areas within the City's sphere of influence according to the •
Los Angeles County General Plan are the No Project Alternative. .Analyzing this
alternative provided a comparison of the 1996 General Plan with development under
the status quo, with no change to the applicable plans, programs and policies currently
in place.
The No Project Alternative would, in general, result in the same impacts that are
identified for the proposed 1996 General Plan, but to a similar or reduced degree.
. Implementation of the existing General Plan would involve some reasonable level of
new development, redevelopment and continued operation of existing uses throughout
the City. Incremental intensification of commercial uses, demolition of lower density
residential uses and replacement with higher density uses, along with greater
utilization of underdeveloped and underutilized property has been the historical trend
in Arcadia. and can reasonably be expected to continue. Compared to the proposed
1996 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would reasonably build out at a
somewhat lower residential density, and with somewhat lower commercial intensity.
This results from the absence of policies, programs and land use reservations that: 1)
promote higher density near the downtown, 2) allow mixed uses, 3) allow
intensification of development on the Santa Anita Park property, and 4) provide
incentives for elderly and/or affordable housing.
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer and reduced impacts, compared with
• the proposed 1996 General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not increase the
• opportunity for additional multifamily residences, commercial and mixed use
development in the Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive Transition Area, commercial
•
and mixed use development in the Downtown Residential Transition Area, or
additional commercial development and residences in Transition Area 1. Industrial
uses in the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area could still be developed. Specifically,•
the No Project Alternative would allow continued growth according to the current
General Plan. The current General Plan would allow development of the following: 1)
385 additional dwelling units; 2) 182,589 square feet of additional commercial use
•
and 3) 1,196,971 square feet of additional industrial use. This is development beyond
the existing land uses present in the Study Area.
Due to the increase in development allowed by this alternative,,the impacts expected
would be similar to, but less than, the proposed 1996 General Plan. The number of
vehicle trips for the transition areas are expected to increase by 27,406 average daily
trips (ADT) under the current General Plan (no project). In contrast, the increase in
total vehicle trips in the transition areas for the proposed 1996 General Plan is 89,134
ADT. These trips are over a 24 hour period, and are generated in the transition areas,
but are spread out throughout the community. In order to have a significant increase
in air pollution, noise effects and traffic, the thresholds reported in Chapter 4.0 must
be exceeded. As reported in Chapter 4.0, the only significant impact is to Michillinda
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 58
Avenue. and occurs with or without the project. Therefore. the increase in traffic. ;nd
the resultant air quality and noise effects under the No Project Alternative. ∎t ill
incrementally increase impacts. The potential impacts would be proportional to the
proposed 1996 General Plan. roughly causing 30 percent of the projected traffic and
air pollution increase. Noise, however, does not increase in direct proportion to traffic
increases. Because of existing traffic on area roadways, the increased traffic volurres
resulting, from General Plan implementation would yield only minor, inaudible (less
than 3 dB) increases in noise levels. As a rule of thumb. traffic at the levels reportled
in the General Plan traffic analysis in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIR would have to nearly
double before the increase in noise would be perceptible to the average person.
Other areas of potential impact include land use, housing, population, recreation and
public services. The incremental increases in housing, population and tlne
employment base resulting from the No Project 'Alternative will not brine about
significant impacts in the aforementioned areas due to the relatively slow pace of
current development occurring in small disconnected infill sites, which is assumed ko
continue to produce a small proportional increase spread out through the City. As
with the proposed 1996 General Plan, Development Performance Standards included
within the General Plan and the EIR mitigation measures, if applied to the No Project
Alternative, would reduce potential impacts in these areas. For the areas of risk [o
additional daytime and nighttime population, loss of access to mineral resources, and
aesthetic impacts, there are no effects anticipated for the No Project Alternative, dye
to the infill nature of possible development allowed by the current General Plan and
the built out condition of these potential growth areas.
The No Project Alternative, however, would not satisfy the basic project objectives. t
would not provide the additional sales tax revenue that could be generated b
additional commercial, and mixed use uses allowed at greater intensity by the
proposed 1996 General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not contribute
towards meeting the City of Arcadia's objectives for additional housing opportunities
made possible by the proposed 1996 General Plan increases in density and housing
incentives. With the No Project Alternative,the existing pattern of slow conversion of
single family residential to multifamily residential housing would continue. Thusl
although continued development under the No Project Alternative incrementally,
reduces impacts compared to the proposed 1996 General Plan, this alternative does not
achieve the objectives of the proposed 1996 General Plan, i.e., to increase housing
opportunities, revitalize the downtown, and provide a sufficient tax base to suppo
projected City service requirements.
•
In summary,the No Project Alternative causes incrementally fewer impacts compared
to the proposed 1996 General Plan, and is considered environmentally superior to the
proposed project. However, economic, social, legal, and technological considerations
make acceptance of the No Project Alternative infeasible. Retention of the City's
previous General Plan would create a long-term "break-even" fiscal picture for the
City, resulting in substantial deficits in times of economic downturns, and making
replacement of capital facilities difficult. In addition, it would be difficult to maintain',
the high level of services now enjoyed by Arcadia residents and businesses. Because
(1) the previous General Plan rests on an aging data base, (2) State Housing Element
law requires modifications to the 1990 Housing Element, and(3)changes in State law
j 9
7/30/96(A:\EXBIT.A)
HI
regarding the provisions of maximum development intensities in the land use element.
the No Project Alternative would be infeasible. Finally. the No Project alternative is
infeasible since it would not permit the incorporation of the transportation and air
quality management programs into the General Plan.
No Project/No Build Alternative
The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that no additional development would
occur within the City and its sphere of influence, even that which might be permitted
under the previous General Plan. This alternative is a subset of the No Project
Alternative described above. This alternative assumes no growth or change from the
existing condition, and reflects conditions being essentially the same as the existing
conditions at the time of drafting the EIR in both the City of Arcadia and its sphere of
influence (e.g., areas within the County of Los Angeles proposed for eventual
annexation). This alternative would create a static downtown commercial area, not
allow new growth in residential population in Transition Areas 2 and 3, and leave the
Rodeffer property in its present condition, without reclamation of the open pit.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in fewer or no impacts to the
environment in the study area,as compared to the proposed 1996 General Plan. Under
the No Project/No Build Alternative,there would be fewer/no potential impacts to bio-
logical, cultural and scientific, water, earth and mineral resources. There would be
fewer impacts to traffic levels of service, air quality degradation and noise generation,
which directly reflect the absence of growth through the number of employees and
residents utilizing the City's roadways. The incremental increases in demand for
public services and facilities that would be expected with the proposed project or the
project alternatives would not occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. The
total population(full-time residents)and housing supply would be static, not changing
from the existing baseline. This would lead to fewer impacts than those projected for
the 1996 General Plan or any of the project alternatives, since the No Project/No Build
Alternative would not involve construction of any additional dwelling units over the
existing supply. The Rodeffer property would continue to remain in a vacated state,
would not be reclaimed,and would not be available for industrial or any other useful
purpose.
Impacts related to the projected population level increases with the proposed 1996
General Plan would remain static, since the population level would not be increased.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed
1996 General Plan in terms of the City's intentions to accommodate a diversity of
residential types, employment opportunities, commercial, recreational, educational,
civic and cultural activities,which contribute to the community vitality and well-being
of existing and future residents. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not
ensure an adequate municipal revenue stream, which furnishes the City with the long-
term ability to continue providing the level of services demanded by its residents and
businesses. Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would not allow
any new development or redevelopment of existing land uses and, therefore, would
not change and not improve the land use opportunities to provide for in the revised
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 60
Housing Element. This alternative may have physical and economic effects within tie
City by promoting a stagnant economy. Without additional revenues from sales tix
and property tax sources, the City, faced with rising costs for services. would be
forced to cut back services or curtail some services altogether. This would, in turn.
potentially lead to physical blight.
The No Project/No Build Alternative avoids or substantially lessens all of the impa is
of the proposed 1996 General Plan, and is environmentally superior. However.
economic, social, legal, and technological considerations make acceptance of the o
Project/No Build Alternative infeasible. Elimination of all future development would
create a long-term negative fiscal picture for the City, resulting in substantial deficits
in times of economic downturns,and making replacement of capital facilities difficu t.
In addition, it would be impossible to maintain the high level of services now enjoyed
by Arcadia residents and businesses. Because(1) State Housing Element law requires
cities to provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of the communihi
and (2) SMARA requires reclamation of mineral extraction sites, the No Project/No
Build Alternative would be infeasible.
Alternative I
Within the southerly parking area of the Santa Anita Park racetrack, this alternative
would permit the development of up to • 500,000 square feet of
commercial/entertainment uses and up to 350 multifamily residential dwelling units. _
Within the area east of Santa Anita Avenue, between Huntington Drive and Duarte
Road,Alternative 1 would facilitate conversion of existing lands zoned for residential
use (both single and multifamily types) to multifamily residential development at la
maximum density of 30 units per acre. Alternative I would allow development of up
to 600 multifamily dwelling units within the Lower Azusa Road Transition Area
located in the extreme southerly portion of the City. The balance of the study area
(City incorporated area and City sphere of influence unincorporated area) would not
be affected,and would be developed according to the designations in the 1996 Gener 1
Plan.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to the
existing condition: 1) increase of 1,939 dwelling units; 2) increase of 820,963 square
feet of commercial; and 3) decrease of 30,000 square feet of industrial.
Alternative 1 was rejected because although it had fewer aesthetic and air quality
impacts, the alternative had greater land use and planning consideration impact ,
population and housing impacts, and school(public facility) impacts. This alternative
would extend school impacts beyond the Arcadia Unified School District, and into El
Monte City School District and the El Monte High School District. In particular, th
El Monte School District is incapable of accommodating new students in the area near r
the southernmost portion of Arcadia. Thus, a new school or new school facilities
would need to be available prior to the occupancy of new residential development in
Transition Area 4. This would place a significant burden on the financing of such
school facilities. Also,Alternative 1 would result in significant land use compatibility
impacts, for which overriding considerations are not available, particularly in light of
A:\EXH:D3IT.A)
(
6
7/30/96
)
•
the fact that General Plan project objectives can be achieved without such and use
compatibility impacts.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would permit the development of up to 1.5 million square feet of
commercial/entertainment development within the southerly parking area of Santa
Anita Park racetrack. Within the area east of Santa Anita Avenue, between Hun-
tington Drive and Dart Road, Alternative 2 would facilitate conversion of existing
lands zoned for residential use to multifamily development at a maximum density of
30 units per acre west of Third Avenue and up to 24 units per acre east of Third
Avenue. North of the light rail line in the eastern portion of the City, Alternative 2
would expand opportunities for commercial, business park and office uses. In
addition,Alternative 2 would permit development of up to 300 multifamily residential
units on the former quarry site on the Rodeffer property, following filling of the pit
and completion of other site preparation requirements. The balance of the study area
would not be affected.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to the
existing condition: 1) increase of 869 dwelling units; 2) increase of 1,872.098 square
feet of commercial; and 3)decrease of 12,543 square feet of industrial.
Alternative 2 is infeasible, and was rejected because it had greater land use and
planning consideration impacts, and school (public facility) impacts than that of the
proposed project. This alternative would extend school impacts beyond the Arcadia
Unified School District,and into El Monte City School District and the El Monte High
School District. In particular, the El Monte. School District is incapable of
• accommodating new students in the area near the southernmost portion of Arcadia.
Thus, a new school or new school facilities would need to be available prior to the
occupancy of new residential development in Transition Area 4. This would place a
significant burden on the financing of such school facilities. Also, Alternative 2
would result in significant land use compatibility impacts, for which overriding
considerations are not available, particularly in light of the fact that General Plan
project objectives can be achieved without such land use compatibility impacts.
CEQA will not permit the adoption of such an alternative without overriding
considerations.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would permit development of up to 1.5 million square feet of
commercial/entertainment uses within the southerly parking area of the Santa Anita
Park racetrack. East of Santa Anita Avenue, between Huntington Drive and Dart
Road,Alternative 3 would facilitate conversion of existing lands zoned for residential
use to multifamily residential at a maximum density of 30 units per acre west of Third
Avenue and commercial uses along and east of Third Avenue. North of the Metrolink
rail line in the eastern portion of the City, Alternative 3 would expand opportunities
for mixed use commercial and commercial uses. In addition, Alternative 3 would
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 62
permit development of 35 single family dwelling units and a park on the former
Rodeffer quarry site. following.filling of the existing pit and completion of other site
preparation requirements. The balance of the study area would not be affected.
This alternative was calculated to have the following net effect compared to tie
existing condition: I) increase of 631 dwelling units with development of a major
regional park; 2) increase of 1.907,01 I square feet of commercial; and 3) decrease bf
30.000 square feet of industrial.
Alternative 3 is infeasible, and was rejected from further consideration because
although it had similar impacts in most categories, the alternative had greater land ute
impacts than that of the 1996 General Plan. Overriding considerations for the
significant land use compatibility impacts of Alternative 3 are not available in light of
the fact that General Plan project objectives can be achieved without such land u�e
compatibility impacts. CEQA will not permit the adoption of such an alternate e
without overriding considerations.
APPLICABILITY OF THE FINAL EIR TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN AS DIRECTED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL
In its ultimate configuration, the 1996 General Plan differs slightly from the project
description contained in the Final EIR; however, the modifications made to the 199
General Plan document do not change any of the findings of the Final EIR, and th
analysis of the Final EIR adequately addresses the 1996 General Plan as it is proposed
for adoption. The modifications referred to above are described below, along with the
reasons that no EIR findings are changed and the Final EIR adequately addresses the
change.
• Elimination of the Commercial Entertainment designation proposed fo r
Transition Area I. As originally analyzed (Scenario A), the 1996 General
• Plan proposed 1.5 million square feet of new commercial entertainment
development south of the Santa Anita race track grandstands, east of the Santa
Anita Fashion Park mall.. As proposed for adoption, the 1996 General Plan
proposes approximately 1.2 million square feet of commercial development i
the same general location. The text of the 1996 General Plan document was
also revised to reflect this land use proposal.
Because the traffic analysis prepared for the 1996 General Plan (Final EIR
Appendix D) used the same traffic generation factors for retail and
entertainment uses, this modification will not substantially affect the traffic
analysis. Also,since General Plan noise and air quality analyses are based on
traffic generation, this modification will also not substantially affect noise or
air quality analyses. As proposed for adoption, the traffic, noise, and air
quality impacts of the 1996 General Plan have been slightly reduced from
those identified for General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR. Also, because
employment figures for the 1996 General Plan as analyzed in the Final EIR
and as proposed for adoption are similar, other quantitative impact will be
similar to, and slightly less than General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR.
63
7/3a/96(A:\EX1- IT.A)
Finally, because the physical extent of proposed development for the 1996
General Plan as proposed for adoption is similar to and slightly smaller than
that analyzed in the Final EIR. impacts which are dependent upon the physical
extent of the proposed development area(such as earth resource impacts) will
be similar to and slightly less than that which swas analyzed in the Draft EIR.
• Reduction of:Maximum General Plan Densities in the Downtown Residential
Transition Area and Designation of a Portion of the Frontage of Second
Avenue as Mixed Use (C/MFR). As analyzed in the EIR, the maximum
• allowable residential development intensity in this Transition Area was 30
dwelling units per acre. The General Plan, as proposed for adoption, permits
30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) only for senior housing projects in areas
designated for a maximum intensity of 24 du/ac for other types of residential
development. In addition, the 1996 General Plan as proposed for adoption
permits up to 18 du/ac for senior projects within the Multiple Family (12
du/ac) land use designation.,
In addition, the 1996 General Plan, as proposed for adoption, designates a
portion of the frontage of Second Avenue south of the downtown area for -
mixed use development. Because the overall intensity of development along
this street will not be increased, and because of General Plan requirements for
architectural compatibility, no new impacts are anticipated. The net effect of
this modification is a reduction in the maximum development yield of the
Downtown Residential Transition Area. However, this reduction is not of a
sufficient size to reduce any significant impacts to a level of insignificance.
In addition, this reduction in the residential development south of the
downtown area did not impact the ability of the City to meet its housing
production objectives, as demonstrated by the analysis contained.in Appendix
A of the 1996 General Plan document.
• Expansion of the Mixed Use (C/MFR) Land Use Designation in the Santa
Clara Street Transition Area. As a. means of expanding residential
development opportunities and meeting identified housing objectives, the
Mixed Use (C/MFR) land use designation was expanded in this Transition
Area. Because the overall intensity of development along this street will not
be increased, and because of General Plan requirements for architectural
• compatibility, no new impacts are anticipated.
• Minor Modifications to the 1996 General Plan Text. Several modifications
were made to the text of the 1996 General Plan document, as it is proposed to
be adopted. These modifications are intended to clarify the intent and policies
of the General Plan document, and do substantively alter the policies of the
General Plan or affect any of the mitigation measures contained in the Final
EIR as they are incorporated into the 1996 General Plan document.
In addition,as the result of comments received on the Draft EIR, three EIR mitigation
measures have been slightly modified for the Final EIR. These modifications affect
' Mitigation Measures 4.1-1, 4.9-1, and 4.9-2, but do not add any new mitigation
measures,and are not significant.
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 64
•
Modifications to :Mitigation Measure 4.I-1 clarified an existing provision of the It;Q6
General Plan document. Whereas the General Plan provision related to land use
compatibility_ affected Transition Areas l and 4. the EIR mitigation measure. as
contained in the Draft EIR. only applied to Transition Area 1. It was modified in the
Final EIR to apply to both Transition Area I and Transition Area 4 as it was origin �IIv
intended. In addition, the portion of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 addressing road\�av
level of service was modified to recognize the EIR's conclusion regarding he
significant unavoidable impact of traffic along Michillinda Avenue between Sun et
and Colorado boulevards. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 was also modified to recognize
this significant unavoidable impact.
Finally Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 was also modified. Mitigation Measure 4.91-1
establishes a performance standard for traffic along Holly Avenue south of Huntington
Drive that must be met by any future development within the Commercial land use
designation to the north. Two options for meeting this performance standard are noted
in the mitigation measure. The modification to the Mitigation Measure made clear
that either of the options provided in the measure could be used to achieve the
performance standard established in the main body of Mitigation Measure.
Because (1) the modifications to the 1996 General Plan document do not change atty
of the conclusions of the Final EIR, and because the impacts of the 1996 General Pl�n
document, as proposed for adoption, are effectively addressed by, and slightly less
than those identified in,the analysis of General Plan Scenario A in the Final EIR, and
(2) modifications to EIR mitigation measures are insignificant, additional public
review or a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations (as amended), of the
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifies
requirements for making a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as follows:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the 9..
avoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be consid-
ered `acceptable.'
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of signifi-
cant effects which are identified in the Final Master EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated,the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the Final Master EIR and/or other information it
the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
finding under Section 15091 (a)(2)or(a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be men--
tioned in the notice of determination."
• 7/30/96(A:\EXBIT.A) 65
HI
•
The City of Arcadia hereby adopts the following Statenient ofOverridin; Consider-
ations for the amendment and comprehensive update of the City's General Plan. Ilse
Final EIR identities significant unavoidable effects including:
• Primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional seismic activity
(Section 4.3. Earth Resources; Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts section of the
Final EIR).
• Loss of access to significant mineral resources underlying the vacant parcel
adjacent to the Livingston-Graham quarry (Section 4.6, Mineral Resources:
Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts section of the Final EIR).
• Existing and projected traffic volumes on Michillinda Avenue between Sunset
and Colorado Boulevards will exceed the Citywide Criteria of LOS D
(Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation section of the Final EIR).
• Operational air pollutant emissions for each emissions sources in each
General Plan Scenario (Section 4.10, Air Quality; Chapter 6.0, Cumulative
Impacts section of the Final EIR).
• Significant localized visual impacts to land uses adjacent to Transition Area 1
and existing views from Huntington Drive(Section 4.8, Aesthetics section of
the Final EIR).
• Availability of water supply to accommodate projected growth within the City
and region, since the City cannot control implementation of all mitigation
strategies outlined in the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
and MWD Urban Water Management Plans(Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts
section of the Final EIR).
The City Council of Arcadia adopts and makes this statement of overriding
considerations concerning the 1996 General Plan's unavoidable significant impacts to
explain why the 1996 General Plan's benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable
impacts.
Benefits of the 1996 General Plan
The 1996 General Plan will bring substantial benefits to the City of Arcadia, including
diversity in the City's economic growth, expanded employment opportunities,
enhanced ability to continue maintaining a high level of public services and facilities,
and the provision of opportunities for housing for all economic segments of the
community.
•
Diversity in the City's Economic Growth
Currently, the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall is the City's largest revenue generator.
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan will facilitate the economic vitality of other
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 66
commercial uses within the City, and will add 85 acres of land for new commercial
development adjacent to the Fashion Park mall and the Santa Anita race track. This
new development provides the opportunity to contribute new customers to both the
adjacent mall and race track, thereby enhancing the economic vitality of both uses.
and, in turn, increasing municipal revenues.
Expanded Employment Opportunities
At General Plan build out, 6,275 additional full and part-time job opportunities .ill
have been created within the General Plan study area. It is projected that, due to :he
proposed diversity of land uses,job opportunities will be available for all segments of
the work force. Industrial areas will also be expanded allowing for the movement of
both industrial and corporate based businesses close to management, executive, and
worker housing opportunities. These employment opportunities, which are in close
proximity to an existing population base, will contribute to expansion of employm nt
choices, reductions in unemployment, and reduction in home to work travel dista ce
and time for residents desiring local employment.
Continued Provision of a High Level of Services to the Community
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan provides for the continued maintenance of a hi h
level of public services and facilities due to-the projected positive municipal revenge
stream that will result from the 1996 General Plan, as identified in the General PI n
Fiscal Impact Report prepared by Agajanian & Associates (March 1996). In t e
absence of the increased revenues that would result from General PI n
implementation, it is likely that municipal service levels would need to be reduced in
the future.
Provision of Opportunities for Housing that is Affordable to all Economic Segments
of the Community
Adoption of the 1996 General Plan includes a program to provide housing that is
affordable to all economic segments of the community. In particular, the 1996
General Plan increases the availability of lands for the production of housing to lolw
and moderate income households.
Meet the Requirements of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
Adoption of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan is consistent with the requirements of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which requires the reclamation of
mineral extraction sites. The Industrial land use designation applied to Transition
Area 4 permits the reclamation of a large open pit on the south side of Lower Azusa
Road, and provides for.an.appropriate long-term use of the property following site
reclamation.
67
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A)
•
The Benefits of the 1996 General Plan Outweigh the Plan's Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Primary and Secondary Hazards from Regional Seismic.-activity
It is not possible to expand employment opportunities within the community. diversify
the City's economic growth, provide housing for all economic segments of the
community, or comply with the reclamation requirements of SMARA ithout
increasing the numbers of people subject to primary and secondary seismic hazards.
Because the level of risk that new residents, employees, and commercial patrons will
experience is similar to that which is commonly accepted by existing Arcadia
residents, employees, and patrons of commercial uses, and because implementation of
the provisions of the Uniform Building Code generally places buildings rather than
people at risk, achieving increased economic diversity outweighs primary and
secondary hazards from regional seismic activity.
Loss of Mineral Resources Underlying the Livingston-Graham Quarry
The previous Arcadia General Plan designated the Livingston-Graham quarry site as
Industrial, permitting a range of non-mining uses. The Industrial land use designation
permits continued mining of the quarry if such an activity would be financially
feasible, provides for reclamation of the site for another use once mining activities
have ceased, and also provides for employment generating industrial development
should mining of the site prove to be uneconomical. The only circumstances under
which the mineral resources underlying the Livingston-Graham quarry site would be
lost is if industrial development occurred in lieu of mining and reclamation. It is
logical that such an event would occur if the landowner found mining and reclamation
to be uneconomical, or at least less economical than industrial development. The
Livingston-Graham quarry is a portion of a larger site which has been extensively
•
mined,and which is still being mined. In addition, the part of the Livingston-Graham
quarry site which is within the City of Arcadia represents only a minute portion of the
sand and gravel resources available for extraction at the base of the San. Gabriel
Mountains. As such, the risk that industrial development might occur in lieu of the
mining and reclamation of the site is outweighed by the employment and economic
diversity benefits that such industrial development would bring to the City of Arcadia.
• Traffic Along Michillinda Avenue Between Sunset and Colorado Boulevards •
Existing traffic along Michillinda Avenue between Sunset and Colorado boulevards
currently exceeds the City's threshold criteria of Level of Service D. Expansion of
housing and employment opportunities, and achieving economic diversity within
Arcadia will contribute additional traffic to Michillinda Avenue. However, even
though this section of Michillinda Avenue currently experiences LOS E, traffic speeds
are relatively high, and actual congestion along this roadway is thus minimal.
Testimony received during public hearings on the 1996 General Plan indicated that
travel speeds might be excessive for the residential character of uses along this
roadway. Increased traffic resulting from implementation of the 1996 General Plan
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBIT.A) 68
,
. ,
will not reduce the level of service along Michillinda below LOS E. but can be
expected to reduce travel speeds. For these reasons. the housing and economic
diversity benefits of the 1996 General Plan outweigh the Plan's impacts to \lichilli da
. Avenue.
Increased Air Emissions
Although significance thresholds for air emissions would be exceeded by the
cumulative development permitted under the 1996 Arcadia General Plan, the Gen ral
Plan is consistent with the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan, as outlined in Section 4.10 of the Final EIR. The 1996 Arcadia General PIA is
also consistent with the provisions of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, as eviden ed
by the comment letter on the Draft EIR provided by SCAG.
In addition, State law requires each city and county to provide opportunities for
housing all economic segments of the community, and to accept their fair share of
regional housing needs for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate inco e
households. The 1996 Arcadia General Plan recognizes this obligation, and provi es
for the development of 580 new dwelling units over the next seven years, representing
a net increase of 432 dwelling units, for very low, low, moderate, and above moder to
income households. The increased traffic volumes and energy use associated with t is
new residential development will create air emissions in excess of the significa ce
thresholds maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for seve al
constituent emissions sources. In addition, the reclamation activities requireme is
under SMARA, as well as the subsequent use of reclaimed properties will contribute
to the exceedence of air emissions significance thresholds.
Thus, if the City of Arcadia is to comply with State Housing Element law aid
SMARA, its General Plan must create a significant air emissions impact. To avdid
this significant impact would not only mean that the City would be in violation of
State Housing Element and SMARA requirements, but also that Arcadia's local
economic and employment opportunities could not be expanded. The result would
ultimately be an inadequate General Plan and a stagnant economy, which would in
turn lead to reductions in the level of services provided to local residents a Az1
businesses. For these reasons,the benefits of the 1996 Arcadia General Plan outwei•h
the Plan's significant unavoidable air quality impact. -
Localized Visual Impacts in Transition Area I ^
The Santa Anita race track is a key community feature, and an important compone t
of Arcadia's character. The retention of horse racing at this facility, and the ongoi g
economic vitality of the race track are also critical to Arcadia's future fiscal healt .
Over the past ten years, there has been a reduction in attendance at the Santa Ani a
race track, largely due to the advent of off-track wagering facilities and a long-term
downturn in the racing industry. Thus, it is no longer necessary to reserve both oft 'e
race track's large open parking areas exclusively for race track event parking. As a
7/30/96(A:\EXFUBIT.A) 6
✓ , 1
•
• 1
result of dwindling attendance, there has been a reduction of municipal revenue
derived from the race track. This revenue is earmarked for capital improvements.
•
The southerly parking lot of the Santa Anita race track is a logical location for future
commercial development. It is strategically located adjacent to the Santa'Anita
Fashion Park mall, near downtown Arcadia. has good access to the regional freeway
system. and can draw patrons from and contribute patrons to the race track. In
addition, the southerly parking lot is large(over 85 acres) and under single ownership,
thus presenting significant opportunities for high quality master planned development
which can provide substantial economic benefits to the community. These benefits
are described in the General Plan Fiscal Impact Report prepared by Agajanian &
Associates in March 1996. This report indicates that, without substantial commercial
development within Transition Area 1, the City faces, at best, a "break-even" long-
term municipal revenue picture. The expansion of commercial development south of
the race track grandstands will provide the City with a revenue needed revenue
"cushion,"enabling Arcadia to continue providing,a high level of municipal services
during times of economic slowdowns.
Inevitably, commercial development within the southerly race track parking lot will
result in a loss of existing open views of the race track grandstands. Even though
view corridors to the most important architectural features of the grandstands will be
maintained, the loss of views is considered to be significant. In light of the economic
diversity needs of the City,and recognizing that view corridors to the grandstands will
remain and that the architecture of new commercial development will be compatible
with the architecture of the grandstands, the economic and employment benefits of
development within Transition Area 1 outweigh the impacts of a loss of views of the
race track grandstands.
Availability of Water Supply for Future Growth
Although the City of Arcadia primarily relies on the extraction of groundwater for
which the City has firm rights, future development within the City will require the
purchase of replenishment water from the Upper San Gabriel.Valley Municipal Water
District, which in turn purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD). Because the City of Arcadia can not control
implementation of all the mitigation strategies contained in the Urban Water
Management Plans of the Upper San Gabriel.Valley Municipal Water District and the
MWD, a significant unavoidable impact was determined to exist. The Urban Water
Management Plans of both of these water agencies project future water needs based on
SCAG population projections with which the 1996 Arcadia General Plan is consistent,
as evidenced by the comment letter on the Draft EIR provided by SCAG. Thus, the
risk of not having sufficient water supplies available to support build out of the 1996
General Plan is minimal.
The only way that the City could, by itself, ensure adequate water supplies would be to
adopt the No Project/No Build alternative,which has been rejected as being infeasible.
• To adopt this alternative would leave the City with an inadequate General Plan, in
violation of State Housing Element law and SMARA, and with a stagnant economy
7/30/96(A:\EXHIBTr.A) 70
•
which would ultimately result in a cutback of the existing level of services provided
by the City to local residents and businesses. For these reasons, the benefits of the
1996 General Plan outweigh its impacts related to water resource availability.
•
•
•
•
7/30/96(A:\EXBIT.A) 71
HI 1
FYHIBIT B
•
- 9667 $Z pn!n'
-j-
Pela 0.6 V i!a1 ZOcYP\7
•
•
a Pasvq
s: uoupap n1 goyim, uodn s8utpaa3osd fo pco ac ayi a nnusuo3 yngrn 7msalmu
sagpo so stuauopop acp fo umpotsn3 put)uouvwo7 all dfbads 77vgs daua8v pvaj acu (P)
•rnvi fo uoutn.o cd sa yto duv.co uouz atp sup dq papuaosd sv spalosd duap .
so'uotttpuoo'arao cddv 01 'C ua8v pva7 acp fo(3uocpnv agt to 'toalo cd v dq papaffv
samosas 7vsmvu sarao uottopstsn(8uuavy daua8v so daua8v ajquuodsas ay3 Jo
lcl uog3nv tvyt noun Sou 77vgs suauuas:nhas 3111 gtun 3.7alosd v dq pa1�afv sa snosac
iron vu saao uouopsun( Sumvq daua8v so £iva8v ajquuodsas 'v del ancvt/d
• 4.44o.7uou 20 arum/dtuoj •daua8v tvgt 'ot ajgv zjddv suoututfap puv fo dzuoytnv
4oJn37YJs ayt 0113a(gns am goyrn sa snosas 03 stovduit atv8ulu2 qo yrn sasnsvaw
01 panua7 aq 77vgs 33a(osd agt dq pat iafv saunosas 7vsnsvu saran uouatpsun(
• 8 uavq daua8v uv so bua8v ajquuodsas v dq daua8v pvaj v of pantuagns sasnsvatu
rzouv zntu dud ctuazun3op a�uasajas so saulja�nn8 ajgvjzvrav d/lpvas'atmsdo.iddv .
of daua8v pva7 ag1 safas so 'pa(osd aq3 dq pataaJv sa�snosas 7vsntvu saran
ounpsunl8uuavq d�ua81 so d�ua8v ajgtsuodsas ay3 dq pazfi3uap: tuaucuostraua
a 1 uo staafa 3uvny'zu8u ay1 ssasppv morn yngm, sasnsvazu uouv8uuu
sof saaz a(go ouvzusofsad papmap puv atajdluo3 diva8v pvai ay1 03 3luujns
• sayna 11vgs 's.3a(osd all dq pauafv saunosas 7vonvu saran uouopsun(8uuavy
ua8v o7gnd v so 'daua8v ajquuodsas.v'uouv-wimp. an,uv2au 17,71V211:7141 20 110das
2 vdua 7mualuuosuaua tft)sp v sof pouad mauaas 37gnd ay1 fo asop ay1 03 s0ud (�)
•sasnsvata uouv8uttu pasnrbat ssasppv ynyril,nualunpop pa�uasafas ut quof
1 aq dvui 7v2osddv t�a(osd fo suoutpuo3 asoca 7lraosddv tpa(osd fo suofnpuo3
sasnsvazu uoul&tuu 8uudopv 'slutyl sayto Suouwv `dq (v) uotsuatpjns y31m,
X d1uo,11vgs daua8v o79nd v'pa3dopv n uouv8utlu yncpn s0/2,3(04 v Si asa y1 fI (q) .
•tuvs8osd •
• 8 uottuoW 20 8utuodas pasodosd v nuujns puv asvdasd `daua8t) a19uuodsat
Ao pal ail dq patsanbas Os-fz 'jvys daua8v 1vg3 'pa(ad ail dq papaffv saunosas .
!vicntvu saao mavj dq uounpsunl8uuat)y daua8v uv fo tsanbas ay3 31 pa[aid aqt
03 a pa1v104o.71l1 s0 pasmbas uaaq an,vg yngrn sa8uvcp asocp 403 •uouvtuazuajdtul
3a losd Suunp a3um/duwo3 asnsua 03 pau8uap aq 71vgs 1uv 2osd Suu011uotu s0
8 odat acu, •tualuuosuaua aq1 uo sPa a tum/lu8u pton,v 20 atv8l31tu 01 sapso
. ut jvraosddv 3.)a(osd fo uolnpuo, v apvuc 20 padopv my 31 gn ym, 33a(osd a y1 01
sa8uvcp ay1 sof tuvs8osd 8uuonuotu so 8u2uodas v 3dopv 77vys daua8v 37gnd act (v)„
•
:sunn...3802d Suuoiruour
uc ut2nrui so Suuiodal lit; o1 Aiddt iiegs sluaurasrnbas Sur nolioj aril imp sasrnbax
(0 I£ ma AIgurassV;o aSrsstd aqi Aq paanua) 9180iz uo!2 s apop saamosaj arignc
• SIN3I43?IIf1 a3X DN WO.LINOJV MOLLVDLLIN
NY'Id om4.uOd32i QAIV oNruoi.movi MOI.LVoLLIN
:g .LISIH3C3
•
•
v.:_ , -:_-_-.40) luu.ino.�d ziU11O11uo11 •UO11>>1li>>1\
\tirii tion Monitoring, ProJram
1C Pte.
Mitigation Monitoring Procedures
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance
with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and
procedures to be followed by the City of Arcadia to ensure that all mitigation
measures adopted as part of the proposed General Plan Update will be carried out as
described in this•EIR.
Table 9.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this EIR, and identifies the
party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. Table 9.B
identifies the Development Performance Standards included in the proposed General
Plan and existing regulations utilized in making determinations of significance.
•
•
' k\cta5021gpeir\sec9.0.wpd
-2- August 29. 1988
Mitigation Monitoring Program 03-trY
r•l
.C •
•
Table A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
•
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
• Measure
4.1 Land Use and Planning 4.1-1 Prior to any discretionary approval of any Development Services Development Prior to discretionary
Considerations development within the Santa Anita Race Director(or designee) Services approval of
Track or Lower Azusa Road Transition Director(or development within the
Areas,the project applicant shall provide designee) Commercial
evidence to the City,for review and Entertainment
approval by the Development Services Transition Area.
Director(or designee),that the proposed
development: •
•
• Provides transitions and buffers
between new development and
•
existing uses such that the bulk,
massing,and architectural design of
new uses are compatible with
existing development;
• Avoids placing new activities or
• creating nuisance conditions that •
would disrupt the intended
activities of adjacent existing and
planned land uses,make the
• intended use of adjacent lands
undesirable,or disrupt the physical __
arrangement of established
neighborhoods and non-residential •
•
land uses;
•
•
Y_ /:Icta5O2\gp rrl,cc90.i.rd
.1141/.,!.::'/. /✓.ir,
•
•
•
Mitigation Monitoring Program a»1
•
•
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
•
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic - Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring •Mitigation
Measure
• Maintains roadway levels of service
at or better than level of service.D,
except along Michillinda Avenue
between Sunset and Colorado
boulevards,where level of service
E is to be maintained;
•
• Does not cause an exceedance of
applicable noise or air quality
standards,or a significant adverse
.impact to existing viewsheds;and
•
• Is consistent with applicable
General Plan public facility per-
formance standards,and does not •
cause a reduction in the level of
services and facilities provided to -
existing development.
(
4.2 Population and Housing None.
•
_¢ I:\eta5O11eberirluYYO.1-p/
.:;/
•
Mitigation Monitoring Program .
•
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.3 Earth Resources 4.3-1 Prior to initiation of the fill operation at the City Engineer(or designee) City Engineer Prior to initiation of the
Rodeffer quarry pit,the pit shall be inspected (or designee) reclamation operation at
by the City Engineer,or designee,on a the Rodeffer quarry pit.
monthly basis from October 15 to April 15
or subsequent to periods of heavy rainfall
outside of this time frame to assess the status
of the stable and unstable slopes on site.
During these inspections,any new unstable
areas shall be identified in a memorandum
transmitted to the property owner. Where
the City Engineer identifies unstable slopes
that may result in immediate danger to
adjacent property or facilities,the property
owner will be notified by the City Engineer
and emergency remediation will be
requested. An unstable slope is defined as a
slope having a Factor of Safety'of less than
1.0. The property owner shall be required
to stabilize slopes to meet the following
standards:
• Achieve a Factor of Safety of 1.5
•
against shear failure,and
• Achieve a Factor of Safety of 1.1
against seismically-induced slope
failure.
"Factor of Safety"is the ratio of the resisting force to the driving force. Thus, values greater than 1.0 represent varying
degrees of stability, while values under 1.0 represent varying degrees-of-instability.
_5 1.'lcta5021gpnrltecY0.zpl
Mitigation Monitoring Program toy q
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
Any and all emergency remediation
measures shall be prepared by a qualified
geotechnical engineer,certified by the State •
of California,and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
Remediation measures may include but not
be limited to the following: placement of
buttress fills,rerouting of drainage facilities,
and regrading or covering slump areas with
shotcrete with plastic sheeting or wire mesh.
4.4 Water Resources 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for Development Services Development Prior to issuance of
construction projects less than five acres,the Director(or designee) Services grading permits for
project applicant shall submit to the Director(or construction projects
Development Services Director(or designee) designee) less than five acres.
for review and approval,a Drainage/Erosion
Control Plan that identifies site specific
measures for the retention of siltation,sedi-
mentation,and other pollutants on site •
during construction. Measures identified in
the Plan shall be imposed as conditions of
•
approval or otherwise incorporated into the
project. Such a plan shall be consistent with
the requirements of Ordinance No.2010,
and include instructions for preparation
prior to and during storm events,normal
and emergency procedures,and procedures
following storm events. .
4.5 Biological Resources None.
4.6 Mineral Resources None.
-8- /.1r u,
ta301\�r,r\ 90.i.t/ -
:1�, /Y'6 .
Mitigation Monitoring Program Ast 47
i. , *. \ . .
• .
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .
•
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
•
. Measure
4.7 Cultural/Scientific None.
Resources
4.8 Aesthetics None.
4.9 Traffic and Circulation 4.9-1 Prior to any discretionary action within the Development Services Development Prior to any
Commercial Entertainment designation,the Director(or designee) Services discretionary action
•
project applicant shall submit,for review and Director(or within the Commercial
approval by the Development Services designee) Entertainment
Director(or designee),a traffic study, designation. -
prepared by a qualified traffic engineering.
consultant,that analyzes the project's effect
on level of service on Holly Avenue between .
Huntington Drive and Duarte Road. Where
the study indicates trip generation for the
proposed development results in an
unacceptable level of service on this segment
of Holly Avenue on a project level,or
contributes cumulatively to greater than
LOS D,the traffic study shall identify
. appropriate measures to achieve acceptable
•
levels of service;these measures either will
become conditions of approval of the project
or will be incorporated into the project.
These measures may include,but are not ,
•
necessarily limited to,the following:
-7- 1:1oa5021 ,r1ar90.1.iki
•
•
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for -
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
• Provision of neighborhood traffic
control measures at Holly-Avenue/
Huntington Drive,such as turn -
lane restrictions,traffic diverters
and lane closures to divert traffic
away from the roadway segment,
or
•
- • . Designate Holly Avenue as a four
lane roadway between Huntington
Drive and Duarte Road,and
reserve right-of-way at such time as
redevelopment of adjacent
•properties takes place.
4.10 Air Quality. 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading or Development Services . Development Prior to the issuance of
building permits,project applicants shall Director(or designee) Services any grading or building
submit a mitigation plan for both Director(or permits.
construction equipment exhaust and fugitive designee) - „ -
dust impacts to the Development Services
Director(or designee),for review and "
approval. No construction will be
conducted prior to approval of this plan.
•
This Plan shall be included as a condition of
approval for the project or incorporated into
the project design. The Plan shall include -
but not be limited to the following(the City -
shall verify use of the plan measures during
regular site inspections): -
!:1cm502\gp'ir1.rc Y 0.+..7x!
-8- • lug u.,l /.9,9G
•
- •
Mitigation. Monitoring Program
(7."
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements •
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring • Mitigation
Measure
• Trucks used for hauling excess
material shall be covered to mini-
mize loss of material,and flagmen
will be utilized to assist
construction trucks moving into
traffic.
• The contractor shall comply with
SCAQMD Rules 402,403,which
restricts fugitive dust emissions. •
Measures outlined in the plan shall
include,but not be limited to:daily
watering of graded areas,washing
of equipment tires before leaving
the construction site,and use of
SCAQMD approved chemical
stabilizers or soil binders.
• During construction,the
contractor shall discontinue all
construction activities on the -
project site during first and second
stage smog alerts,or when wind )
gusts exceed 25 miles per hour.
-8- !.1c'ta5021gpccr1irc'Y O.i.p,/
Mitigation Monitoring Program N
Ir I
�OtfOl„S•l
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
- R esponsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
• All construction equipment shall
be maintained and properly
serviced so as to reduce operational
emissions. The contractor will
ensure that all construction equip-
ment is being properly serviced and
maintained through written
documentation to the •
Development Services Director(or
designee.)
• The contractor shall provide evi-
dence that low emission mobile
construction equipment will be -
utilized,or that their use was
investigated and found to be •
infeasible for the project.
!O /:kta502\gprn\srr j 9'0.w /
.1114'O.>- :% /%✓(
4
Mitigation Monitoring Program
•
•
•
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for
•
Environmental Topic • Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.11 Noise 4.11-1 Prior to issuance of any entire structure Development Services Development Prior to issuance of any
demolition,grading or building permit,the Director(or designee) Services - entire structure
permit applicant shall provide a Director(or demolition,grading or
Construction Management Plan to the designee) building permit.
Development Services Director(or designee),
for review and approval. The Plan shall •
describe the measures that will be
implemented during demolition/
construction activities to reduce off-site noise
impacts from construction equipment to
within the instantaneous noise standards
within the City's Noise Ordinance. These
measures shall become conditions of project
approval or incorporated into the project
design. These measures shall include but not
be limited to the following:
•
• Use of quieter machinery
• Use of noise mufflers/silencers,
hush kits,or other mechanical
methods to muffle external noise
• Locating stockpiling,vehicle
staging areas,and other noisy
activities away from noise sensitive
receptors(i.e.,residences,schools,
day-care,and recreational facilities).
The Plan shall also provide for periodic monitoring
reports,to the approval of the Director,documenting
Plan implementation.
I.1c:a5011gpenl,n 'O.tip!
/%✓!.
•
Mitigation Monitoring Program
��POL�TtD
Table 9.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.12 Public Health(Hazards) 4.12-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for any Emergency Services Officer Emergency Prior to issuance of
development of 400,000 square feet or (or designee) Services Officer building permits.for
greater,the Emergency Services Officer shall (or designee) development of 400,000
modify the City's emergency response square feet or greater.
protocol and available emergency response
• resources,outlined in the Multi-Hazard
Functional Plan,to accommodate the
additional increment of development allowed
by the proposed General Plan Update. Such
modifications shall ensure that the existing
level of service is maintained.
4.12-2 Prior to issuance of building permits,project Development Services Development Prior to the issuance of
proponents shall demonstrate that the Director(or designee) Services .building permits.
proposed development will have a neutral Director(or
effect on the City's ability to implement the designee)
emergency evacuation procedures and routes
identified in the Multi Hazard Functional
,lam.
Plan. If a negative effect is identified,
alternative procedures for evacuation of new
residents,employees,or patrons shall be
• identified and documented for review and
approval by the Development Services
• Director. Alternative evacuation procedures
shall be conditions of project approval or
incorporated into the design of the proposed
• development.
12_ \cta5021nr1sec 9 0.t4
i
Mitigation Monitoring Program ,o
Table 9.A,-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
-Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
4.12-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Fire Marshall(or designee) Fire Marshall Prior to the issuance of
projects located in designated fire hazard and grading permits for
zones,proposed site plans shall be submitted Development projects located in
to the Fire Marshall(or designee)and Services designated fire hazard
Development Services Director(or designee) Director(or zones.
for review and approval demonstrating that - designees)
sufficient evacuation routes and adequate
water pressure or fire flows exist. Grading
- permits will not be issued until sufficient
evacuation routes,water pressure,or fire
flow facilities can be reliably provided.
4.13 Public Services and 4.13-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit,the Development Services Development Prior to issuance of a
Utilities permit applicant shall provide written Director(or designee) Services building permit.
evidence to the Development Services Director(or
Director(or designee)for review and designee)
approval that the Metropolitan Transit
Authority and/or Foothill Transit as
applicable has been contacted regarding
potential construction and operational effects
to existing and planned facilities. Where
potential construction and/or operational
impacts would affect transit facilities or
routes,mitigation shall be identified in
. writing by the permit applicant,and shall
include but not be limited to:
• Provision and maintenance of •
acceptable clearance between
construction activities and transit
facilities.
-/I I:\cta5021gpor I lecY a upd
.114;qz,1 19,96
•
•
Mitigation Monitoring Program Ems,
T .O�'09��T1D
Responsible Party for
Timing for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Mitigation
Measure
• Transit purveyors must be notified
a minimum of two weeks prior to
any roadway closure adjacent CO
• existing transit facilities.
• Incorporation of bus stops,
shelters,park and ride lots or other
types of facilities into project
design.
4.14 Recreation None.
/:1 cta 5011 gprc r lxr9-0.tipd
Mitigation Monitoring Program
\f�uf�rfo
Table B-Summary of Regulations,Policies,Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects
Environmental Topic Proposed General Plan Mitigation Measure Existing Regulations
4.1 Land Use and Planning N/A 4.1-1 N/A
Considerations
4.2 Population and GP Strategies CD-20, CD-21, N/A N/A
Housing CD-22,CD-23, CD-24, CD-25
and Housing Improvement
Objectives in Appendix A of the
proposed General Plan Update)
4.3 Earth Resources Development Performance 4.3-1 City of Arcadia Ordinance Nos.
Standard (DPS)-40,DPS-41 2033 and 1924
4.4 Water Resources DPS-36,DPS-42,DPS-43; Item 4.4-1 City of Arcadia Ordinance No.
d., Coordination of 2010
Infrastructure,
Intergovernmental
Coordincation and Improvement
Program in Chapter 6.0
4.5 Biological Resources DPS-31,DPS-32,DPS-33 N/A N/A
4.6 Mineral Resources N/A N/A California Surface Mining and ,
Reclamation Act of 1975; City of
Arcadia Municpal Code, Article
9, Chapter 5, Parts 1 and 2,
Sections 9510-9528; Conditional
• Use Permit No. 92-003
/.1cai021gpnr\c.90.i.p.l
.1/147/4.J I Y('
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Table 9-B-Summary of Regulations,Policies,Programs and Mitigation Measures That Reduce Potential Effects
4.7 Cultural/Scientific DPS-37, DPS-38,DPS-39 N/A N/A
Resources
4.8. Aesthetics Strategies CD-1 through CD-13 N/A N/A
and CD-17 through CD-22; DPS
-
1 through DPS-18
4.9 Traffic and Circulation N/A 4.9-1 N/A
4.10 Air Quality Strategies ER-5 through ER-16; 4.10-1 City of Arcadia TDM Ordinance
ER21 through ER-30; and DPS- and Title 24, 1994 UBC
34
4.11 Noise DPS-44 through DPS-51 4.11-1 Noise Ordinance in Municipal
Code 4600
4.12 Public Health DPS-24,DPS-25,DPS-26,DPS-30 4.12-1, 4.12-2,4.12-3 N/A
(Hazards)
4.13 Public Services and Strategy FS-20; DPS-21,DPS-22, 4.13-1, 4.13-2 City of Arcadia SRRE (AB 939)
Utilities DPS-24 through DPS-29,Idem
d.,Coordination of
Infrastructure,
Intergovernmental Coordination
and Improvement Program in
Chapter 6.0
4.14 Recreation DPS-23 N/A - N/A
—I6 1:1cte102 g r set 90.wpd
.4/4;'u,/-/ /Vk • ®'■