HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2c - Arcadia Logistics Center 12321 Lower Azusa Rd. RESOLUTION NO. 7113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015041002) FOR
THE ARCADIA LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT; ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Arcadia Logistics Center Project ("Project") Applicant proposes
to redevelop a former mine site that is being reclaimed through an inert debris
engineered fill operation ("IDEFO") within the City of Arcadia ("City") with an industrial
logistics center; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is an approximately 81.27-acre property located in
the southeast corner of the City, immediately northwest of Lower Azusa Road,
approximately 0.15-mile southwest of Interstate 605 ("1-605"), and east of a residential
community in the adjacent City of El Monte (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8541-017-027
and -028); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires the approval of a General Plan Amendment
(GP15-02) to amend the City of Arcadia General Plan Economic Development Policy
ED-1.4 to support repurposing of the Project site with a logistics center that encourages
a range of uses that provide fiscal benefits to the City; and
WHERAS, the Project requires the approval of a Specific Plan (SP14-01), to
allow for up to 1,688,000 square feet ("s.f.") of building space and associated site
improvements to accommodate e-commerce, general light industrial, high-cube
warehouse, industrial park, manufacturing, shipping/parcel delivery, and warehousing
uses; and
1
WHEREAS, the Project requires the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM14-
06) to subdivide the 81.27-acre property into six (6) parcels for future development and
five (5) lots for water quality/detention/open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), section 15367 of the State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City
evaluated the proposed Project by preparing an Initial Study to evaluate whether an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was required; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be
prepared to more carefully evaluate the Project's potential environmental impacts to:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use,
Noise, Transportation and Circulation, Utilities, Public Services, and Mandatory Findings
of Significance.
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the Project would
result in no impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing, and Recreation such that further analysis of these
issues in the EIR was unnecessary; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on April
1, 2015, the City publicly posted and sent to the Office of Planning and Research and
2
each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") stating that an
EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2015041002)would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, during the 30-day public review period, the City received a comment
letter from the City of El Monte regarding the need for additional notice and review time;
and
WHEREAS, in response to this comment letter, the City extended the NOP
review period by an additional 7 days; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Project applicant hosted a Community Meeting
on the Project in the City of El Monte; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082 and 15083, the
City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on April 22, 2015, at the City Council
Chambers to further solicit comments on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised the availability of the NOP and the time, date,
and location of the Scoping Meeting in the Arcadia Weekly and the Pasadena Star
News, newspapers of general circulation in the Project area; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was subsequently
prepared, addressing comments received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice
of Completion of the Draft EIR was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and
Research on October 16, 2015; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City
provided and publicly posted a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in the manner
required by CEQA on October 16, 2015; and
3
WHEREAS, the above notices initiated a 49-day public review and comment
period on the Draft EIR for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and its
technical appendices were on file and available to the public for review during normal
working hours at: (1) City Hall, (2) City of Arcadia Public Library, and on the City's
website at http://www.ArcadiaCa.gov/home/index.asp?page=1199; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15086, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies, and others during the 49-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City extended the Draft EIR public review period to December
15, 2015, at the request of the City of El Monte, and again to December 22, 2015, at the
second request of the City of El Monte; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 2, 2015, the City of El Monte hosted a public
meeting during which City of El Monte staff members made notes of oral comments on
the Project and the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City received two comment letters from state agencies, five
comment letters from local or regional agencies, one comment letter from a not-for-profit
organization, and one comment letter from an individual person during the 66-day public
review and comment period (49-day public review comment period plus the 17-day
public review comment period extension); the comment letter from the City of El Monte
included as an attachment the City's notes from the December 2, 2015 public meeting;
and
4
WHEREAS, on or about October 27, 2015, and December 8, 2015, the City
Planning Commission held public study sessions on the Project and no members of the
public made comment; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were invited
to be heard and no persons testified other than the Project applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared responses to all comments received on the
Draft EIR and prepared a Final EIR for the Project, consisting of the Draft EIR, all
comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to comments on the Draft EIR,
clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR, and all technical appendices (the "Final EIR");
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of its written responses to public agencies who timely commented on
the Draft EIR at least ten (10) days prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all adverse environmental impacts were fully analyzed in the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis of its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied by the City in
connection with the preparation of the Final EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all
of the potential environmental effects of the Project have been fully evaluated; and
5
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that the City
finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require
mitigation are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and
set forth herein, are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant,
despite the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR and
set forth herein, are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would
result from the proposed Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are
identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the
proposed Project identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in
Section 10 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section 11 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the benefits of the Project
outweigh its potential significant environmental impacts, and the basis for that
6
determination is set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in
Section 12 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the
mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to which the City shall bind itself in
connection with the Project, is described in Section 13 below, and is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all
meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council
and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information
that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public
Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016, the City conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and
the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
7
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution
by reference as findings of fact.
SECTION 2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."
Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, the City may only
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects if the City makes one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment.
2. 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.
8
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to "avoid or substantially
lessen" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that
"substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided,
satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ["CEQA does not mandate the choice of the
environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation
measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage
from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County
of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 r[t]here is no requirement that adverse
impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if
such would render the project unfeasible"].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an
agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Res. Code
§ 21002.1(c) [if "economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one
or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless
be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency"]; see also State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6(a) [an "EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are
infeasible].) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
9
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1.) The
State CEQA Guidelines add "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of
"feasibility." (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.)
"[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is
based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401,
417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) "Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the
decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]" (Cal. Native Plant Soc'y v. City
of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 ("Native Plant"); see also Pub. Res.
Code § 21081(a)(3) ["economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations"
may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Furthermore, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require
the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of
Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any
development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who
are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires
that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or
a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that
10
sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far
as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not
to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of
discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Corn.
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
At a session assembled on February 16, 2016, the City Council determined that,
based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and
oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, the submission of testimony from the
public, organizations and regulatory agencies, and the whole of the administrative
record, which is incorporated herein by this reference, the following environmental
impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require
mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of
insignificance through the identified Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements;
or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will
be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified Mitigation Measures
and Regulatory Requirements.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION.
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant
impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty
there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA
11
Guidelines § 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects
that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless,
the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than
significant impact to the following resource areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vista
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Finding: Less-than-Significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
Explanation: The Project Site does not comprise all or part of a scenic vista.
Construction equipment that would be located on the property would be similar in size
and stature to the IDEFO equipment that occurs on the property as part of the IDEFO
reclamation activities, resulting in no substantive change compared to existing
conditions. The only recognized scenic vistas available in the Project Site's vicinity are
mountain views associated with the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest. The San
Gabriel Mountains rise to an elevation of approximately 10,000 feet. Often, mountain
views are partially masked by smog and haze. Although the Project would partially
obstruct northerly views toward the San Gabriel Mountains available from Lower Azusa
Road along the Project Site's frontage, views of the higher elevations would remain
available and the existing mountain views along a majority of the roadway segment
would remain as it does under exiting conditions. The Project would not substantially
obstruct the view. Impacts to this scenic vista would therefore be less than significant
12
and no other recognized scenic vistas are present that the Project could affect. (Final
EIR, 4.1-14.)
2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
Explanation: The Project Site is not located within the viewshed of a scenic
highway. The nearest highway considered under the Scenic Highways program is State
Route 39, located approximately 5.0 miles due east of the Project Site and the Project's
proposed development features would not be visible from SR-39 due to intervening
development, landscaping, and topography, as well as distance. Because the Project
Site is not visible from a state scenic highway and contains no scenic resources, the
proposed Project would not adversely impact the viewshed within a scenic highway
corridor and would not damage important scenic resources within a scenic highway
corridor, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. (Final EIR, pp. 4.1-9
and 4.1-14.)
3. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
Explanation: The Project would not create substantial light or glare. The City of
Arcadia Municipal Code requires that lighting be hooded and arranged to reflect away
13
from adjoining properties and the proposed Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan
includes additional policies to ensure that substantial light and glare would not spill over
to public streets or adjoining property. Compliance with the Specific Plan and Municipal
Code requirements would ensure that the Project does not produce substantial amounts
of light or glare. (Final EIR, pp. 4.1-13 and 4.1-15.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-44.)
Explanation: Project-related construction emissions would not exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Localized Threshold for CO,
NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Accordingly, construction of the proposed Project would not
result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
on a direct or cumulatively considerable basis. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-37) During Project
operation, the Project would generate/attract diesel-fueled trucks. Diesel trucks
produce diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is known to be associated with health
hazards, including cancer; however, based on a technical evaluation for residential
exposure, worker exposure, and school child exposure, the carcinogenic risk
attributable to the Project's DPM emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold
for direct and cumulatively considerable emissions. The proposed Arcadia Logistics
Center Specific Plan prohibits loading docks and truck courts to be located on the
façades of buildings that face and abut adjacent residential properties. Non-cancer
14
risks would also be below the SCAQMD's threshold for direct and cumulatively
considerable emissions and would be less than significant. Operational missions also
would not exceed Localized Significance Thresholds and would not cause or contribute
to a CO "Hot Spot." (Final EIR, pp 4,2-38 to 4.2-40 and p. 4.2-44.)
2. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-44.)
Explanation: The Project could produce odors during proposed construction activities
resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the
application of architectural coatings; however, standard construction practices would
minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors
emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature.
In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-43.) During long-term operation, the
proposed Project would include logistics center and industrial park uses, which are not
typically associated with objectionable odors. Near- and long-term odor impacts would
be less than significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.2-40 and 4.2-44.)
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
15
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-19.)
Explanation: No wetlands are located on the Project site. The Project proposes
to discharge water into the San Gabriel River, but the proposed Project's design
features and the limits of disturbance proposed for the storm water outfall structures
options (Option SD-1, SD-2, and SD-3) would avoid the area of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RQWCB) jurisdiction.
Although the Project would discharge storm water runoff into the San Gabriel River, the
discharge of storm water flows into the River would not affect the form or function of any
downstream wetland habitats. All flows from the Site would be treated before being
discharged, and the portions of the San Gabriel River near the Project Site comprise
primarily upland habitat. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on both a direct and cumulative basis on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-19.)
2. Local Policies or Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-19.)
Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-19) The City's Oak Tree Regulations
do not apply because no oak trees are located on the Project Site, and the Project is
16
required by law to comply with the City's Street Tree Master Plan. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-
22 to 4.3-23.)
Regulatory Requirement BIO-1 In compliance with the City's Street Tree
Master Plan, a City permit shall be obtained prior to any planting, removal,
cutting, or damage to a City-owned tree or shrub on any public property (in
City parks, within street medians and along parkways, and on other public
properties). The Public Works Department shall review the plans of any
development, redevelopment, or public and infrastructure. (Final EIR, p.
4.3-23.)
3. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-20.)
Explanation: The Project is not located within the boundaries of any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
(Final EIR, p. 4.3-20)
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-14.)
Explanation: Erosion during Project construction activities would be controlled
through mandatory compliance to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit which is required of clearing, grading, and/or excavation projects that
17
disturb at least one acre of total land area. Also, the City of Arcadia's Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit requires the Project applicant to
prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will identify a combination of erosion control and
sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate
sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges
during construction. Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project Site
would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or
covered with impervious surfaces and drainage would be controlled through a storm
drain system and water quality detention basins. Additionally, as required under the
County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Waste Discharge
Requirements (Order No. 01-182; NPDES No. CAS0041), the City of Arcadia requires
new development and major redevelopment to prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) as part of the development permit process. In addition, the
NDPES program also requires preparation of a SWPPP for operational activities and
implementation of a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program under an
Industrial General Permit. With mandatory compliance to the Project-specific SWPPP,
SUSMP, Industrial General Permit, the City's MS4 NPDES Municipal Stormwater
Permit, and SCAQMD Rule 403, impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.4-11, 4.4-12, and 4.4-
14.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
18
Regulatory Requirement GEO-2 Development is required to comply with
Los Angeles RWQCB Order No. R4-2012-0175, which contains the waste
discharge requirements for municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
discharges within the City of Arcadia and other cities in the coastal
watersheds of Los Angeles County. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
Regulatory Requirement GEO-3 Construction activities are required to
comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA)) Section 402, which applies to all construction
sites of over one acre in size and, in part, serves to control the potential
impacts of erosion. CWA Section 402 authorizes the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that covers point
sources of pollution discharging to a water body. Compliance will obligate
the Project Applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollutant
Protection Plan (SWPPP) which will identify a combination of erosion
control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices)
to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm
water and non-storm water discharges during construction. (Final EIR, p.
4.4-17.)
Regulatory Requirement GEO-4 Development is required to comply with
Los Angeles County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. 01-182; NPDES
No. CAS0041), which in the City of Arcadia will obligate the Project
Applicant to prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan
(SUSMP) as part of the development permit process. The SUSMP is
required to identify post-construction treatment-control BMPs including
among other requirements, measures to preclude long-term soil erosion.
(Final EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
2. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
Explanation: The materials being imported to the Project Site as part of the
IDEFO activities consist of clean inert debris and soil. Imported material loads are
inspected, broken to sizes of 12-inches or less, mixed together, placed into the former
19
quarry, and compacted by rubber-tire bulldozers. The material is not expansive; thus,
the Project would not be located on expansive soils, and impacts associated with
expansive soils would be less than significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.4-13 and 4.4-15)
3. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
Explanation: The Project would not install septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with soil compatibility
for wastewater disposal systems. (Final EIR, pp. 4.4-13 and 4.4-15.)
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The Public and Environment
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-12.)
Explanation: During Project construction and operation, mandatory compliance
with federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport,
use, storage, generation, or disposal of hazardous materials.
20
There would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills
associated with the Project's construction than what would occur on any other similar
construction site. Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage
of hazardous construction-related materials, including but not limited requirements
imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), Los Angeles RWQCB, Los Angeles County Fire
Department, and the City of Arcadia. Operation of the Project must comply with City of
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 3141, which prohibits storage of flammable liquids in
outside aboveground tanks. Installation and use of underground fuel storage tanks,
such as in association with a fuel dispensing island, would be subject to review and
permit approval by the UST Program of the County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works, Environmental Programs Division Further, any business that occupies a
building on the Project Site and that handles/stores substantial quantities of hazardous
materials (as defined in California Health and Safety Code § 25500) would require a
permit from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials
Division to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses
also are required to comply with California's Hazardous Materials Release Response
Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Los Angeles
County Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services. With mandatory
regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term
operation of the Project are regarded would be less than significant and mitigation is not
required. (Final EIR, pp. 4.6-6 to 4.6-9 and p. 4.6-12.)
21
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-1 All development within the City shall comply
with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and which governs the transport of hazardous
materials, such as gasoline, contaminated soil, asbestos, or lead-containing
materials. Vehicles transporting hazardous waste materials are required to
comply with the regulations, as implemented by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). (Final EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-2 All development within the City shall comply
with the RCRA on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste; the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances would
be required for hazardous material users, waste generators, and transporters.
Compliance with this Act also includes corrective action by the owner or operator
of the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or clean-up of LUSTs by USEPA
to reduce hazards associated with ground and water contamination by tank
leaks, spills, or accidental release. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-3 All development within the City shall comply
with the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, which regulates facilities that
generate or treat hazardous wastes. Permits for individual facilities allow the
Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or the Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA, in this case, the Los Angeles County Fire Department) to inspect
the facilities for compliance and to enforce the provision of the Act. (Final EIR, p.
4.6-13.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-4 All development within the City shall comply
with the regulations of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which serves as
the designated CUPA and which implements the State and federal regulations
related to:
• The Hazardous Waste Generator Program,
• The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory
Program,
• The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Ca/ARP),
• The Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Program, and
• The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-
14.)
22
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-5 All development within the City shall comply
with CaIARP to prevent the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable
substances. Ca/ARP requires stationary sources that utilize hazardous materials
exceeding a threshold quantity to develop and submit a risk management plan
that addresses the potential impacts of accidental releases of hazardous
materials, along with reducing hazards through prevention, response, and
remediation measures. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-14.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-6 All development within the City shall comply
with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rule 1403,
which provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-
containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain
asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified
Asbestos Consultant (certified by the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration [Ca/OSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos.
Removal of the asbestos should include prior notification to the SCAQMD and
compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos handling and
clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements under
this rule. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-14.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-7 All demolition that could result in the release of
lead shall be conducted according to the California Code of Regulations (Title 8,
Section 1532.1) regarding the removal of lead-based paint or other materials
containing lead, which must be performed and monitored by contractors with
appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services. The
CaIOSHA standards are intended to protect the general population and
construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with
exposure to these materials. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-14.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-8 All demolition or construction activities shall
comply with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.) and
the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529), which prohibit
emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities;
require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities
that could disturb asbestos; specify precautions and safe work practices that
must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers; and
require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to beginning
renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos. The standards were
developed to protect the general population and construction workers from
respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials.
(Final EIR, p. 4.6-14.)
23
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-9 Development in the City of Arcadia shall
comply with the California Fire Plan, as implemented by the State Board of
Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF).
Implementation of the California Fire Plan would reduce wildland fire hazards at
the Angeles National Forest and the foothills in Arcadia. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-15.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-10 All development within the City shall comply
with SCAQMD Rules X and XIV, which include regulations for toxic and
hazardous air pollutant emissions. Rule X adopts the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) and Rule XIV specifies the
limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR), cancer burden, and non-cancer
acute and chronic hazard index (HI) from new, modified, or relocated stationary
sources that emit toxic air contaminants. The rule includes specific limits for
MICR, chronic HI, and acute HI that need to be met before a permit to
construct/operate if approved for new stationary sources located within 1,000 feet
of an existing school or a school under construction. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-15.)
Regulatory Requirement HAZ-11 In accordance with the California Code of
Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541), persons planning new construction,
excavations, and new utility lines near or crossing existing high pressure
pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, electrical lines greater than 60,000
volts, and other high priority lines are required to notify the owner/operator of the
line and must identify the locations of subsurface lines prior to any ground
disturbance for excavation. Coordination, approval, and monitoring by the
owner/operator of the line would avoid damage to high priority lines and prevent
the creation of hazards to the surrounding area. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-15.)
2. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, pp. 4.6-9 and 4.6-12.)
Explanation: The Project Site is located more than one-quarter mile from any
school. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school. The Project's operational air emissions would result
24
in a less-than-significant impact to maximally exposed school children. (Final EIR, pp.
4.6-9 and 4.6-12.)
3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-12.)
Explanation: The Project Site is not listed on any of the hazardous materials lists
compiled in accordance with California Government § 65962.5. No impact would occur.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.6-9 and 4.6-12.)
4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
Threshold: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-12.)
Explanation: The Project Site is located approximately 8,500 feet from the El
Monte Airport property. Because the maximum height of the Project's buildings would
not extend into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to
1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway,
the Project would not result in hazards that could occur from development located within
25
an airport land use plan. The proposed Project has no potential to create an airport
safety hazard, and no impact would occur. The maximum height of the Project's
buildings would be 20 feet below the 85-foot imaginary surface area. The Project Site is
not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would therefore not result in a safety
hazard due to proximity to air traffic associated with a private airstrip. (Final EIR, pp.
4.6-10, 4.6-12, and 4.6-13.)
5. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Explanation: Development on the Project Site would have direct roadway access
to Lower Azusa Road and would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation
of adjacent sites. The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Final EIR,
pp. 4.6-10 and 4.6-13.)
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Explanation: The Project Site is located in an urbanized portion of the City and is
not within a wildland fire hazard area. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
26
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Final EIR, pp. 4.6-11 and 4.6-13.)
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-8.)
Explanation: During the Project's construction, mandatory compliance with a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that is required to be filed in
conjunction with an application for a General Construction Permit (GCP) from the Los
Angeles RWQCB pursuant to Order No 2009-009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002,
would ensure that construction-related water pollutants do not violate water quality
standards. After construction and through the lifetime of Project operation, a majority of
the property would be covered by impervious surfaces such as rooftops and paved
surfaces, and the water runoff would be captured by the Project's on-site storm drainage
system, prior to discharge into the adjacent Reach 4 of the San Gabriel River. The
Project includes a series of on-site surface basins placed along Lower Azusa Road for
water quality and detention purposes. The basins are designed to provide first-flush
capture, retain, and filter storm water runoff before it is discharged from the Project Site.
The water quality volumes in the basins would be treated through Modular Wetland
systems and then discharged to the on-site storm drain line system for conveyance from
the Site for off-site discharge into the San Gabriel River. As an alternative, underground
water quality chambers could be provided in lieu of surface basins that have the same
27
water quality properties as the surface basins. The Project's storm water drainage
collection and conveyance system is designed to capture and treat the primary
pollutants of concern that would be generated at the developed Project Site and that
could adversely affect the water quality of the affected segments of the San Gabriel
River. With regular maintenance to ensure full and proper functioning of the drainage
and water quality treatment mechanisms, runoff from the impervious portions of the
Project Site would result in less-than-significant water quality impacts and would not
violate any water quality standards established by the LARWQCB for the San Gabriel
River. (Final EIR, pp 4.7-7 to 4.7-10 and 4.7-15.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 Prior to recordation of a Final Map, the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works, Design Division, shall approve the Project's
storm water drainage system design. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City of
Arcadia shall review building plans to ensure the following:
a) In all truck loading dock areas, the concrete surfaces shall be
designed to drain towards the proposed surface basins or
subsurface water quality chambers.
b) Runoff from paved parking and drive surfaces shall be conveyed
into drainage inlets equipped with inserts that filter out pollutants
prior to discharge into the surface basins or subsurface water
quality chambers.
c) Hydrocarbon booms from all drain inserts shall be required to
remove hydrocarbon buildup.
d) All proposed and any existing storm drain inlets to remain shall be
stenciled with prohibitive language and/or legible graphical icons to
prevent dumping.
e) Trash enclosures shall be located away from roof drainage. Trash
enclosures shall be roofed and walled off to prevent the inadvertent
transport of trash by wind and contact of trash with rainfall. (Final
EIR, p. 4.7-16.)
28
Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 Ongoing, regular maintenance of the on-site storm
water drainage system, including any and all surface basins and subsurface
water quality chambers is the responsibility of the property owner(s). Legibility of
the stencils/markers required on the storm drain inlets to prevent dumping also is
the responsibility of the property owner. Prior to the approval of a Final Parcel
Map, the Project Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the
drainage system and shall provide the City of Arcadia with a copy of the
agreement. Maintenance responsibilities also shall be specified in the Property
Owners'Association Covenant Codes & Restrictions (CC&Rs). (Final EIR, p. 4.7-
16.)
Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale agreement
that inform building occupants about their responsibilities to ensure the
containment of grease and oil. At a minimum, parking lots shall be required to be
swept on a monthly basis and before any anticipated rain events. Absorbent
materials shall be required to be used to collect any spilled oil, and disposed of
properly, to ensure these substances do not contaminate storm water. (Final
EIR, p. 4.7-16.)
Regulatory Requirement HYDRO-1 The Project applicant/developer for all
applicable development projects shall file a Permit Registration Document (PRD)
with the State Water Resources Control Board in order to obtain coverage under
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Order No 2009-009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) or the latest
approved general permit. The project applicant/developer shall provide
documentation of coverage under the Construction General Permit to the City of
Arcadia. The PRD consists of a Notice of Intent (NOI); Risk Assessment; Site
Map; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP); annual fee; and a
signed certification statement. Pursuant to permit requirements, the project
applicant/developer shall develop and incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in the site
runoff. Starting in 2011, SWPPPs shall also be prepared and implemented for
construction sites less than one acre, per Title 24 Green Building Standards.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.7-16 to 4.7-17.)
Regulatory Requirement HYDRO-2 As required under the Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order
No. 01-182; NPDES No. CAS0041) for the County, the City of Arcadia requires
new development and major redevelopment to prepare a Standard Urban
Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) as part of the development permit
process. The SUSMP shall identify post-construction treatment-control BMPs
that would be implemented on site for long-term storm water pollutant mitigation.
The SUSMP shall be prepared pursuant to the guidelines prepared by the Los
29
Angeles County Department of Public Works' SUSMP Manual. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-
17.)
Regulatory Requirement HYDRO-3 All development in the City shall comply
with Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of
the Arcadia Municipal Code supplements to the City's NPDES permit, which
prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water and requires
development projects to provide best management practices to reduce pollutants
in the storm water. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-17.)
Regulatory Requirement HYDRO-4 Discharges of groundwater from
construction and project dewatering shall comply with the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board's (LARWQCB's) Order No. R4-2003-0111, which
outlines the waste discharge requirements to surface waters in the coastal
watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (General NPDES Permit No.
CAG994004). Projects that involve dewatering activities and that could result in
discharges into "Waters of the State" must file a Report of Waste Discharge
(RWD) with the LARWQCB. The LARWQCB reviews the RWD and the
proposed discharge and prepares Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs),
which include operational requirements, contaminant limitations, and monitoring
requirements. Compliance with the WDR would: (1) prevent groundwater
discharges from resulting in water quality degradation of receiving surface water
bodies and (2) protect beneficial uses of water. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-17.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
Explanation: The Project would not affect any existing groundwater extraction
wells; drill or equip any new wells; or interfere with the City's primary groundwater
recharge facility at the Peck Road Recharge Basin, which is not located on or near the
Project Site. No groundwater production wells are proposed to be located on the
Project Site and as an active IDEFO facility for many years, the Project Site has not
30
been part of any efforts to conserve or manage groundwater resources. Water falling
on impervious surfaces of the Project Site would be conveyed to the Project's proposed
storm water drainage system, which will outlet into the San Gabriel River where
intermittent groundwater recharge occurs. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-10 and 4.7-14.)
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the Project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-15.)
Explanation: Although implementation of the Project would alter the drainage
pattern of the Project Site, the Project's on-site storm water drainage system and outlets
into the San Gabriel River are designed to meet the LACDPW design standards for
peak year and low-flow storm events. As such, the Project would not affect the course
of any stream or river, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off
site. The Project's drainage system is designed to ensure that all runoff is conveyed by
facilities with adequate capacity, or to ensure that runoff in excess of downstream
capacity is detained on the site; therefore, the Project would not result in flooding on or
off site. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-11, 4.7-12, and 4.7-15.)
31
4. Runoff Water
Threshold: Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-15.)
Explanation: The Project's drainage system is designed to ensure that all runoff
is conveyed by facilities with adequate capacity, or to ensure that runoff in excess of
downstream capacity is detained on site. Accordingly, Project runoff would not exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. The Project's
proposed BMPs also would ensure the Project does not provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-12, 4.7-13, and 4.7-15.)
5. Degrading Water Quality
Threshold: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
Explanation: There are no conditions associated with the Project that would
result in other sources of degraded water quality. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-13 and 4.7-15.)
6. Housing in Flood Zones
Threshold: Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
32
Explanation: The Project applicant does not propose housing and the site is not
located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Project has no potential to
place housing in a flood hazard area. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-13 and 4.7-15.)
7. Dam or Levee Failure
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
Explanation: Although the Project Site is located within the inundation area for
the Santa Fe Dam, the potential for property damage and personal injury due to flooding
from dam inundation is reduced by dam construction and conformance with state and
federal dam safety regulations and the preparation of emergency action plans for
individual dams, which include warning, evacuation, and post-disaster actions. (Final
EIR, pp. 4.7-14 and 4.7-15.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirement is imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement HYDRO-5 All new construction and major
improvements shall be built in accordance with the City's Floodplain
Management Regulations (Article III, Chapter 10 — Floodplain Management of
the Arcadia Municipal Code), which require that structures (1) be adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement from hydrodynamic
and hydrostatic loads during flood; (2) be constructed with materials and utility
equipment resistant to flood damage and using methods and practices that
minimize flood damage; and have electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and
air conditioning equipment and other utility systems that prevent water from
entering or accumulating within structures during floods. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-17.)
33
8. Inundation
Threshold: Would the Project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
Explanation: The Project Site has little to no potential to be exposed to hazards
associated with seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. (Final EIR, pp. 4.7-14 and 4.7-15.)
H. LAND USE
1. Community Compatibility
Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.8-17.)
Explanation: The only established community adjacent to the Project Site is a
residential community in the City of El Monte to the west and southwest. This
community is physically separated from the Project Site by a solid masonry barrier wall.
There are no community facilities that service this neighborhood which are separated
from this neighborhood by the Project Site. To the east and north of the Project site are
the San Gabriel River and 1-605, beyond which are an existing mining operation and
industrial uses. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in
the physical division of an established community; accordingly, no impact would occur.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.8-7 and 4.8-17.)
2. Conservation Plan Compatibility
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan, or natural community conservation plan?
34
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.8-17.)
Explanation: There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation
Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plans that cover habitats that pertain to the Project Site.
Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, because no such applicable
plans exist. (Final EIR, p. 4.8-17.)
I. NOISE
1. Permanent Traffic-Related Noise and Operational Noise
Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Finding: Less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
Explanation: Under long-term operation, Project-related traffic would not expose
persons to or generate noise levels in excess of local standards and would not result in
a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project. With the addition of Project-related traffic to existing
noise levels and the projected Year 2017 and Year 2035 noise levels, Project-related
traffic would increase noise by considerable amounts in three locations, at the 1-605
Southbound ramp south of Lower Azusa Road, at the 1-605 Northbound ramp north of
Lower Azusa Road, and along Lower Azusa Road east of Project Driveway 3.
However, because there are no noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to these locations,
the Project would not contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise levels in
excess of applicable noise standards. Regarding on-site operating activities, the Project
35
would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of local standards and
would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Long term impacts would be
less than significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.9-20 to 4.9-30 and 4.9-38.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a solid
barrier wall at a minimum height of six (6) feet shall be installed at the Site's
western property line (coterminous with the City of El Monte and City of Arcadia
jurisdictional boundary), as required by Site's existing Reclamation Plan and as
also specified by the Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan. The wall shall
present a solid face from top to bottom; unnecessary openings shall not be
made. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of
Arcadia shall ensure that the building's lease or purchase agreements contain
language requiring all trucks, tractors, and forklift to be equipped with properly
operating and well maintained mufflers. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-5 Speed humps are prohibited. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the City of Arcadia shall review building plans to ensure that no
on-site speed humps will be constructed. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-6 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of
Arcadia shall ensure that the building lease or purchase agreements contain
language requiring the truck access gates and loading docks within all truck
courts to include signage that states:
a) Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use; and
b) Diesel trucks shall not idle for more than five (5) minutes.
The required signage shall include telephone numbers of the building facilities
manager to report violations of these restrictions. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-2 Future development in the City shall comply
with the City's Noise Ordinance, (Chapter 6, Part 1, Section 4610.3 of the
Municipal Code), which sets limits for exterior noise levels. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-41.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-5 For proposed commercial and industrial land
uses that would generate stationary noise near noise sensitive receptors, a
36
detailed noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant
prior to the issuance of building permits. The assessment shall utilize noise data
provided by the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized by the project or noise
measurements from substantially similar equipment to project noise levels at the
noise-sensitive uses (on- and off-site). Compliance with the City's noise
standards for residences shall be demonstrated and any measures required to
meet the noise standards shall be described and incorporated into the building
plans for the project. These measures may include, but not be limited to,
selection of quiet models, construction of barriers, equipment enclosures, and
placement of the equipment. Project Applicants/developers shall submit evidence
to the Director of Planning Development that the noise reduction measures are
stated as requirements on the construction plans and specifications.
** To provide more specificity for purposes of the Final EIR, the following is
required:
Should any of the buildings within the Project Site house or attract special noise
generators, such as outdoor compressors, air scrubbers, emergency generators,
large HVAC units or outdoor amplification (speakers), acoustical calculations for
the potential noise generating equipment shall be prepared and submitted to the
City of Arcadia. The calculations must demonstrate that, at the nearest sensitive
receptor, the noise generator:
• Would produce a less than 5 dBA Leq noise level increase if the existing
noise level at the sensitive receptor is less than 60 dBA dBA Leq.
• Would produce a less than 3 dBA Leq noise level increase if the existing
noise level at the sensitive receptor ranges from 60 to 65 dBA Leq.
• Would produce a less than 1.5 dBA Leq noise level increase if the
existing noise level at the sensitive receptor exceeds 66 dBA Leq. (Final
EIR, pp. 4.9-41 and -4.9-42.)
2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
Explanation: The Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The Project's construction-related
vibration levels are expected to create a peak vibration level of 0.101 inches per second
37
or less at sensitive receiver locations, which is below the City of Arcadia's maximum
acceptable vibration standard of 0.1257 inches per second. During Project operation,
typical vibration levels for heavy trucks at normal traffic speeds do not exceed 65 VdB
and because truck deliveries transiting on-site would travel at very low speeds; delivery
truck vibration impacts at nearby homes would be less than 65 VdB which falls below
the level normally perceptible to humans and results in a less-than-significant impact.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.9-4, 4.9-34, 4.9-35, and 4.9-38.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following mitigation measure and regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-3 Future development in the City shall comply
with the City's vibration standards in Title 3, Performance Standards, Section
9266.3.9, of the Arcadia Municipal Code. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-41.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
projects that have a potential to generate groundborne vibration (e.g., use of pile
drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers) or be exposed to vibration from off-
site sources, the City shall require applicants for development projects that would
be located adjacent to any developed/occupied sensitive local receptors or for
proposed residential projects to submit a construction-related vibration mitigation
plan to the City for review and approval. The mitigation plan shall depict the
location of the construction equipment and activities and how the vibration from
this equipment and activity would be mitigated during construction of the project.
(Final EIR, p. 4.9-42.)
3. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
38
Explanation: The Project Site is located outside of the El Monte Airport 65 dBA
CNEL noise contour and would not be subjected to excessive noise levels due to the
Site's proximity to El Monte Airport. As such, the Project would not expose people to
excessive noise levels associated with the operation of an airport. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
4. Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.6-38.)
Explanation: There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project Site;
therefore, the Project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated
with the operation of a private airstrip. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Air Traffic Patterns
Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would not encroach into air traffic space and
would have no impact on air traffic patterns or volumes. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
2. Design Features
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
39
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
Explanation: The Project will not increase hazards via a design feature or
incompatible land uses, because the Lower Azusa Road frontage improvements and
site access improvements will adhere to City design standards to ensure that adequate
sight distance is provided to maintain sufficient vehicular visibility at driveways and
intersections. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
Explanation: The proposed Project's street access and internal circulation have
been reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department, which has determined that there is
adequate emergency access provided for all parts of the Site. Compliance with
approved building plans will be verified in the field, prior to issuance of any occupancy
permits. This standard process will ensure that there are less than significant impacts
involving emergency access. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
4. Alternative Modes of Travel
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would have a nominal effect on transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and would not conflict with any policies or programs
created for such modes of travel. No impact would occur. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
40
K. UTILITIES
1. Wastewater
Threshold: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-25.)
Explanation: Wastewater would be generated by the Project from interior
plumbing fixtures. No industrial process systems using substantial amounts of water or
producing wastewater would be used because the proposed Arcadia Logistics Center
Specific Plan prohibits land uses that require more than 3,000 gallons of water per day
per acre of building area. Wastewater from the Project would flow to treatment facilities
maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). In conformance
with Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the LACSD is subject to Los
Angeles RWQCB Order No. R4-2012-0175 and NPDES No. CAS004001, compliance
with which is mandatory. Further, the Project does not propose to install or utilize septic
systems or alternative wastewater treatment systems. Therefore, the Project would
have no potential to exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements
established by the Los Angeles RWQCB (Final EIR, pp. 4.11-11 and 4.11-25.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirement is imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement UTIL-5 In compliance with the LACSD's Wastewater
Ordinance, all wastewater discharges into LACSD facilities shall be required to
comply with the discharges standards set forth to protect the public sewerage
system. The LACSD Surcharge program requires all industrial companies
discharging to the LACSD sewerage system to pay their fair share of the
wastewater treatment and disposal costs, and the Connection Fee program
requires all new users of the LACSD sewerage system, as well as existing users
that significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge,
41
to pay their fair share of the costs for providing additional conveyance, treatment,
and disposal facilities. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-27.)
2. New Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-25.)
Explanation: The San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) has sufficient
capacity to serve the Project in light of its existing and projected commitments, and no
new entitlements would be required. The Project would not have an adverse effect on
the ability of the SGVWC to implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan prepared
in response to Executive Order B-29-15. There would be no significant impacts
specifically related to the installation of water and sewer infrastructure beyond the
overall construction-related effects of the Project as a whole. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-25.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement UTIL-1 Prior to approval of development applications
that could have an impact on existing water, sewer, or storm drain infrastructure
capacities, as determined by the City Engineer, the project applicant/developer
shall be required to determine project impacts on each system. If water, sewer,
and/or storm drain infrastructure improvements are required in order to serve the
proposed project, then appropriate mitigation shall be provided in the analysis
and shall be incorporated into site development plans, subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer. If infrastructure improvements outside the
jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia are required, including improvements to trunk
sewer lines owned by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the needed
improvements, or fair share payments in lieu of infrastructure improvements,
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate jurisdictions. (Final EIR,
pp. 4.11-26 and -27.)
42
Regulatory Requirement UTIL-2 All water, sewer, storm drain, and other utility
infrastructure improvements within the City shall be conducted in compliance with
the applicable regulations set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code, which
incorporates by reference applicable State regulations, including those that adopt
the California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical
Code, and California Mechanical Code. Article IX, Chapter 1, Subdivision Code,
sets forth standards for the review and approval of all development plans by the
City Engineer and requires that the project applicant/developer provide utility
facilities in accordance with the standards and specifications approved by the
City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-27.)
3. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
Explanation: The total projected water demand for the Project would be
approximately 168 acre feet per year (AFY) as calculated by the Project's Water Supply
Assessment (WSA) prepared by the SGVWC. This demand, along with existing and
planned future demands are accounted for in the SGVWC's adopted 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP). The SGVWC meets its water demands by pumping
groundwater from the Main Basin and the Central Basin, and deliveries of recycled
water. The SGVWC also can purchase imported treated water through its connection
with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California if necessary, and has access
to recycled water from Central Basin Municipal Water District, the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts, and the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Based
on the demonstrated reliability of its water supply sources, the SGVWC has sufficient,
reliable, and sustainable water supplies to meet Project's water demands in addition to
43
existing and future demands over the next 20 years and through 2035, including during
single and multiple dry years. (Final EIR, pp. 4.11-15, 4.11-16, and 4.11-26.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirements are imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement UTIL-3 The City of Arcadia shall require all future
projects implemented pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update that are subject
to SB 610 and/or SB 221 to comply with all applicable requirements in order to
demonstrate the availability of an adequate and reliable water supply. (Final EIR,
p. 4.11-27.) [Note: the proposed Project has complied with this requirement, as
demonstrated by the WSA contained as Technical Appendix I.]
Regulatory Requirement UT1L-4 All new construction and rehabilitated
landscapes for public agency projects and private non-residential development
projects of a qualifying size shall be subject to compliance with the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In compliance with City regulations, development
projects that fall into these categories shall implement water conservation
measures in accordance with the standards for plant selection and grouping,
water features standards, irrigation design and system requirements, and soil
and grading requirements. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-27.)
4. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
Explanation: The proposed Project's wastewater generation would not exceed
the capacity of the LACSD's regional treatment facilities and payment of mandatory
connection fees and surcharges established by the LACSD's Wastewater Ordinance
would reduce the Project's incremental effect to a level of less than significant. (Final
EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
44
5. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, 4.11-26.)
Explanation: The proposed Project's solid waste disposal needs can be
accommodated by existing and planned landfills serving the City of Arcadia. Project
impacts would be less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
6. Solid Waste Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statues and
regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, 4.11-26.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal. No impact
associated with regulatory compliance would occur. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirement is imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement UTIL-6 All development projects in the City shall
implement waste reduction, disposal, and recycling measures during construction
and operation in accordance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE), prepared in compliance with the California Integrated Waste
Management Act, as well as provide collection and loading areas for recyclables,
as required under the City's Zoning Regulations. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-28.)
7. Utility Infrastructure Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statues and
regulations related to electricity, natural gas and communications infrastructure?
45
Finding: No impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to electricity, natural gas and communications
infrastructure. No impact associated with regulatory compliance would occur. (Final
EIR, p. 4.11-26.)
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including
fire protection services?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
Explanation: The Project Site is served by Arcadia Fire Station 105 (first
responder for medical aid and second responder for fire protection) and through an
automatic aid agreement Monrovia Fire Station 102 (first responder for fire protection).
Other stations respond when needed through automatic aid and mutual aid agreements.
Existing fire stations have adequate physical capacity to service the proposed Project.
No new or expanded fire protection facilities are needed. Impacts to fire service facilities
would thus be less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirement is imposed on the Project:
46
Regulatory Requirement SVS-1 All development in the City shall comply with
the California Fire Code and regulations in the Fire Department section (Article
lll, Chapter 1) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which include standards for
building construction that would reduce the creation of fire hazards and facilitate
emergency response. Building plans are reviewed and structures inspected by
the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable fire safety,
emergency access, and fire flow standards in these codes and in order to identify
additional development features that could reduce demand for fire protection
services. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-9.)
2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including
police protection services?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, 4.12-8.)
Explanation: The Project Site is served by the Arcadia Police Department from
its headquarters building, which has adequate physical capacity to service the proposed
Project. Impacts to police service facilities would be less than significant. (Final EIR,
4.12-8.)
3. Education
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
47
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including
schools?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, 4.12-8.)
Explanation: The Project would not generate a student population requiring
public education services. With mandatory payment of fees in accordance with
California Senate Bill 50 (Greene) and California Government Code §§ 65995.5-65998,
indirect effects to public schools would be less than significant. (Final EIR, 4.12-8.)
Although the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact, the
following regulatory requirement is imposed on the Project:
Regulatory Requirement SVS-2 In compliance with Section 65995 of the
California Government Code (SB 50), prior to approval of a development project,
the property owner/developer shall pay applicable fees to the impacted school
district(s). Under State law, payment of the developer fees provides full and
complete mitigation of the project's impacts on school facilities. (Final EIR, p.
4.12-9.)
4. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the other public services?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
Explanation: The Project would not generate a resident population requiring
public library services or other public services. Impacts to libraries and other public
services would be less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
48
SECTION 5: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that feasible Mitigation Measures and Regulatory
Requirements have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or
substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less
than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures
and Regulatory Requirements that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are
as follows:
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Air Quality Standard Violation and Criteria Pollutants for
Construction-Related Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated (Final EIR, p.
4.2-48)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, emissions resulting from Project
construction would exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for
emissions of VOCs, which represents a significant direct impact. The main source of
VOCs generated during Project construction would be from architectural finishes
49
applied to buildings. The Project's construction period VOC emissions, therefore, could
contribute to a violation of an air quality standard, which also is a significant impact.
VOCs are also classified as ozone precursors; therefore, the construction period VOC
emissions would also contribute to an increase in the level of ozone pollution in the
SCAB, which is in a non-attainment status for this criteria pollutant, resulting in a
significant impact. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the
Final EIR. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1, RR-AQ-1, RR-
AQ-3, RR-AQ-4, and RR-AQ-6, construction activity emissions would be reduced to
below the numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for criteria pollutants. As
such, with mitigation, construction-related emissions would not substantially contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor would Project construction activities
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment. Accordingly, near-term air quality impacts associated
with criteria pollutants would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.2-48 and 4.2-49)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 Prior to building permit issuance, the City of
Arcadia shall verify that the following note is specified on all building plans.
Project contractors shall be required to comply with the note and maintain
written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of
Arcadia upon request. This note also shall be specified in bid documents
issued to prospective construction contractors.
"All surface coatings shall consist of "Zero-Volatile Organic
Compound" paints (no more than 100 gram/liter of VOC) and/or
High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113." (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-44.)
50
Regulatory Requirement AQ-1 Construction activities shall implement
the following measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is re-
entrained into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and
construction sites, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403:
• Require the following measures to be followed during the
construction of all projects in order to reduce the amount of dust
and other sources of PM10:
•
o Dust suppression at construction sites using vegetation,
surfactants, and other chemical stabilizers;
o Wheel washers for construction equipment;
o Watering of all actively disturbed construction areas;
o Limit speeds at construction sites to 15 miles per hour; and
o Covering of aggregate or similar material during
transportation of hauling materials
0
• Pave [or water] currently unpaved roads and parking lots or
establish and enforce 15-mile per hour speed limits on low-use,
unpaved roads as permitted under California Vehicle Code Section
22365. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-3 Project construction activities shall
comply with the applicable regulatory requirements established by the
SCAQMD, including but not limited to Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings),
Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule
1186/1186.1 (Street Sweepers). (Final EIR, p. 4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-4 In accordance with 13 CCR, Chapter 10,
Section 2485 and the CARB's ATCM, large commercial, diesel-powered
vehicles shall not idle for more than five minutes. The City shall ensure
this action is implemented during construction activities. (Final EIR, pp.
4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-6 The Project shall implement the following
measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment:
• Commercial electric power shall be provided to the Project Site in
adequate capacity to avoid or minimize the use of portable
gas/diesel-powered electric generators and equipment.
• Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g.,
diesel) shall be replaced or substituted with electrically driven
equivalents (provided that they are not run via a portable generator
set).
• To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall
be used to further reduce exhaust emissions.
51
• On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
• Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be
located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. (Final EIR, p.
4.2-48.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-7 Development on the Project Site shall be
governed by the building regulations listed in the City of Arcadia Municipal
Code (Article VIII) and State of California Building Standards Code. (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-48.)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated. (Final EIR, p.
4.3-23.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, no sensitive vegetation communities,
special-status plant species, or special-status wildlife species are located on the Project
Site or the off-site river drainage outlet areas under existing conditions. However, there
is a potential that burrowing owl could move onto the property before Project-related
construction commences, and be directly impacted. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.3-1 would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted for the
western burrowing owl to determine the presence or absence of the species on the
Project Site prior to Project-related grading activities. If present, the mitigation requires
avoidance and/or relocation of burrowing owls in conformance with CDFW protocols for
the species. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and
52
cumulatively considerable impacts to the burrowing owl birds would be reduced to
below a level of significance. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant with
mitigation. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-11, 4.3-12, and 4.3-23.)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 No sooner than 30 days prior to and no later
than 14 days prior to Project-related grading activities, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a survey of the Project's proposed impact footprint and
make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbing activities. The determination shall be documented in a report
and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and subject to the following provisions:
a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing
owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without
restriction.
b) In the event that the pre-construction survey indicates the Project's
proposed impact footprint is occupied by burrowing owl, then prior
to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement
of ground-disturbing activities on the property, a qualified biologist
shall passively or actively relocate any burrowing owls. Passive
relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude
owls from the Site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the
biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate
habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive
relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only
occur between September 15 and February 1. If proximate
alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist,
active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The
biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the
Site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
(Final EIR, p. 4.3-20.)
53
2. Riparian and Sensitive Habitat
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated. (Final EIR,
pp. 4.3-23.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, none of the existing habitat types on
the Project Site or within the optional river drainage outlet area are considered riparian
habitats, nor are any of these habitats identified as sensitive natural communities in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS.
However, the construction of one of three outfall structures (Option 1 a, 1 b, or 1 c) would
permanently impact CDFW jurisdiction, but no vegetated riparian habitat. Specifically, if
Option 1a is selected for implementation, 0.03 acre or 75 linear feet of streambed would
be impacted. If Option 1 b is selected for implementation, 0.10 acre or 87 linear feet of
streambed would be impacted. If Option 1 c is selected for implementation, 0.07 acre or
83 linear feet of streambed would be impacted. The Project's potential to impact to
CDFW streambed is identified as a significant direct and cumulatively considerable
impact for which mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-
2 through MM 4.3-4 and Regulatory Requirement RR-B10-2 would ensure that impacts
to CDFW jurisdictional areas and downstream riparian habitats are minimized during the
construction and long-term operation of the Project, and requires mitigation at a
minimum 1:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio for impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas. With
54
implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and cumulatively considerable
impacts to sensitive habitats would be reduced to below a level of significance. As
such, impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-13, 4.3-
23, and 4.3-24)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of permits for installation
of a drainage outfall or any other improvement within the San Gabriel
River, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department that impacts to California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed resources has occurred at a
minimum 1:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio to the satisfaction of the CDFW.
Specifically, if Option SD-1 is selected for implementation, 0.03 acre of
streambed would be impacted and require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. If
Option SD-2 is selected for implementation, 0.10 acre of streambed would
be impacted and require mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. If Option SD-3
is selected for implementation, 0.07 acre of streambed would be impacted
and require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation shall occur in the form of
creation, restoration, and/or enhancement on site and/or off site via an in-
lieu fee program in the San Gabriel River, San Gabriel River Watershed,
and/or adjacent watershed.
a) In Lieu Fee Option: Mitigation can be fully or partially satisfied via
an in-lieu fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to California
Fish and Game Code Section 1797-1799.1, which establishes a
system of conservation and mitigation banks in order to provide a
means of mitigating impacts to wetlands, endangered/threatened
species, and otherwise sensitive resources. The Project proponent
would contribute funds to such a bank that would in turn be used to
create, restore, protect or enhance streambed habitats, either at the
source of the impact or elsewhere at a larger, more functional and
longer-lasting ecological system (CDFW, 2015).
b) Creation, Restoration, and/or Enhancement Option: Mitigation can
be fully or partially satisfied by creation, restoration, and/or
enhancement. Enhancement may include but is not limited to
removal of non-native invasive plant species within existing State
streambed. Plant species used for any of these mitigation methods
must be locally native (seeds, container, and/or cuttings) and
mitigation by any of these methods must be accompanied by a
three-year mitigation monitoring plan prepared by a professional
restorationist ecologist. The mitigation monitoring plan is required
to identify performance, schedule, monitoring, and maintenance
criteria. Mitigation for impacts to State streambeds shall be
55
considered complete only when monitoring is complete and the
success criteria identified below is met.
1) Year 1 - Monitoring shall occur monthly at a qualitative level.
Quantitative plant sampling shall occur during the second
quarter of Year 1.
2) Years 2 and 3 - Monitoring shall occur quarterly at a qualitative
level. Quantitative plant sampling shall be performed in the
second quarter of Year 2 and the second quarter of Year 3.
3) Success will be met once: (1) At least 50% of the vegetation
present is dominated by locally native species, (2) there is
evidence of natural recruitment of multiple locally native
species, (3) no more than 15% cover by California Invasive
Plant Council (Cal-IPC) List A and B species, and (4) no more
than 15% cover by other weedy species. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-20
and 4.3-21.)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 Prior to the issuance of a Project-related
grading permit, the Project's approved limits of disturbance shall be
flagged in the field and shall remain flagged during all construction
activities within the San Gabriel River. All construction documents shall
indicate that disturbance is prohibited beyond the flags. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-
21.)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 Prior to the issuance of a Project-related
grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall
be prepared that will address the following: sediment and hazardous
materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and
equipment management practices, and use of plant material for erosion
control. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department and the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District, and the Project Construction Contractor shall maintain
records of compliance with all provisions of the SWPPP. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-
22.)
Regulatory Requirement B 1O-2 Prior to the issuance of permits for the
installation of a drainage outfall into the San Gabriel River, the Project
Applicant shall comply with the California Department of Fish and Game
Code Section 1602, which requires notification to the CDFW prior to
commencing any activity that may deposit materials that could pass into
the river. The Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), or obtain written verification from the CDFW that a Section 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required. If a Streambed
56
Alteration Agreement is required, the Project Applicant will be obligated by
the Agreement to implement all mitigation requirements specified in the
Agreement to mitigate impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas. (Final EIR,
p. 4.3-23.)
3. Migration Interference
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated. (Final EIR, p.
4.3-24)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, there is no potential for the Project to
interfere with the movement of fish or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site.
However, the Project has the potential to directly and cumulatively impact nesting,
migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish
and Game Code, if construction activities involving removal of existing mature trees on
site were to occur during the nesting season. Additionally, there is suitable habitat on
site for the burrowing owl, a migratory raptor species, and it is possible that owl could
move onto the site following quarry reclamation and prior to project construction, and
thus be exposed to potential harm during construction. Implementation of MM 4.3-5
would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted for nesting migratory birds to
determine presence or absence prior to Project-related tree removals. If the species is
present, the mitigation requires avoidance of migratory bird nests during the breeding
season in conformance with accepted protocols and regulatory requirements. With
implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and cumulatively considerable
impacts to nesting migratory birds would be reduced to below a level of significance. As
such, impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-19, 4.3-
20, and 4.3-24)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 No sooner than 30 days prior to and no later
than 14 days prior to Project-related grading activities, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a survey of the Project's proposed impact footprint and
make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbing activities. The determination shall be documented in a report
and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and subject to the following provisions:
a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing
owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without
restriction.
57
b) In the event that the pre-construction survey indicates the Project's
proposed impact footprint is occupied by burrowing owl, then prior
to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement
of ground-disturbing activities on the property, a qualified biologist
shall passively or actively relocate any burrowing owls. Passive
relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude
owls from the Site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the
biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate
habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive
relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only
occur between September 15 and February 1. If proximate
alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist,
active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The
biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the
Site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
(Final EIR, p. 4.3-20.)
Mitigation Measure 43-5 As a condition of approval for all Project-related
grading permits, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance with 300 feet
of all trees shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season
(February 1 through September 15), unless a migratory bird nesting
survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A migratory nesting bird survey of the Project's impact footprint and
a 300-foot buffer shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within
three (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground
disturbance.
b) A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be
provided to the City of Arcadia Development Services Department.
If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the
qualified biologist shall provide the Development Services
Department with a copy of maps showing the location of all nests
and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to
protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and
location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be subject to review
and approval by the Development Services Department. The nests
and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified
biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in
the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation
clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified
biologist verifies that the nests are no longer occupied and the
juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. (Final EIR,
p. 4.3-22.)
58
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture and Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Finding: Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. (Final EIR, p.
4.4-18)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project would have no impact or
less-than-significant impacts due to the exposure of people or structures to earthquake
faults, strong seismic ground shaking, or landslides. The risk of liquefaction, lateral
spreading and/or seismically induced settlement on the Project Site is relatively small
due to the extremely dense nature of the compacted fill placed into the former mine
quarry as part of the IDEFO. The engineered fill ranges from approximately 0 to 165
feet thick, surrounded by and underlain by alluvium to an unknown depth. The contents
and compaction level of the material in landfill area have been documented over the
course of the Project Site's reclamation process by a licensed geotechnical engineer,
but in margin areas that were not quarried and filled, these areas could be subject to
seismic hazard because they contain native soil and rock that has not been compacted.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a potentially
significant impact as a result of liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement on the
margins (within the native materials and above the areas of the former quarry slopes) of
59
the Project Site. The Project's structures are required to be constructed in accordance
with City of Arcadia Building Code and California Building Standards Code (CBSC; Title
24). All grading and earthwork activities are required to be in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code Regulations and comply with the site-specific grading and construction
recommendations contained within the Project's geotechnical report (provided as EIR
Technical Appendix D). Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM
4.4-3 and Regulatory Requirement GEO-1 would ensure that impacts associated with
liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement would be reduced to a level below
significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.4-9, 4.4-14 and 4.4-18)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or
building permit, the City of Arcadia shall confirm that the Reclamation Plan
is complete, and that the final geologic and soil conditions of the Site, as
called for by the approved Reclamation Plan, are documented in a final
report prepared by a licensed geologist. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or
building permit, a licensed geotechnical engineer shall examine the
perimeter of the property that consists of native soils and/or fill materials
that were not placed and compacted under engineering supervision as
part of the IDEFO. These areas shall be examined by performing
geotechnical explorations to a depth of at least 35 feet below the proposed
grade. If the explorations reveal that differential settlement of 0.2"or more
has the potential to occur from liquefaction, dry seismic settlement, or
lateral spreading based on the differences between the compacted
materials within the IDEFO and the uncompacted materials outside of the
IDEFO, flexible connections shall be recommended for all utilities passing
from the uncompacted materials outside the IDEFO to the soils within the
IDEFO. Flexible connections shall be designed such that potential
differential settlements calculated as a result of the geotechnical
exploration and analysis can be safely accommodated within wet or dry
utilities, thereby safeguarding utility lines against potential seismic
hazards. The findings of the geological explorations and recommendations
shall be documented in a report prepared by the licensed geotechnical
engineer. The report shall be approved by the City of Arcadia and the
recommendations contained in the report shall be implemented and
required as building permit conditions of approval. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
60
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 Building foundations shall be contained within
the portions of the property that are underlain by fill that was placed and
compacted under engineering supervision as part of the IDEFO. If a
building foundation is proposed in an area that is not underlain by
compacted fill, prior to issuance of a fine grading permit or building permit,
a licensed geotechnical engineer shall examine the soil and geologic
conditions, review detailed construction plans, and provide
recommendations in a written report to address potential liquefaction,
lateral spreading, and/or seismically-induced settlement hazards that may
be associated with the building. Recommendations may include
deepened foundations, removal of the uncompacted soil and replacement
with fill material similar in nature to that which was placed and compacted
as part of the IDEFO, the use of structural slabs, or comparable method to
provide adequate foundation support and building performance. The
report shall be approved by the City of Arcadia and the recommendations
contained in the report shall be implemented and required as building
permit conditions of approval. No building permit shall be issued for
building foundation construction in an area of the property that was not
compacted as part of the IDEFO until the licensed geotechnical engineer
has either deemed the existing soil and geologic conditions suitable for the
proposed development, or, if deemed unsuitable under existing conditions,
until the recommendations for addressing potential liquefaction, lateral
spreading, and/or seismically-induced settlement are identified and
indicated on construction plans and documents. As part of the City's final
grading and/or building verification, the City shall ensure that all
recommendations of the Project's geotechnical engineer have been
constructed in conformance with the approved building and construction
plans. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-16.)
Regulatory Requirement GEO-1 Development is required to comply with
Article VIII, Sections 8010-8927 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which
contains building requirements for seismic safety and incorporates by
reference the California Building Standards Code. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
2. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
61
Finding: Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. (Final EIR, p.
4.4-18)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, impacts associated with on- or off-site
landslide, subsidence, and collapse would be less than significant due to the extremely
dense nature of the compacted fill placed into the former mine quarry as part of the
IDEFO. However, the margins (within the native materials and above the areas of the
former quarry slopes) of the Project Site contain native materials; therefore, the margins
of the Project Site possess a potential for differential settlement, which is a potentially
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3
and Regulatory Requirement GEO-1 would ensure that impacts associated unstable
soils would be reduced to a level below significant. (Final EIR, pp. 4.4-18 and 4.4-15.)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or
building permit, the City of Arcadia shall confirm that the Reclamation Plan
is complete, and that the final geologic and soil conditions of the Site, as
called for by the approved Reclamation Plan, are documented in a final
report prepared by a licensed geologist. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or
building permit, a licensed geotechnical engineer shall examine the
perimeter of the property that consists of native soils and/or fill materials
that were not placed and compacted under engineering supervision as
part of the IDEFO. These areas shall be examined by performing
geotechnical explorations to a depth of at least 35 feet below the proposed
grade. If the explorations reveal that differential settlement of 0.2" or more
has the potential to occur from liquefaction, dry seismic settlement, or
lateral spreading based on the differences between the compacted
materials within the IDEFO and the uncompacted materials outside of the
IDEFO, flexible connections shall be recommended for all utilities passing
from the uncompacted materials outside the IDEFO to the soils within the
IDEFO. Flexible connections shall be designed such that potential
differential settlements calculated as a result of the geotechnical
exploration and analysis can be safely accommodated within wet or dry
utilities, thereby safeguarding utility lines against potential seismic
hazards. The findings of the geological explorations and
recommendations shall be documented in a report prepared by the
62
licensed geotechnical engineer. The report shall be approved by the City
of Arcadia and the recommendations contained in the report shall be
implemented and required as building permit conditions of approval. (Final
EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 Building foundations shall be contained within
the portions of the property that are underlain by fill that was placed and
compacted under engineering supervision as part of the IDEFO. If a
building foundation is proposed in an area that is not underlain by
compacted fill, prior to issuance of a fine grading permit or building permit,
a licensed geotechnical engineer shall examine the soil and geologic
conditions, review detailed construction plans, and provide
recommendations in a written report to address potential liquefaction,
lateral spreading, and/or seismically-induced settlement hazards that may
be associated with the building. Recommendations may include
deepened foundations, removal of the uncompacted soil and replacement
with fill material similar in nature to that which was placed and compacted
as part of the IDEFO, the use of structural slabs, or comparable method to
provide adequate foundation support and building performance. The
report shall be approved by the City of Arcadia and the recommendations
contained in the report shall be implemented and required as building
permit conditions of approval. No building permit shall be issued for
building foundation construction in an area of the property that was not
compacted as part of the IDEFO until the licensed geotechnical engineer
has either deemed the existing soil and geologic conditions suitable for the
proposed development, or, if deemed unsuitable under existing conditions,
until the recommendations for addressing potential liquefaction, lateral
spreading, and/or seismically-induced settlement are identified and
indicated on construction plans and documents. As part of the City's final
grading and/or building verification, the City shall ensure that all
recommendations of the Project's geotechnical engineer have been
constructed in conformance with the approved building and construction
plans. (Final EIR, p. 4.4-16.)
D. UTILITIES
1. New Drainage Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
63
Finding: Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. (Final EIR, p.
4.11-28.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project Applicant proposes the
installation of a new drainage outlet structure in the bank of the San Gabriel River that
would result in significant but mitigable impacts to CDFW streambed. Aside from the
outlet structure, there would be no significant impacts specifically related to the
installation of storm drain infrastructure beyond the overall construction-related effects
of the Project as a whole. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through
MM 4.3-4 and Regulatory Requirement RR-B10-2 would ensure that impacts to CDFW
jurisdictional areas and downstream riparian habitats are minimized during the
construction and long-term operation of the Project, and requires mitigation at a
minimum 1:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio for impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas. With
implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and cumulatively considerable
impacts to sensitive habitats would be reduced to below a level of significance. As
such, impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-13, 4.3-
23, and 4.3-24, and 4.11-28.)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of permits for installation
of a drainage outfall or any other improvement within the San Gabriel
River, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department that impacts to California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed resources has occurred at a
minimum 1:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio to the satisfaction of the CDFW.
Specifically, if Option SD-1 is selected for implementation, 0.03 acre of
streambed would be impacted and require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. If
Option SD-2 is selected for implementation, 0.10 acre of streambed would
be impacted and require mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. If Option SD-3
is selected for implementation, 0.07 acre of streambed would be impacted
and require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation shall occur in the form of
creation, restoration, and/or enhancement on site and/or off site via an in-
64
lieu fee program in the San Gabriel River, San Gabriel River Watershed,
and/or adjacent watershed.
a) In Lieu Fee Option: Mitigation can be fully or partially satisfied via
an in-lieu fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to California
Fish and Game Code Section 1797-1799.1, which establishes a
system of conservation and mitigation banks in order to provide a
means of mitigating impacts to wetlands, endangered/threatened
species, and otherwise sensitive resources. The Project proponent
would contribute funds to such a bank that would in turn be used to
create, restore, protect or enhance streambed habitats, either at the
source of the impact or elsewhere at a larger, more functional and
longer-lasting ecological system (CDFW, 2015).
b) Creation, Restoration, and/or Enhancement Option: Mitigation can
be fully or partially satisfied by creation, restoration, and/or
enhancement. Enhancement may include but is not limited to
removal of non-native invasive plant species within existing State
streambed. Plant species used for any of these mitigation methods
must be locally native (seeds, container, and/or cuttings) and
mitigation by any of these methods must be accompanied by a
three-year mitigation monitoring plan prepared by a professional
restorationist ecologist. The mitigation monitoring plan is required
to identify performance, schedule, monitoring, and maintenance
criteria. Mitigation for impacts to State streambeds shall be
considered complete only when monitoring is complete and the
success criteria identified below is met.
1) Year 1 - Monitoring shall occur monthly at a qualitative level.
Quantitative plant sampling shall occur during the second quarter of
Year 1.
2) Years 2 and 3 - Monitoring shall occur quarterly at a qualitative
level. Quantitative plant sampling shall be performed in the
second quarter of Year 2 and the second quarter of Year 3.
3) Success will be met once: (1) At least 50% of the vegetation
present is dominated by locally native species, (2) there is evidence
of natural recruitment of multiple locally native species, (3) no more
than 15% cover by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) List
A and B species, and (4) no more than 15% cover by other weedy
species. (Final EIR, pp. 4.3-20 and 4.3-21.)
65
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 Prior to the issuance of a Project-related
grading permit, the Project's approved limits of disturbance shall be
flagged in the field and shall remain flagged during all construction
activities within the San Gabriel River. All construction documents shall
indicate that disturbance is prohibited beyond the flags. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-
21.)
Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 Prior to the issuance of a Project-related
grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall
be prepared that will address the following: sediment and hazardous
materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and
equipment management practices, and use of plant material for erosion
control. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department and the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District, and the Project Construction Contractor shall maintain
records of compliance with all provisions of the SWPPP. (Final EIR, p. 4.3-
22.)
Regulatory Requirement BlO-2 Prior to the issuance of permits for the
installation of a drainage outfall into the San Gabriel River, the Project
Applicant shall comply with the California Department of Fish and Game
Code Section 1602, which requires notification to the CDFW prior to
commencing any activity that may deposit materials that could pass into
the river. The Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), or obtain written verification from the CDFW that a Section 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required. If a Streambed
Alteration Agreement is required, the Project Applicant will be obligated by
the Agreement to implement all mitigation requirements specified in the
Agreement to mitigate impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas. (Final EIR,
p. 4.3-23.)
E. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Recreation Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
66
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including
parks?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-10.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project would not directly create a
demand for public park facilities and would not directly result in the need to modify
existing or construct new park and recreation facilities. There is a potential that
employees and visitors to the Site would use the nearby San Gabriel River Trail. The
use of this paved trail by employees and visitors would in no way advance the physical
deterioration of the trail or cause its overuse. To construct the Project's proposed storm
drain system, a subsurface storm drain line is proposed for installation between the
Project Site and the San Gabriel River, in one of three possible locations, any of which
would cross the San Gabriel River Trail. The method of installation would be
determined by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, but would either
consist of boring under the trail, or a trenching (cut and cover) method. Boring under
the trail would not physically impact the trail surface, structural stability, or have any
effect on trail use. However, trenching would require the cutting of a trench
perpendicularly across the trail to install the storm drain line, and then backfilling the
trench and repaving the portion that was disturbed. During the installation process
using a trenching method, there would be a physical disturbance of the trail and a
temporary disruption to use of the trail, which is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.12-1 would ensure that there is no
obstruction to use of the San Gabriel River Trail during the installation of a storm drain
line, and that the trail surface is returned to its existing condition. With implementation of
67
the required mitigation, potential direct short-term to the recreation facility (trail) would
be reduced to below a level of significance. (Final EIR, pp. 4.12-6, 4.12-7, and 4.12-
10.)
Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 If the installation of a storm drain line across the San
Gabriel River Trail requires trenching or physical disturbance to the trail surface:
a) The contractor shall be required to post a temporary caution/safety
warning sign for trail users on approach to the trenching location, from
both approaching directions.
b) Use of the San Gabriel River Trail by bicyclists and pedestrians must
be maintained at all times, either by establishing a temporary alternate
bike lane on the west side of the existing trail, or by conducting work at
night when the trail is not in use.
c) After installation of the storm drain, the trench shall be filled and
adequately compacted, and the disturbed area shall be resurfaced with
a material that matches the existing trail surface. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-9.)
SECTION 6: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures and Regulatory Requirements outlined in the Final EIR and in this Resolution,
the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
therefore included herein:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
68
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
(Final EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project would change the visual
character and quality of the site from that of a former surface mine undergoing active
reclamation to an end use as a logistics center. Although the visual character of the
property would change, the proposed Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan includes a
number of site design, architectural, and landscaping requirements that would ensure
the provision of a high quality development. The Project would be visually compatible
with the existing business park/light industrial uses to the southeast on the opposite side
of Lower Azusa Road that are constructed with typical concrete tilt-up walls. To the
north of the Project Site are a commercial nursery and an active surface mining
operation, with large areas of deep open pits. To the east are the San Gabriel River
and 1-605. To the west is a concentration of low-scale single family residential homes in
the City of El Monte that would be separated from the Project's buildings by a solid
masonry wall and landscape buffer. In the near term, until the time that landscaping
matures along the west property boundary that is coterminous with the City of El Monte
boundary (approximately 10 years), visibility of the Project's buildings from residential
streets in the abutting City of El Monte has the potential to be perceived as an adverse
effect to the residential character. This near-term effect (until the maturity of
landscaping) is regarded as a significant impact. There are no mitigation measures
available to eliminate or offset the Project's near-term effect on the character of an
adjacent residential community in the City of El Monte. The near-term visibility of the
69
Project's buildings from this community would be eliminated in the long-term upon the
maturity of proposed landscaping. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-15 to 4.1-16)
However, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws and with the provisions contained in the Arcadia Logistics Center Specific
Plan. The mandatory regulatory requirements that are most applicable to reducing
impacts to aesthetics are listed below.
Regulatory Requirement AE-1 Development on the Project Site shall be
governed by the building regulations listed in the City of Arcadia Municipal
Code (Article VIII) and the development standards listed in the City of
Arcadia Municipal Code (Article IX, Division and Use of Land, Chapter 2,
Zoning Regulations, Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) Zone), unless
explicitly replaced by a provision contained the Arcadia Logistics Center
Specific Plan. (Final EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
Regulatory Requirement AE-2 Development on the Project Site is
required to comply with the City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Article IX,
Chapter 4 "Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement" (Municipal
Code §9400 et. seq.), which ensures the proper maintenance of property
within the City of Arcadia so that the public health, safety and welfare are
not endangered by substandard properties. If a property falls into
disrepair or becomes a nuisance, the City of Arcadia has a mandatory
procedure in place to take enforcement actions and mandate abatement.
(Final EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Applicable Air Quality Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an
applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
(Final EIR, p. 4.2-48)
70
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project's development intensity and
resulting levels of air pollutant emissions would be higher than what the SCAQMD
would have anticipated in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), based on the
buildout assumptions presented in the City of Arcadia's General Plan EIR. The 2012
SCAQMD AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area, which estimates
long-term air quality conditions for the SCAB. The air quality conditions presented in
the 2012 AQMP are based in part on the growth forecasts identified by SCAG in its
2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS assumes that development in the various incorporated and
unincorporated areas within the SCAB will occur in accordance with the adopted
general plans for these areas. In addition, the air quality conditions presented in the
2012 AQMP are based on the assumption that future development projects will
implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and
operational phases of development. Although the Project is consistent with the City of
Arcadia General Plan's "Commercial/Light Industrial" land use designation, because the
Project would slightly exceed the square footage assumption analyzed by the General
Plan Update EIR, the Project is determined to yield more building intensity than
anticipated by the City's General Plan. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed
Project would exceed regional assumptions for operational air emissions, and would
therefore not be consistent with the AQMP The Project's operational emissions would
also exceed SCAQMD's daily regional thresholds. The Project is therefore considered
to potentially obstruct the SCAQMD's ability to attain the air quality goals presented in
their 2012 AQMP, and the Project would have a significant and unavoidable direct and
71
cumulative impact. There are no mitigation measures available to eliminate or offset the
Project's inconsistency with AQMP growth and emission forecasts based, in part, on the
current Arcadia General Plan. Accordingly, this inconsistency represents a significant
and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact, for which feasible mitigation is not
available. (Final EIR, pp. 4.2-29, 4.2-31, and 4.2-48)
2. Air Quality Standard Violation and Criteria Pollutants for Operational
Source Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated (Short-Term);
Significant and Unavoidable Impact, Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Significant
Impact with Mitigation incorporated. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-48)
Explanation: Based on the entire record regarding operational-source emissions,
the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the
SCAQMD for emissions of VOCs and NOx. Impacts would be significant on a project
level and cumulatively considerable. Also, both VOCs and NOX are precursors for
ozone, a pollutant for which the SCAB does not attain federal or State standards.
Even with the incorporation of the required Mitigation Measures MM 4.2- through
MM 4.2-11 Regulatory Requirements RR-AQ-2, RR-AQ-4, RR-AQ-5, and RR-AQ-7,
72
Project emissions of NOX and VOCs would still be above the SCAQMD's Regional
Thresholds for these pollutants. No other mitigation measures are available that are
feasible for the Project Applicant to implement and for the City of Arcadia to impose and
enforce that have a proportional nexus to the Project's level of impact.
The Project's operational emissions are primarily the result of mobile source
emissions (vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site) and area source emissions
(vehicles maneuvering and idling on the Project Site), which are regulated by State and
federal emissions and fuel use standards, and are beyond the direct control of the
Project Applicant, future users of the Project's buildings, and/or the City. Mandatory
compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1,
Article 4.5, would ensure that all truck fleet owners in California phase in newer engines
over time. CEQA Guidelines §15091 provides that mitigation measures must be within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency in order to be implemented.
The City of Arcadia has no ability to enforce vehicle engine types or tailpipe
emissions. The responsibility to regulate vehicle engines and fuel standards is within
the authority of the State and federal government, not local governments. In addition,
CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 states that "there must be an essential nexus (i.e.
connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest"
and that "the mitigation measure must be `roughly proportional' to the impacts of the
project." Considering these requirements, imposition of mitigation measures related to
the Project's stationary source and energy use emissions would not represent an
"essential nexus" and would not be "roughly proportional" to the Project's mobile source
emissions, and therefore are neither required nor reasonable to impose. For example,
73
energy use associated with building operation would cause only one-tenth of one
percent (0.1%) of the Project's overall VOC emissions and only two-tenths of one
percent (0.02%) of the Project's NOx emissions.
Thus, the imposition of mitigation measures to lower the buildings' energy use
(such as the installation of solar arrays), would do little to measurably reduce the
Project's significant air pollutant impacts. Because impacts to air quality caused by the
Project would primarily result from mobile sources and area sources (tailpipe
emissions), the City finds a lack of proportional nexus between measures that would
lower the buildings' energy use vs. the Project's main source of impact (vehicle
tailpipes). As such, it is concluded that the Project's long-term emissions of VOCs and
NOx would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on both a direct and
cumulatively considerable basis. (Final EIR, pp. 4.2-33, 4.2-49, and 4.2-50)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
City of Arcadia shall verify that the associated parking lot striping plan
provides for preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools and
that a minimum of two electric vehicle passenger car charging stations are
provided per building. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-45.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Arcadia that an
application was submitted to Southern California Edison (SCE) in an effort
to allow for installation of the maximum quantity of rooftop solar panels on
the building. This measure does not require the installation of rooftop solar
panels. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-45.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
Project Applicant shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
demonstrating that the Project is designed to exceed the mandatory
California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 standards in effect at the time of
building permit application submittal by a minimum of five percent (5%).
Examples of measures that may be implemented by the Project to reduce
energy consumption include, but are not limited to the items listed below.
The list below is not all-inclusive. The items listed below are illustrative of
74
the types of measures that will be implemented by the Project and are not
explicitly required.
a. Provide insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is
minimized;
b. Minimize air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating
and cooling distribution system;
c. Use energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment;
d. Install electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas;
e. Install dual-paned or other energy efficient windows;
f. Use interior and exterior energy-efficient lighting that exceeds
applicable California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance
standards;
g. Install automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not
needed;
h. Apply paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-
white colors that reflect heat away from buildings;
i. Design buildings with "cool roofs" using products certified by the
Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light
and off-white colors;
j. Design buildings to accommodate the future installation of photo-
voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo-voltaic
solar electricity systems; and
k. Install ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances,
heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting
products. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-45.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of
Arcadia verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease
agreement that require tenants to utilize an on-site cargo handling fleet
(including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other
on-site equipment) consisting wholly of equipment powered by electricity,
compressed natural gas, and/or propane, if financially and technically
feasible and commercially available. If alternatively-fueled cargo handling
equipment is not commercially available at the time of occupancy permit
issuance, diesel-powered cargo handling equipment that meets California
Air Resources Board/United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier
IV engine standards for off-road vehicles (defined as 0.015 grams per
brake horsepower-hour) may be used. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-45 and -4.2-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be
placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that
identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling
regulations. At a minimum each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck
drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of
75
diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes; and 3)
telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to
report violations. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the City of Arcadia
shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place. (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 The building plans for each building shall
require light-colored roof materials. Light colored roof materials are more
solar-reflective than dark colored roofs; light color roofs keep buildings
cooler and reduce local air temperatures, which in turn improves air quality
and slows smog formation. The City of Arcadia shall verify this
information is provided on the Project's building plans prior to issuance of
building permits and inspect for adherence during building construction.
(Final EIR, p. 4.2-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 Lower water use reduces air pollutants
associated with the process of treating and delivering water. Prior to the
issuance of permits that would allow the installation of landscaping, the
City of Arcadia shall review and approve landscaping plans for the site
that requires: 1) a plant palette emphasizing drought-tolerant plants; and
2) use of water-efficient irrigation techniques. The City of Arcadia shall
inspect for adherence after landscaping installation. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of
Arcadia verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale
agreement that inform the building occupant about the air quality benefits
associated with: 1) use of alternatively fueled cargo handling equipment;
2) grant programs for diesel fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or
replacement, such as the Carl Moyer program; 3) publicly available
information from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
California Air Resources Board, and United States Environmental
Protection Agency regarding alternative fuel technologies; 4) access to
alternative fueling stations in the nearby area that supply compressed
natural gas; and 5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
SmartWay program. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.2-10 In the event that the future building user
attracts trucks that need continual power, the loading docks designated to
accommodate such trucks shall be equipped with electrical power
hookups from the building's electrical system to allow the truck to comply
with the CARB idling restriction and reduce air emissions associated with
the burning of fuel. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-46.)
76
Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
City of Arcadia shall verify that the building is designed to provide
mechanical air exchanges at a rate of one change per hour instead of
traditional HVAC heating and cooling in non-refrigerated warehouse areas
of buildings. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-2 Future development shall comply with the
performance standards for odor, smoke, or other particulate matter,
including dust, dirt or ash; production of humidity; and odorous gases and
other odorous matter as contained in the Arcadia Municipal Code 9266.3.7
and 9266.3.8. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-4 In accordance with 13 CCR, Chapter 10,
Section 2485 and the CARB's ATCM, large commercial, diesel-powered
vehicles shall not idle for more than five minutes. The City shall ensure
this action is implemented during construction activities. (Final EIR, p. 4.2-
47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-5 The Project shall comply with pertinent
SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Regulation IX for new stationary
sources, Regulation X on NESHAPS [National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (i.e, Asbestos)], Regulation XI for source specific
standards, Regulation XIII for new source permits, Regulation XIV for
TACs, and Rule 2202 for Motor Vehicle Mitigation, as applicable. (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-47.)
Regulatory Requirement AQ-7 Development on the Project Site shall be
governed by the building regulations listed in the City of Arcadia Municipal
Code (Article VIII) and State of California Building Standards Code. (Final
EIR, p. 4.2-48.)
E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Generation of GHGs
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively Considerable Impact. (Final
EIR, p. 4.5-37.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, greenhouse gases (GHG) would be
emitted by the Project, primarily from mobile sources (vehicles traveling to and from the
77
Project site). Given the methodologies applied in the GHG analysis and the
conservatively estimated number of traffic trips and vehicle miles traveled that are
assumed in the analysis (which likely overstate impacts by a substantial margin), the
proposed Project would not reduce GHG emissions by 28.5% or greater as compared to
the business as usual (BAU) scenario, pursuant to the mandates of AB 32, and would
emit more than 10,000 MTCO2e per year, which is the quantitative threshold of
significance used in the Final EIR. Thus, the emission of GHGs is considered a
significant cumulatively considerable impact. The Project's GHG emissions would be
cumulatively considerable and could contribute to significant environmental effects
associated with global climate change. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-38.)
Almost all of the Project's GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources
(i.e., trucks and cars). The application of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 through MM
4.5-5 would reduce Project-related GHG emissions; however, these measures would
not substantially reduce Project-related mobile source GHG emissions (which comprise
approximately 79% of the Project's total GHG emissions). Mobile source emissions are
regulated by state and federal emissions and fuel use standards, and are outside of the
control of the Project Applicant, future Project building users, and the City of Arcadia.
No additional mitigation measures that are feasible for the Project applicant to
implement and the City of Arcadia to impose and enforce and that have a proportional
nexus to the Project's GHG impact are available to further reduce the Project's mobile
source GHG emissions. Imposing emissions controls on vehicles that would travel to
and from the Project Site, beyond the controls that are mandated by state and federal
law and controls in place at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, would not be
78
feasible given the realities of the southern California economy and the nature of local
control in the City of Arcadia. Local governments do not have the authority to impose
fuel standards or engine requirements to prohibit certain types of vehicles from
accessing a private property that otherwise have the legal right to operate on public
streets. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable significant and unavoidable impact because the Project's GHG emissions
would be in excess of 10,000 MTCO2e per year, which is the quantitative threshold of
significance used by the Final EIR. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-38.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 Prior to building permit issuance, the City of Arcadia
shall verify that the following notes are specified on all building plans. Project
Contractors shall be required to comply with the notes and maintain written
records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of Arcadia upon
request. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to
prospective construction contractors. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-35.)
a. A comprehensive construction management plan shall be prepared
and implemented that is designed to minimize the number of large
construction equipment operating during any given time period.
b. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic
converters.
c. Electrical powered equipment shall be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where financially and technically feasible and
commercially available.
d. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all
phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow on public
streets adjacent to the Project Site.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 Building and site plan designs shall ensure that
project energy efficiencies surpass (exceed) applicable (2014) California Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 5%. Verification of increased
energy efficiencies shall be documented in Title 24 Compliance Reports provided
by the Applicant, and reviewed and approved by the City of Arcadia prior to the
issuance of the first building permit. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-35.)
79
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 Prior to approval of Project landscape plans or
issuance of building permits, the City shall review and verify that the following
features have been incorporated into the Project's plans .:
• Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants;
• Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques;
• U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high-
efficiency toilets (HETs), and water-conserving shower heads.
(Final EIR, p. 4.5-35.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale agreement
specifying the following restriction on cargo handling equipment:
"All cargo handling equipment used on the Site (including yard trucks, hostlers,
yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on-site equipment) shall be powered
by electricity, compressed natural gas, or propane if financially and technically
feasible and commercially available. In the event that diesel fueled equipment is
used they shall comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB)/U.S.
EPA Tier IV Engine standards for off-road vehicles (defined as 0.015 g/bhp-hr for
PM10) or better."(Final EIR, pp. 4.5-35 and 4.5-36.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale agreement
that inform the building occupant about the air quality benefits associated with
the use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. The lease or sale
agreement shall include citations to or copies of publicly available information
from the SCAQMD, the CARB, and the U.S. EPA on such cleaning products.
(Final EIR, p. 4.5-36.)
Regulatory Requirement GHG-1 The City shall encourage future development
and major renovation projects to achieve LEED certification, and/or other green
certifications. The City shall investigate the potential to offer density bonus
incentives on residential projects that achieve LEED certification, and other green
certifications and ratings.
[* Note, this measure was included in the City's General Plan EIR prior to
the 2014 update of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
which requires stringent building standards that inherently incorporate
some of the features that qualify for LEED points in the USGBC's rating
system. LEED is a voluntary program whereas CALGreen compliance is
mandatory in California and meets the intent of the USGBC to construct
energy-efficient buildings.](Final EIR, p. 4.5-36.)
80
2. Conflicts with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively Considerable Impact. (Final
EIR, p. 4.5-37.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, the Project's GHG emissions would be
cumulatively considerable and would impair the City's ability to achieve its General Plan
target of reducing citywide GHG emissions by 28.5% as compared to the BAU scenario
and would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2e per year, which is the quantitative threshold
of significance used by the Final EIR. In addition, the Project would emit more GHGs
than the Site's existing IDEFO activities, thereby potentially impairing efforts to reduce
citywide GHG emissions on a per capita basis, by the year 2020. The GARB and the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted several iterations of regulations for
diesel trucks that are aimed at reducing emissions and particularly diesel particulate
matter. More specifically, the GARB Drayage Truck Regulation, the GARB statewide
On-road Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
"Clean Truck Program" (CTP) require accelerated implementation of "clean trucks" into
the statewide truck fleet. In other words, older more polluting trucks will be replaced
with newer, cleaner trucks as a function of these and other regulatory requirements.
More restrictive programs are not feasible to impose on a single-development project
basis in the City of Arcadia.
The Project would need to offset 56% (14,230,832 kWh/year) of its estimated
maximum energy use (25,412,200 kWh/year) in order to reduce its GHG impact to
81
28.5% below BAU, which is still substantially above the significance threshold of 10,000
MTCO2e per year used by the Final EIR. That amount of power usage would require
approximately 3 million s.f. of solar panels. The proposed Project only has 1,688,000
s.f. of building area and solar panels cannot be installed across the entire roof area
when taking into consideration physical limitations imposed by shadows, setbacks,
rooftop equipment, skylights, and other obstructions and physical limitations, as well as
fire access paths, building and fire code requirements, legal limitations, and limitations
imposed by the applicable electric utility company. Therefore, it is not physically or
practically feasible for the Project to install the vast surface area of solar panels that
would be needed to measurably reduce its significant GHG impact. Furthermore,
because the Project's GHG emissions are primarily a result of mobile-source emissions,
and not energy-source emissions, there lacks a proportional nexus between the
installation of solar panels and the primary source of the Project's GHG emissions
(vehicle tailpipe emissions). It is not feasible for the Project to mitigate the entirety of its
GHG emissions. (Final EIR, pp. 4.5-31, 4.5-32, 4.5-38 and 4.5-39.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 Prior to building permit issuance, the City of Arcadia
shall verify that the following notes are specified on all building plans. Project
Contractors shall be required to comply with the notes and maintain written
records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of Arcadia upon
request. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to
prospective construction contractors.
a. A comprehensive construction management plan shall be prepared
and implemented that is designed to minimize the number of large
construction equipment operating during any given time period.
b. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic
converters.
82
c. Electrical powered equipment shall be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where financially and technically feasible and
commercially available.
d. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all
phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow on public
streets adjacent to the Project Site. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-35.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 Building and site plan designs shall ensure that
project energy efficiencies surpass (exceed) applicable (2014) California Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 5%. Verification of increased
energy efficiencies shall be documented in Title 24 Compliance Reports provided
by the Applicant, and reviewed and approved by the City of Arcadia prior to the
issuance of the first building permit. (Final EIR, p. 4.5-35.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 Prior to approval of Project landscape plans or
issuance of building permits, the City shall review and verify that the following
features have been incorporated into the Project's plans:
• Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants;
• Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques;
• U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high-
efficiency toilets (HETs), and water-conserving shower heads.
(Final EIR, p. 4.5-33.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale agreement
specifying the following restriction on cargo handling equipment:
"All cargo handling equipment used on the Site (including yard trucks, hostlers,
yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on-site equipment) shall be powered
by electricity, compressed natural gas, or propane if financially and technically
feasible and commercially available. In the event that diesel fueled equipment is
used they shall comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB)/U.S.
EPA Tier IV Engine standards for off-road vehicles (defined as 0.015 g/bhp-hr for
PM10) or better."(Final EIR, pp. 4.5-35 and 4.5-36.)
Mitigation Measure 4.5-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Project's property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia
verifying that provisions are included in the building's lease or sale agreement
that inform the building occupant about the air quality benefits associated with
the use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. The lease or sale
agreement shall include citations to or copies of publicly available information
from the SCAQMD, the CARB, and the U.S. EPA on such cleaning products.
(Final EIR, p. 4.5-36.)
83
Regulatory Requirement GHG-1 The City shall encourage future development
and major renovation projects to achieve LEED certification, and/or other green
certifications. The City shall investigate the potential to offer density bonus
incentives on residential projects that achieve LEED certification, and other green
certifications and ratings.
[* Note, this measure was included in the City's General Plan EIR prior to
the 2014 update of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
which requires stringent building standards that inherently incorporate
some of the features that qualify for LEED points in the USGBC's rating
system. LEED is a voluntary program whereas CAL Green compliance is
mandatory in California and meets the intent of the USGBC to construct
energy-efficient buildings.](Final EIR, p. 4.5-36.)
H. LAND USE
1. Land Use Compatibility
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively Considerable
Impact. (Final EIR, p. 4.7-18.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, , the Project would not conflict with the
SCAG RTP/SCS, the City of Arcadia's General Plan, or the City's zoning regulations in
ways that would result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed
Project would slightly exceed the building intensity for the Site assumed by the City of
Arcadia General Plan Update EIR, which is was used by the SCAQMD for the 2012
AQMP. The Project's conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP represents a cumulatively
considerable significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project the Project's
development intensity and resulting levels of air pollutant emissions would be higher
84
than what the SCAQMD would have anticipated in the 2012 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP), based on the buildout assumptions presented in the City of Arcadia's
General Plan EIR.
The 2012 SCAQMD AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area,
which estimates long-term air quality conditions for the SCAB. The air quality conditions
presented in the 2012 AQMP are based in part on the growth forecasts identified by
SCAG in its 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS assumes that development in the various
incorporated and unincorporated areas within the SCAB will occur in accordance with
the adopted general plans for these areas.
In addition, the air quality conditions presented in the 2012 AQMP are based on
the assumption that future development projects will implement strategies to reduce
emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development.
Although the Project is consistent with the City of Arcadia General Plan's
"Commercial/Light Industrial" land use designation, because the Project would slightly
exceed the square footage assumption analyzed by the General Plan Update EIR, the
Project is determined to yield more building intensity than anticipated by the City's
General Plan.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project would exceed regional
assumptions for operational air emissions, and would therefore not be consistent with
the AQMP The Project's operational emissions would also exceed SCAQMD's daily
regional thresholds. The Project is therefore considered to potentially obstruct the
SCAQMD's ability to attain the air quality goals presented in their 2012 AQMP, and the
85
Project would have a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact. There
are no mitigation measures available to eliminate or offset the Project's inconsistency
with AQMP growth and emission forecasts based, in part, on the current Arcadia
General Plan. Accordingly, this inconsistency represents a significant and unavoidable
direct and cumulative impact, for which feasible mitigation is not available. (Final EIR,
pp. 4.2-29, 4.2-31, 4.2-48, and 4.7-18.)
I. NOISE
1. Noise Level Standards and Temporary/Periodic Ambient Noise
Levels
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantially temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Finding: Significant Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Impact
(Short-Term Construction Activities). (Final EIR, p. 4.9-42.)
Explanation: Based on the entire record, noise generated by Project construction
activities would directly and temporarily impact residential properties located to the west
of the Project Site. When combined with ambient noise levels, the Project's contribution
to the local noise environment would also be cumulatively considerable. Although
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2 and the applicable
General Plan EIR Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures would reduce
86
construction-related noise levels, these measures would not reduce construction-related
noise impacts to sensitive receptors located near the Project Site to below a level of
significance. These properties would experience noise levels above 75 dBA Leq during
construction of the Project when construction activities occur with a direct line-of-site.
While the construction of the noise attenuating wall and the restrictions placed on
construction activity would reduce the noise levels coming from the Project Site, the
proximity of the immediately adjacent residential structures makes it unlikely that the
noise-generating activities would be reduced to less than 75 dBA Leq. The types of
equipment required to construct the proposed structures on the Project Site, as well as
the locations where these pieces of equipment will need to be operated, result in
conditions that cannot be reasonably expected to be mitigated to less-than-significant
levels. Additional feasible mitigation measures with a proportional nexus to the
Project's level of impact are not available to further reduce Project-related construction
noise levels. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-42.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 The solid perimeter wall at the Project's western
boundary (coterminous with the City of Arcadia/City of El Monte jurisdictional
boundary) shall be evaluated by an acoustician to verify that the wall will provide
a minimum noise level attenuation of 10.0 dBA when Project construction occurs
near existing noise-sensitive structures. If the noise attenuation level provided by
the wall is less than 10 dBA, an additional temporary noise reduction barrier shall
be provided to reach a reduction of 10 dBA. The noise control barrier must
present a solid face from top to bottom and block the view of the noise source
from adjacent residential receivers and verified by the City of Arcadia to be in
place prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. As a condition of
grading and building permits, the construction contractors shall be required to
maintain the barrier(s) and promptly repair any damage, including but not limited
to gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and
the ground. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-38.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 Prior to the issuance of any building or grading
permits, the City of Arcadia Development Services Department shall review
building and grading plans to ensure that the following notes are included.
87
Project Contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and maintain
written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of Arcadia
upon request.
a) Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction
contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors
nearest the Project Site.
b) Construction contractors shall locate equipment staging areas
(areas where large pieces of construction equipment are stored
when not in operation) a minimum distance of 200 feet away from
noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project Site (i.e., to the west)
during all Project construction.
c) Construction contractors shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same
hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise permitted by the
Development Services Department. Construction is prohibited on
Sundays and major holidays.).
d) To limit haul truck noise to sensitive receptors, haul trucks must
enter and leave the Project Site by Lower Azusa Road, toward 1-
605. Haul trucks shall not be permitted to leave the site and turn
right on Lower Azusa Road. Signs must be installed at all
construction exit driveways directing drivers to turn left onto Lower
Azusa Road toward 1-605.
e) Any Project-related construction activity planned during the evening
(7:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m) or late night/early morning hours (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) requires disclosure to all properties within 300
feet, and/or as otherwise required by the City of Arcadia or
requested by the City of El Monte, and shall not take place within
40 feet of nearby sensitive receptors. To conduct work during
these evening and late night/early morning hours, the construction
contractor must demonstrate to the City of Arcadia in the form of a
noise analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer that
construction noise levels affecting residential receivers in the City of
El Monte between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would fall at or below
the following levels: 45 Leq average; 50 L25 (15 minute); 55 L8 (5
minute) and 60 Lmax (<1 minute). (Final EIR, p. 4.9-39.)
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a solid
barrier wall at a minimum height of six (6) feet shall be installed at the Site's
western property line (coterminous with the City of El Monte and City of Arcadia
jurisdictional boundary), as required by Site's existing Reclamation Plan and as
88
also specified by the Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan. The wall shall
present a solid face from top to bottom; unnecessary openings shall not be
made. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-1 The City of Arcadia's Building Code limits
construction-related activities to occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM, Monday through Friday; and 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday, unless
otherwise permitted by the Development Services Department. Construction is
prohibited on Sundays and major holidays. Future development shall comply
with these time limits to prevent construction noise during the evening and early
morning hours. (Final EIR, p. 4.9-40.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-4 Prior to issuance of discretionary permits for
construction activities, project applicants/developers shall submit evidence to the
Director of Development Services that the following noise reduction measures
are stated as requirements on the construction plans and specifications:
a) During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall
equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly
operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers'
standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the
noise-sensitive receptors.
b) When feasible, the construction contractor shall locate equipment
staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors
during all project construction.
c) The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities
that would result in high noise levels, according to the construction
hours set forth in the Municipal Code.
d) The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same
hours specified for construction equipment. To the extent feasible,
haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
(Final EIR, p. 4.9-41.)
Regulatory Requirement NOISE-5 For proposed commercial and industrial land
uses that would generate stationary noise near noise sensitive receptors, a
detailed noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant
prior to the issuance of building permits. The assessment shall utilize noise data
provided by the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized by the project or noise
measurements from substantially similar equipment to project noise levels at the
noise-sensitive uses (on- and off-site). Compliance with the City's noise
standards for residences shall be demonstrated and any measures required to
meet the noise standards shall be described and incorporated into the building
89
plans for the project. These measures may include, but not be limited to,
selection of quiet models, construction of barriers, equipment enclosures, and
placement of the equipment. Project Applicants/developers shall submit evidence
to the Director of Planning Development that the noise reduction measures are
stated as requirements on the construction plans and specifications.
** To provide more specificity for purposes of the Final EIR, the following is
required:
Should any of the buildings within the Project Site house or attract special noise
generators, such as outdoor compressors, air scrubbers, emergency generators,
large HVAC units or outdoor amplification (speakers), acoustical calculations for
the potential noise generating equipment shall be prepared and submitted to the
City of Arcadia. The calculations must demonstrate that, at the nearest sensitive
receptor, the noise generator:
• Would produce a less than 5 dBA Leq noise level increase if the existing
noise level at the sensitive receptor is less than 60 dBA dBA Leq.
• Would produce a less than 3 dBA Leq noise level increase if the existing
noise level at the sensitive receptor ranges from 60 to 65 dBA Leq.
• Would produce a less than 1.5 dBA Leq noise level increase if the
existing noise level at the sensitive receptor exceeds 66 dBA Leq. (Final
EIR, p. 4.9-41 and 4.9-42.)
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Consistency with Applicable Plans, Ordinances, Policies, and
Congestion Management Programs
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand
90
measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively Considerable Impact. (Final
EIR, p. 4.10-46.)
Explanation: The proposed Project is proposed to consist of up to 1,688,000
square feet (s.f.) of building space. The building occupants are not yet known, but the
proposed Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan includes a list of permitted uses.
Several different mixes of building user types were evaluated and it was determined that
the most traffic-intensive mix, as would be permitted by the proposed Specific Plan, is a
mix that would contain 1,100,000 s.f. of warehouse use and 588,000 s.f. of industrial
park use. This is a conservative assumption and likely results in the over-estimation of
traffic that would be generated by the Project. Using these assumptions, the Project is
calculated to generate a gross total of approximately 7,932 trip ends per day with 812
AM peak hour trips and 852 PM peak hour trips. With the Passenger Car Equivalent
(PCE) factors, this translates to approximately 10,029 PCE trip-ends per day with 1,020
PCE AM peak hour trips and 1,071 PCE PM peak hour trips. After subtracting out the
950 daily trips associated with the Project Site's existing IDEFO reclamation activity, the
proposed Project would result in a net increase of 6,982 actual vehicles, or 8,041 PCE
vehicles. (Final EIR p. 4.10-17.)
Based on the entire record, Project-generated traffic would not result in level of
service deficiencies at any of the study area intersections for Existing or Existing Plus
Project conditions. Project traffic would have a significant cumulatively considerable
impact on a forecasted level of service deficiency at the 1-605 northbound ramps/Lower
91
Azusa Road Interchange, during the PM peak hour, in Year 2017 forecast conditions.
For Horizon Year 2035 forecast conditions, Project traffic would have a significant
cumulatively considerable impact at the intersection of Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road
during both peak hours, and a significant cumulatively considerable impact at the 1-605
northbound ramps/Lower Azusa Road interchange during both peak hours. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, the proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact at the two impacted intersections discussed
above. The recommended intersection improvements would improve the LOS from F
(without Project) to LOS E (with Project, with improvements) for AM and PM hours for
the Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road intersection, assuming that the proposed Project's
buildings are occupied by a mix of uses consisting of 1,100,000 s.f. of warehouse use
and 588,000 s.f. of industrial park use, as analyzed in Technical Appendix H1 to the
Final EIR. Additionally, Table 7-6 of Technical Appendix H1 indicates that the
recommended intersection improvements would improve the LOS from E (without
Project) to LOS D (with Project, with improvements) for AM and PM hours for the 1-605
Northbound Ramps/Lower Azusa Road intersection.
However, implementation of these two Mitigation Measures is outside of the
Applicant's control and outside of the City's) control. The intersection of Peck
Road/Lower Azusa Road is located within the City of El Monte that has a recommended
improvement which is not covered by Development Impact Fees (DIF). The 1-605
ramps at Lower Azusa Road either share a mutual border with Caltrans' jurisdiction or
are wholly located within Caltrans' jurisdiction and have recommended improvements
which are not covered by the payment of fees, because there is no established regional
92
fee program toward which private developers can pay fees for freeway ramp
improvements. Because the City of Arcadia does not have plenary control over the
freeway on and off ramps that lie within Caltrans' jurisdiction, nor plenary (i.e. absolute)
control over intersections that share a border with the City of El Monte, the City of
Arcadia cannot guarantee that such improvements will be constructed. Also, the City of
Arcadia does not have the capacity to engage in multi-jurisdictional efforts with outside
agencies related to transportation facility improvements outside of the City of Arcadia
jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, implementation of these Mitigation Measures cannot be
guaranteed. If these Mitigation Measures are not implemented, and the types of
building uses that occupy the Project's buildings generate a volume of traffic that
triggers these impacts, the Project's significant cumulatively considerable traffic impacts
at one or both of these locations would be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, no
mitigation measures are available to mitigate the Project's impacts to freeway mainlines.
Although the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is
studying the feasibility of a regional mitigation fee, such a fee program is not yet in
place. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-46.)
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 The Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to
work with the City of El Monte to prepare a study that identifies fair share
contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public
development to supplement other regional and State funding sources necessary
to construct a second northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Peck Road
and Lower Azusa Road, if the Project's building occupants generate more than
7,417 daily PCE trips. (Based on Occupancy Scenario 1 evaluated in Technical
Appendix H1. The City of Arcadia will calculate trip generation by building
occupancy type at the issuance of occupancy permits as required by the Arcadia
Logistics Center Specific Plan). Generation of a fewer number of trips shall not
trigger the fee payment because the Project's cumulatively considerable impact
is only triggered by exceeding 7,417 daily PCE trips.
The Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to engage the City of El Monte
to undertake this study, but it is acknowledged that the Project Applicant cannot
93
compel El Monte to participate in this process. The study shall include fair-share
contributions related to private and or public development based on nexus
requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.)
and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall
recognize that impacts attributable to City of El Monte facilities that are not
attributable to development located within the City of Arcadia are not required to
pay in excess of such developments' fair share obligations. The fee study shall
also be compliant with Government Code § 66001(g) and any other applicable
provisions of law.
The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for
implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent
the other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program. The Project
Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to pay the fair share amount to the City of
El Monte within one year of the issuance of the Project's certificate of occupancy
that would result in an exceedance of 7,417 daily PCE trips. If the City of El
Monte chooses to accept the Project Applicant's fair share payment, the City of
El Monte shall apply the payment to the fee program adopted by the City of El
Monte or agreed upon by the Project Applicant and City of El Monte as a result of
the fair share fee study. The City of El Monte shall only accept the fair share
payment if the fair share fee study has been completed. lf, within five years from
the date that the final certificate of occupancy is issued for the Project, the
Project Applicant and the City of El Monte have not completed the fair share fee
study, then the Project Applicant shall have no further obligation to attempt to
comply with this mitigation measure. (Anal EIR, pp. 4.10-41 and 4.10-42.)
Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 The City of Arcadia is obligated by the Arcadia
Logistics Center Specific Plan, Section 5, Provisions Fl and F2, to determine the
number of daily PCE trips that will be generated by the Project's building users
based on trip generation rates given in Specific Plan Table V-1. If the PCE daily
trips are calculated by the City to exceed 5,198, the Project Applicant shall
undertake the following actions pertaining to improvements at the 1-605
northbound ramp at Lower Azusa Road. The Project Applicant shall use
reasonable efforts to engage Caltrans to participate in these actions, but it is
acknowledged that the Project Applicant cannot compel Caltrans to participate in
this process. The Project Applicant shall use good faith efforts to undertake the
following:
a) Engage Caltrans so that Caltrans will modify signal splits at the AM and
PM peak hours if the Project's building occupants generate more than
5,198 daily PCE trips. (Based on Occupancy Scenario 3 evaluated in
Technical Appendix H1.)
b) Engage Ca/trans so that Caltrans will increase signal timing during the AM
peak hour from 80 seconds to 110 seconds and increase signal timing
during the PM peak hour from 70 seconds to 80 seconds if the Project's
94
building occupants generate more than 5,460 daily PCE trips. (Based on
Occupancy Scenario 2 evaluated in Technical Appendix H1.)
c) Engage and collaborate with Caltrans on the preparation of a study that
identifies fair share funding contributions to Caltrans for their construction
of a second northbound left turn lane at the 1-605 northbound ramp and
Lower Azusa Road if the Project's building occupants generate more than
7,417 daily PCE trips. (Based on Occupancy Scenario 1 evaluated in
Technical Appendix H1.) The Project Applicant would be responsible for
preparing the study with input from Caltrans. The study shall identify how
the design and construction costs would be funded and the methods by
which fair share fees paid from private and public developments would
supplement other regional and State funding sources to fully fund the
ramp improvement. Ca/trans would be responsible for reviewing and
approving the costs for design, costs for construction of the improvements,
and for implementation of the improvements.
The study shall identify fair-share contributions related to private and or
public development based on nexus requirements contained in the
Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.) and 14 Cal. Code of
Regs. § 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize that
impacts attributable to Caltrans 1-605/Lower Azusa Road ramp facilities
that are not attributable to development located within the City of Arcadia
are not required to pay in excess of such developments' fair share
obligations. The fee study shall also be compliant with Government Code
§ 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law.
The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria
for implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to
the extent the other agencies agree to participate in the fee study
program. The Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to pay the
fair share amount to Caltrans attributable to the Arcadia Logistics Center
Project within one year of completing the fair share fee study. Caltrans
shall only accept the fair share payment if the fair share fee study has
been completed. lf, within one year of completing the fair share fee study,
Ca/trans has not accepted or approved the study, then the Project
Applicant shall have no further obligation to attempt to comply with this
mitigation measure. (Final EIR, pp. 4.10-42 and 4.10-43.)
Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 The following intersection geometrics and
roadway improvements shall be implemented by the Project.
a) Driveway 1/2/Lower Azusa Road— Install a stop control on the
southbound approach and construct the intersection with the
following geometrics:
i. Northbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn
lane.
ii. Southbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn
lane.
95
iii. Eastbound Approach: Two-way left turn lane, one
through lane and one share through-right turn lane.
iv. Westbound Approach: Two-way left turn lane, one
through lane and one share through-right turn lane.
b) Driveway 3/Lower Azusa Road (Primary Drive) — Install a traffic
signal and construct the intersection with the following
geometrics:
i. Northbound Approach: Entrance to the adjacent self-
storage facility.
ii. Southbound Approach: Two left turn lanes and one
shared through right turn lane. (Note: the need for dual
left turn lanes is based on the highly conservative trip
generation estimate for the industrial and warehousing
building occupancy scenario used for analysis purposes
in the Final EIR. A single southbound left turn lane would
be sufficient for occupancy scenarios that generate less
than 5,000 daily PCE trips.)
iii. Eastbound Approach: Left turn lane with a minimum
storage length of 150 feet and two through lanes.
iv. Westbound Approach: Left turn lane with a minimum
storage length of 100 feet, two through lanes, and a free
right turn lane.
c) Driveway 4/ Lower Azusa Road — Install a stop control on the
southbound approach and construct the intersection with the
following geometrics:
i. Northbound Approach: NIA
ii. Southbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane.
iii. Eastbound Approach: Two-way left turn lane and two
through lanes.
iv. Westbound Approach: One through lane and one share
through-right turn lane.
d) Driveway 5/ Lower Azusa Road — Install a stop control on the
southbound approach and construct the intersection with the
following geometrics:
i. Northbound Approach: N/A
ii. Southbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane.
iii. Eastbound Approach: Two-way left turn lane and two
through lanes.
iv. Westbound Approach: One through lane and one share
through-right turn lane.
e) On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in
conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
96
t) Sight distance at each Project access point shall be reviewed by
the City of Arcadia with respect to City of Arcadia sight distance
standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape
and street improvement plans. (Final EIR, pp. 4.10-44 and 4.10-
45.)
Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits,
the Project Applicant shall prepare and the City of Arcadia shall approve a
temporary traffic control plan. The temporary traffic control plan shall comply
with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. A requirement to comply with the temporary traffic control plan
shall be noted on all grading and building plans and also shall be specified in bid
documents issued to prospective construction contractors. The temporary traffic
control plan shall require the following:
a) Delivery trucks shall utilize the most direct route between the
Site and 1-605 via Lower Azusa Road;
b) Except for the segment of Lower Azusa Road between the Site
and 1-605, the construction contractor shall assure that
construction-related haul trips, including but not limited to the
transportation of construction materials, earth materials, and/or
heavy equipment to and from the Project site be limited to no
more than 50 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips (i.e., 25
inbound and 25 outbound trips, or any combination thereof)
during the AM peak hour (7:OOam-9:OOam) and the PM peak
hour (4:OOpm-6:OOpm) on local roads. A two-axle truck trip is
the equivalent of 1.5 PCE trips; a three-axle truck trip is the
equivalent of 2.0 PCE trips; and a four-axle or larger truck trip is
the equivalent of 3.0 PCE trips. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-45.)
Mitigation Measure 4.10-5 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project's
property owner shall provide documentation to the City of Arcadia verifying that a
provision is included in the building's lease agreement that requires tenants to
inform their employees that using local residential streets as a short-cut between
Peck Road and Lower Azusa Road is discouraged. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-45.)
97
SECTION 7. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the Final EIR for the Project includes an
analysis of cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of the project plus all other
pending or approved projects within the affected area for each resource. The affected
environment for most of the resource areas described below was determined to be the
City of Arcadia, City of Azusa, City of Baldwin Park, City of Duarte, City of El Monte,
City of Glendora, City of Irwindale, City of Covina, and City of West Covina. A total of
129 pending and approved projects were identified as cumulative projects. (See Final
EIR, pp. 4.0-2 to 4.0-8, including Table 4.0-1.)
The City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
The only officially designated State Scenic Highway is over 30 miles from the
site, and the only eligible but not designated highway is over 20 miles from the site.
Therefore these highways are also not located near the cumulative projects. Existing
controls on development would also protect views of the lower San Gabriel Mountains
and the Jurupa Hills. City development review processes, including the Specific Plan
and Design Review processes, require City staff to ensure that any revisions to these
documents maintain the visual quality of the visual character of project sites and their
surroundings. Further, to ensure that current and future projects are designed to
conform to the surrounding aesthetic environment, the City's Zoning and Development
Code includes design standards related to building size, building height, building
materials, landscaping, signage, lighting, and other aesthetic considerations. These
98
regulations would control cumulative impacts relating to aesthetics would occur. As
such, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics.
(Final EIR, pp. 5-10 to 5-12.)
The Project Site is undergoing an active mine reclamation process, is not a
scenic vista, and does not contribute to any scenic vistas. The Project would not block
public views of the San Gabriel Mountains and no other cumulative development
projects are proposed in the Project's viewshed toward the San Gabriel Mountains that
could combine with the Project to cumulatively block mountain views. The Project Site is
not located within close proximity to any designated Scenic Routes and does not
contain any scenic resources under existing conditions, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Each of the Cumulative Development
Projects that were identified in the Final EIR are located considerable distances from
the Project Site and would not have any interactive aesthetic effects that would directly
combine with the aesthetic effects of the proposed Arcadia Logistics Center. The
proposed Project is designed to adhere to the outdoor lighting restrictions set forth in
both the Arcadia Logistics Center Specific Plan and the City of Arcadia Municipal Code,
mandatory compliance with which would ensure that the proposed Project does not
produce substantial amounts of light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime
views. With additional lighting that may occur from other cumulative projects in the San
Gabriel Valley, the Project's contribution to impacts associated with nighttime lighting
would be less than cumulatively considerable given the outdoor lighting restrictions that
would be imposed on the Project as set forth in both the Arcadia Logistics Center
Specific Plan and the City of Arcadia Municipal Code. (Final EIR, pp. 4.1-13 to 4.1-14)
99
A. AIR QUALITY
The proposed would Project would not be consistent with SCAQMD's 2012
AQMP because the Project's long-term operational emissions of VOCs and NOX would
exceed significance thresholds and because other development projects within the
SCAB also may involve land uses that would exceed the regional projections. The
construction of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for VOCs,
and the operation of the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds for emissions of
VOCs and NOX.
There are no mitigation measures available to eliminate or offset the Project's
inconsistency with AQMP growth and emission forecasts. The implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1, RR-AQ-1, RR-AQ-3, RR-AQ-4, and RR-AQ-6,
construction activity emissions (including emissions of VOCs) would be reduced to
below the numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for criteria pollutants. As
such, with mitigation, construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR,
Project emissions of NOX and VOCs would still be above the SCAQMD's Regional
Thresholds for these pollutants. No other mitigation measures are available that are
feasible for the Project Applicant to implement and for the City of Arcadia to impose and
enforce that have a proportional nexus to the Project's level of impact. As such, the
Project's long-term emissions of VOCs and NOX would cause a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact. (Final EIR, pp. 4.2-41 to 4.2-52)
100 •
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Project Site and off-site drainage outlet areas contain no special-status
species; as such, the Project has no potential to contribute to cumulative effects to
special status plant species. Only one special status species, the burrowing owl, has
the potential to occur on site or within the off-site outlet areas. Other cumulative
developments within the region also have the potential to impact the burrowing owl,
could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. The implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
The Project would not impact any riparian habitats on site or within the off-site
river drainage outlet areas. However, the potential construction of one of three outfall
structures would permanently impact CDFW jurisdiction, but no vegetated riparian
habitat. The proposed Project would be required to secure a CDFW Section 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement and comply with its terms and conditions. Other
projects within the City of Arcadia and surrounding jurisdictions that would result in
similar impacts also would need to obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement from CDFW. The Project's impact to CDFW jurisdiction represents a
cumulatively significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2
through MM 4.3-4 and RR-B10-2 would reduce this cumulative impact to less than
significant.
The Project may impact a small area just north of Option SD-3, which is potential
USACE wetlands. The introduction of seasonal water flows (e.g. during high volume
rainfall) could support plant species that require more water and are associated with
101
intermittent water flows and could thereby change conditions such that wetlands are
supported which could be judged as a beneficial impact.
No wildlife movement corridors occur on the Project site. However, the proposed
Project would remove vegetation that could support nesting migratory birds. Other
cumulative developments within the City of Arcadia and surrounding jurisdictions also
would have the potential to result in impacts to migratory birds, which could result in a
cumulatively significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1,
the Project's impact would be reduced below a cumulatively considerable level. (Final
EIR, pp. 4.3-17 to 4.3-24)
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential geologic and soils effects
associated with the proposed Project are inherently confined to the areas proposed for
development and would have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects when
constructed in association with other existing, planned, and proposed development. As
with all projects in the cumulative study area, the proposed Project's mandatory
compliance with SWPPP and NPDES requirements would preclude significant soil
erosion, which would avoid any potential for significant cumulative erosion impacts.
(Final EIR, p. 4.4-14)
D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
An individual project such as the proposed Project does not have the potential to
result in direct and significant impacts associated with GHGs. Accordingly the impact
analysis provided in Section 4.5 of the Final EIR represents a cumulative impact
analysis of the Project's GHG emissions. The conclusion of the analysis in the Final
102
ronorammoc
EIR identifies that the Project's GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable and
could contribute to significant environmental effects associated with global climate
change. Mitigation measures MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-4 were identified to reduce the
significance of the cumulative impacts associated with GHG. However, these measures
would not substantially reduce Project-related mobile source GHG emissions (which
comprise approximately 79% of the Project's total .GHG emissions). Mobile source
emissions are regulated by state and federal emissions and fuel use standards, and are
outside of the control of the Project Applicant, future Project building users, and the City
of Arcadia. No additional mitigation measures that are feasible for the Project Applicant
to implement and the City of Arcadia to impose and enforce and that have a
proportional nexus to the Project's GHG impact are available to further reduce the
Project's mobile source GHG emissions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project
would result in a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable impact
associated with GHG. (Final EIR, pp. 4.5-34 to 4.5-38)
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Although the end users of the buildings are not presently known, if businesses
that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and
operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such
uses also would be subject to additional review and permitting requirements by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division. Similarly, any
other developments in the area or proposed in the area with the potential for use,
storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with
103
applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to
additional review and permits from their applicable fire department. Accordingly, the
Project's potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant hazardous materials impact
would be less than significant.
The Project Site is not located within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed
schools, and therefore has no potential to have a cumulatively considerable effect
associated with the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school. The construction and
operation of the proposed Project does not have any components that would contribute
to or result in an increase in the likelihood that hazardous materials would be handled or
emitted within the vicinity of a school. The Project Site is not included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Due to the site-specific nature of the threshold, the Project does not have the potential
to affect any surrounding areas for purposes of being listed on a hazardous materials
site.
The Project would not conflict with an airport land use plan, nor would the Project
pose a safety hazard for aircraft. The Project Site is not located within the airport
influence area for the El Monte Municipal Airport. The proposed Project involves the
construction and operation of multiple buildings that would all have a maximum building
height below the imaginary surface area for the El Monte Airport. There are no private
airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed Project and no private airstrips are proposed in
the vicinity of the Project Site.
104
The proposed Project would not interfere with or impair implementation of any
adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Any future
development projects in the surrounding area would be subject to review by applicable
governing agencies, which would ensure the adequate provision of emergency
response.
The Project Site and surrounding areas are not subject to wildland fire hazards
because the property is located in an urban environment that has a low risk of wildfire.
The Project Applicant proposes buildings that would be equipped with fire suppression
systems approved by the City of Arcadia Fire Department. Development on the Project
Site must comply with the California Fire Code and California Building Standards Code,
which include standards for building construction, fire flows and pressures, hydrant
placement and other requirements that would reduce the creation of fire hazards. Other
projects would have to comply with such standards. For these reasons, the Project has
a less than significant potential to result in a cumulatively considerable wildfire hazard
risk. (Final EIR, pp. 4.6-11 to 4.6-12)
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
None of the projects on the cumulative list would drain onto the Project Site and
no other planned or reasonably foreseeable project would contribute runoff to the
Project's storm water drainage system. The proposed Project's runoff would be
accommodated by the Project's storm water drainage system that would outfall to the
San Gabriel River; Project flows would not be conveyed through or mix with flows from
other development projects. There would be no direct or cumulative effects on surface
or groundwater hydrology or water quality due to interaction of runoff from the Project
105
Site and the other planned and pending development projects because no such
interaction would occur other than interactions in the ultimate flows carried by the San
Gabriel River. Some of the cumulative development projects could also discharge
runoff into drainage systems that flow into the San Gabriel River. Therefore, there
could be some level of indirect cumulative impact on the rate and amount of runoff and
the composition of the water quality during peak storms and low-flow storm events in
the adjacent and downstream segments of the San Gabriel River. However, due to
WQMPs, SWPPPs and other regulation, no impacts by other projects.
All new development projects within the San Gabriel River watershed are
required to develop SUSMPs or equivalent water quality management plans to capture
and treat developed site runoff in accordance with applicable regulations established by
the local government agencies responsible for approving those projects, and in
accordance with the water quality regulations established by the LARWQCB, which
would ensure that any Project-related contribution to cumulative hydrology or water
quality effects on the San Gabriel River would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.7-14 to 4.7-15)
G. LAND USE
Each cumulative development project would undergo the same project review
process as the proposed Project. There is no interactive effect on such issues with
other pending development projects in the City of Arcadia or surrounding areas,
including all of the cumulative projects. Nonetheless, in the Final EIR Subsection 4.2,
Air Quality, the proposed Project would not be consistent with SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP
because the Project's long-term operational emissions of VOCs and NOX would exceed
106
significance thresholds. Other development projects within the SCAB also may involve
land uses that would exceed the regional air quality projections presented in the 2012
AQMP. Accordingly, the Project's potential to conflict with the 2012 AQMP is
considered a cumulatively considerable impact. There are no mitigation measures
available to eliminate or offset the Project's inconsistency with AQMP growth and
emission forecasts based, in part, on the current Arcadia General Plan. (Final EIR, p.
4.8-17)
H. NOISE
Construction activities would create intermittent periods of noise when
construction equipment is in operation and cause a short-term increase in ambient
noise levels. These construction-related activities would represent a short-term
significant impact to residential uses located immediately to the west of the Project Site.
Construction-related Project noise combined with ambient noise would have a
cumulative effect on noise sensitive receiver locations, representing a cumulatively
considerable substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
The transportation-related noise analysis for future conditions (Year 2017 and
Year 2035) provided in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR is inherently cumulative in nature,
as it is based on the addition of cumulative projects and ambient growth. Project-
related contributions to all but three roadway segments would be less than significant.
However, none of the roadway segments that are subjected to potentially significant
levels of Project-related traffic noise contain sensitive receptors. Therefore, the
Project's traffic-related noise impacts along study area roadway segments (18 total)
107
would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.
The proposed Project would not result in a significant increase in the cumulative
stationary noise levels at sensitive receiver locations during daytime or nighttime hours.
Further, there are no other pending development projects in this area that could
generate new stationary noise impacts affecting the same nearby sensitive receivers.
The types of construction equipment that would be used to implement the
proposed Project would not create vibration amplitudes that could cause structural
damage to nearby structures. The nearest existing off-site structures would not be
exposed to substantial ground-borne vibration due to the temporary operation of heavy
construction equipment on the Project Site. Under long-term operating conditions, the
Project would not involve the use of equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in
perceptible groundborne vibration. Furthermore, there are no identified pending
developments in the Project vicinity with the ability to cumulatively contribute to any
groundborne vibration impacts. The proposed Project does not involve the construction,
operation, or use of any public airports or public use airports. There are no conditions
associated with the proposed Project that would contribute to airport noise or exposure
of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise. (Final EIR, pp. 4.9-36 to
4.9-37)
I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Project traffic would have a significant cumulatively considerable impact on a
forecasted level of service deficiency at the 1-605 northbound ramps/Lower Azusa Road
Interchange, during the PM peak hour, in Year 2017 forecast conditions. For Horizon
Year 2035 forecast conditions, Project traffic would have a significant cumulatively
108
considerable impact at the intersection of Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road during both
peak hours, and a significant cumulatively considerable impact at the 1-605 northbound
ramps/Lower Azusa Road interchange during both peak hours. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact at the two impacted intersections discussed above. The
recommended intersection improvements would improve the LOS from F (without
Project) to LOS E (with Project, with improvements) for AM and PM hours for the Peck
Road/Lower Azusa Road intersection, assuming that the proposed Project's buildings
are occupied by a mix of uses consisting of 1,100,000 s.f. of warehouse use and
588,000 s.f. of industrial park use, as analyzed in Technical Appendix H1 to the Final
EIR. Additionally, Table 7-6 of Technical Appendix H1 indicates that the recommended
intersection improvements would improve the LOS from E (without Project) to LOS D
(with Project, with improvements) for AM and PM hours for the 1-605 Northbound
Ramps/Lower Azusa Road intersection.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, is
outside of the Applicant's control and outside of the City's control. The intersection of
Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road is located within the City of El Monte that has a
recommended improvement which is not covered by Development Impact Fees (DIF).
The 1-605 ramps at Lower Azusa Road either share a mutual border with Caltrans'
jurisdiction or are wholly located within Caltrans' jurisdiction and have recommended
improvements which are not covered by the payment of fees, because there is no
established regional fee program toward which private developers can pay fees for
freeway ramp improvements. Because the City of Arcadia does not have plenary
109
control over the freeway on and off ramps that lie within Caltrans' jurisdiction, nor
plenary (i.e. absolute) control over intersections that share a border with the City of El
Monte, the City of Arcadia cannot guarantee that such improvements will be
constructed. Also, the City of Arcadia does not have the capacity to engage in multi-
jurisdictional efforts with outside agencies related to transportation facility improvements
outside of the City of Arcadia jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, implementation of these
Mitigation Measures cannot be guaranteed. If these Mitigation Measures are not
implemented, and the types of building uses that occupy the Project's buildings
generate a volume of traffic that triggers these impacts, the Project's significant
cumulatively considerable traffic impacts at one or both of these locations would be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, no mitigation measures are available to
mitigate the Project's impacts to freeway mainlines. Although the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is studying the feasibility of a regional
mitigation fee, such a fee program is not yet in place. (Final EIR, p. 4.10-46.)
J. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed via local
sewer lines into the LACSD's regional sewer system for conveyance to wastewater
treatment facilities maintained by the LACSD. LACSD has adopted a Wastewater
Ordinance for the operation and financing of their wastewater conveyance, treatment,
and disposal facilities. The LACSD also charges Connection Fees and Surcharges.
Other future projects being served by the LACSD would be subject to LACSD's
Wastewater Ordinance and would be required to pay applicable Connections Fees and
110
Surcharges by the LACSD, which would be used by LACSD to expand and improve
their facilities to serve existing and anticipated development.
As indicated in the Project's Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the
SGVWC, the SGVWC currently has sufficient, reliable, and sustainable water supplies
to meet Project water demands in addition to existing and future demands over the next
20 years and through 2035, including during single and multiple dry years. Thus, the
proposed Project's effects on water supply would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
Because the proposed Project would connect to existing water conveyance
infrastructure in Lower Azusa Road and none of the other pending projects identified in
the list of Cumulative Projects would connect to that water line, and because the
SGVWC is projected to have adequate water supply for projected growth through at
least 2035 in normal, single dry, and multiple-dry years, no adverse cumulatively
significant effect on water infrastructure or water supply would result from construction
or operation of the proposed Project.
Project drainage Option 1 would require construction of a new drainage outlet
structure within the San Gabriel River, which is a Los Angeles County Flood Control
District facility. Option 2 for storm water discharge would not result in or require
construction of any new or expanded storm water drainage facilities off-site. Under
Option 1, the Project would result in impacts to 0.02 acre of CDFW streambed, but
impacts to CDFW streambed would be mitigated to a level below significant by
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through MM 4.3-5. As such, the Project's off-site
impacts to CDFW streambed would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. Other than
111
the outlet structure proposed under drainage Option 1, there would be no environmental
effects specifically related to the Project's storm water drainage infrastructure.
Near-term construction activities associated with the Project would generate
approximately 16.28 tons per day of solid waste, which represents only .37% of the
daily capacity at Puente Hills MRF, 0.47% of the Calabasas Sanitary Landfill's permitted
daily capacity, 0.47% of the Scholl Canyon Landfill's permitted daily capacity, and
0.08% of the Mesquite Regional Landfill's permitted daily capacity. Accordingly, the
Project's generation of solid waste during construction would be less than significant on
a cumulative basis.
Under long-term operating conditions, the Project would generate approximately
12.0 tons per day of solid waste, of which up to 6.0 tons per day would be conveyed to
landfills for disposal. Operational waste disposal directed to a landfill would account for
approximately 0.1% of the permitted daily capacity of the Puente Hills MRF, 0.03% of
the permitted daily capacity of the Mesquite Regional Landfill, approximately 0.17% of
the Calabasas Sanitary Landfill's permitted daily capacity, and approximately 0.17% of
Scholl Canyon Landfill's permitted daily capacity. As concluded in the General Plan
EIR, and assuming all of the City's solid waste was conveyed only to the Puente Hills
facility MRF, solid waste associated with buildout of the General Plan would represent
approximately 1.9% of the Puente Hills MRF's remaining daily permitted capacity that
existed in 2010. The Project Site was designated for "Commercial/Light Industrial" land
uses by the City's 2010 General Plan, and therefore was accounted for as part of the
General Plan EIR's conclusion that the projected solid waste generation increase that
would occur with buildout of the General Plan. (Final EIR p. 4.11-23 to 4.11-25.)
112
K. PUBLIC SERVICES
The development of the Project Site with a logistics center would result in an
incremental increase in demand for fire protection and police protection services to the
Site. However, both the AFD and the APD have indicated that existing facilities serving
the Project Site, the City of Arcadia, and other properties located in the geographic
areas covered by the City's automatic aid and mutual aid agreements, are adequate to
serve the area, including the proposed Project, in addition to the Departments' other
commitments. The APD is already planning to open a small sub-station in November
2016 located at Westfield Santa Anita (400 South Baldwin Avenue), to address
cumulative needs. (AFD, 2015; APD, 2015) The proposed Project has no bearing on the
City's decision to open that sub-station, which will occur with or without construction of
the Project.
The funding for AFD and APD staff positions and resources needed to maintain
acceptable citywide service levels comes from the City of Arcadia's General Fund.
Property taxes and other fees assessed on property owners within the City contribute to
the General Fund revenues. With development of the proposed Project, fees and
property taxes supplied to the City's General Fund from the Project Site's landowner
would increase. (City of Arcadia, 2010b, p. 4.13-20) Similarly, as other properties
develop and under improvement, taxes and fees would be expected to increase, which
would be available for City use to fund additional public service staff and resources.
Being an employment-generating use, the Project would not directly introduce
new residents into the City and surrounding areas. Therefore, the Project would have
no potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to resident-serving facilities
113
such as schools, parks, libraries, and other public facilities or services. If any indirect
resident growth occurs from the jobs that would be created by the Project, it is expected
that such growth would be consistent with buildout projections and population
projections reported in the local government's General Plans, which are relied upon by
local agencies to plan for public services. As such, the Project's indirect impacts would
be less than cumulatively considerable.
In regards to the Project's temporary impacts to the San Gabriel River Trail, no
other construction projects are known to the City of Arcadia that would cause the
Project's temporary impact to the trail (during the installation of a storm drain line) to be
cumulatively considerable. The impact is identified herein as a significant direct
temporary impact, for which mitigation is supplied. (Final EIR, p. 4.12-7 and 4.12-8.)
SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that
would occur should the proposed Project be implemented. Generally, a project would
result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would
occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources;
• The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit
future generations to similar uses
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources are not justified.
Redevelopment of the Project site as a logistics center would result in
establishing an end use on a property that was formerly a mine and inert debris landfill.
114
The non-renewable mineral resources that were once present beneath the property
have already been extracted and depleted. (Final EIR, p. 5-21.)
Natural resources in the form of construction materials and energy resources
would be used in the construction of the Project, but the Project would have no
measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources
that may be non-renewable such as fossil fuels. Construction and operation of the
Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources of non-renewable energy.
Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Building
Standards Code, compliance with which will reduce the use of fossil-fueled energy used
in building operations. Implementation of the Project would consume various forms of
energy, but not in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. (Final EIR, pp. 5-3
and 5-11 to 5-19.)
Activities on the Project site could potentially include processing; assembling;
manufacturing; warehousing; and distribution/storage of materials and products, along
with ancillary office spaces and food service areas for employees. There could also be
a variety of ancillary maintenance and fueling activities for freight handling/moving
machines used inside the proposed buildings and in the truck loading areas. These
activities would consume non-renewable natural resources over the operating life of the
Project including but not limited to fuels (petroleum, gasoline, diesel, propane, and
natural gas) and metals (lead, copper, etc.). The consumption of non-renewable
resources to construct and operate the Project over the long-term would likely commit
subsequent generations to the same use of the land and similar patterns of energy
consumption, since the development of a project of this large-scale represents a huge
115
investment of capital and thus reduces the likelihood that the completed Project would
be demolished and some alternative land uses developed in the future. However, the
Project is not expected to reduce the availability of any natural resources associated
with long-term operational activities. (Final EIR, p. 5-3.)
The Project will not involve uses that would cause irreversible damage from any
potential environmental accidents because mandatory compliance with federal, state,
and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors
working on the property during the Project's construction and of all users that would
occupy the Project's building. (Final EIR, pp. 5-3 and 5-4.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in eight significant and
unavoidable environmental effects that cannot be feasibly reduced to below levels of
significance. These are: 1) a conflict with the growth assumptions in the SCAQMD
2012 AQMP; 2) long-term air quality emissions of VOCs and NOx that exceed the
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds; 3) greenhouse gas emissions that do not meet the
reduction targets set forth in AB 32; 4) a conflict with General Plan policies related to
GHG emissions; 5) a land use (air quality) conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP; 6) near-
term construction-related noise that would exceed 75 dBA Leq; 7) traffic impacts to the
intersection of Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road and the 1-605 northbound ramps/Lower
Azusa Road interchange; and 8) traffic impacts to the I-605/Lower Azusa Road
Interchange and freeway mainlines. (Final EIR, pp. 5-1 and 5-2.)
Although the Project would cause or contribute to significant unavoidable impacts
associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning (air quality),
noise, and transportation, these effects would not commit surrounding properties to land
116
uses other than the uses currently planned for those properties by the City of Arcadia,
City of El Monte, or City of Irwindale. The Project would not create any primary or
secondary effects that would preclude the use of surrounding properties for their
existing and intended uses. (Final EIR, p. 5-4.)
Therefore, no significant impacts relating to irreversible changes are anticipated.
SECTION 9. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the Final EIR for the proposed Project
includes an analysis of mandatory findings of significance. Accordingly, the City hereby
finds as follows:
1. Impacts to the Environment and Wildlife
Threshold: Would the proposed Project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. (Final EIR,
pp. 4.3-10 and 4.3-19 to 4.3-22.)
Explanation: For the reasons discussed above in section 5(B) of this Resolution,
with implementation of the required mitigation measures, potential direct and
cumulatively considerable impacts under this threshold would be reduced to less than a
level of significance. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.3-11, 4.3-12, and 4.3-23.)
117
2. Cumulative Impacts
Threshold: Does the proposed Project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. (4.2-
41 to 4.2-52, 4.5-34
Explanation: For a full analysis of the proposed Project's cumulative impacts,
see Section 7 above.
3. Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Threshold: Does the proposed Project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.1-15, 4.2-48, 4.5-37, 4.7-18, 4.9-42, 4.10-46.)
Explanation: For a full analysis of direct and indirect adverse effects on human
beings, see Section 11(B) below.
SECTION 10: FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the
ways the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the
construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Growth-inducing impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g.,
the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service
118
area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could
significantly affect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must
not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Because occupants of the Project's buildings are not yet known, the number of
jobs that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined. However,
research conducted by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
(NAIOP) in 2003 on building and employment trends in the logistics industry found that
an average across all building sizes was approximately 2,000 square feet per
employee. Using this average the Project would create an estimated 844 jobs. The
proposed Project also would create short-term construction-related jobs. It is
anticipated that the majority of the construction-related employees would be drawn from
the existing labor force that would be readily available in the western San Gabriel Valley
and surrounding areas. (Final EIR, pp. 5-4 and 5-5.)
The Project's construction-related and operational related employees would
purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment
associated with meeting these goods and services needs would be marginal,
accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and highly unlikely to result in
any new physical impacts to the environment. The City's General Plan designates the
subject property as "Commercial/Light Industrial" and the Project is consistent with this
land use designation and the allowable intensity. As such, the Project would implement
the City's long-term land use designation for the property and would not represent
unplanned growth of industrial uses. (Final EIR, p. 5-5.)
119
The proposed Project also is consistent with the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and particularly the chapter entitled "Goods
Movement" that is applicable to the Project. By the year 2028, forecasts show that the
demand for warehousing space will be over one billion square feet. The report goes on
to state that unless other land not currently zoned for warehousing becomes available,
SCAG forecasts that by the year 2035, a projected shortfall of space of approximately
227 million square feet will occur. Thus, the Project would help to fill a regional need for
warehouse space and accommodates projected growth and the Southern California
economy, rather than inducing growth. (Final EIR, p. 5-5.)
It is highly unlikely that the Project would induce growth in the form of additional
economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts on the off-site
physical environment. The Project would not directly promote growth on adjacent and
surrounding properties because the Project site is located within an established
industrial area, and bordered by a residential community in the City of El Monte and a
quarry in the City of Irwindale. Neighboring land uses within the City of Irwindale
include commercial, industrial, and mining operations to the north and the east,
including the Hanson quarry site and Peck Road gravel pit. A mixture of industrial uses
is located in a triangular-shaped area between the southern site boundary (Lower
Azusa Road) and the San Gabriel River. On-site water lines would connect to an
existing service line installed beneath Lower Azusa Road. Wastewater generated by
the Project would be transported via underground pipes to one or more sewer
connections with existing lines installed within the intersection of Lower Azusa Road
120
and Durfee Avenue. The water and sewer lines would accommodate the conveyance of
water to and wastewater from the Project site to the existing water and domestic sewer
system, and would not induce growth or development on other properties, as properties
surrounding the Project site are already developed and would not be induced to
redevelop due the installation of a water and sewer lines sized to accommodate the
Project's water and wastewater flows. (Final EIR, p. 5-5.)
SECTION 11. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The intent of the Project is to develop a large part of Focus Area M (Lower Azusa
Road Reclamation Area) of the City of Arcadia's General Plan with industrial park and
logistics-related warehouse uses to make productive use of a reclaimed property that
previously operated as a sand and gravel quarry. The Project would achieve this
primary objective through the following basic objectives. (Final EIR, pp. 3-2 and 3-3.)
A. Maximize the development potential of Focus Area M northwest of Lower Azusa
Road (a former sand and gravel quarry) immediately upon the completion of its
reclamation process so that the property continues to be economically productive
when reclamation activities cease.
B. Create a comprehensive master plan for the development of Focus Area M
northwest of Lower Azusa Road (a former sand and gravel quarry) as a
warehouse/distribution logistics center that will attract quality tenants.
C. Develop a warehouse/distribution logistics center that is feasible to construct and
operate and that is economically competitive with other similar centers in the
southern California region, which will assist the City of Arcadia in competing
economically on a domestic and international scale through the efficient and
cost-effective movement of goods.
D. Provide economic and job growth opportunities in and near the City of Arcadia by
diversifying the available range of industrial and employment-generating uses
through the development of a large property with an employment-generating land
use with long-term economic viability that complements the diversity of uses
already present and planned in the City.
121
E. Provide for uses that will generate tax revenue for the City of Arcadia through
increased property and sales taxes from point-of sale tenants in order to support
the City's ongoing municipal operations.
F. Provide an attractive, state-of-the-art Class A warehouse/distribution logistics
center that meets current industry standards for operational design criteria and
minimizes conflicts to the extent possible with surrounding existing and planned
uses.
G. Provide opportunities for warehouse/distribution building users to locate in the
City of Arcadia by offering buildings with loading bays in close proximity to
existing 1-605 on- and off-ramps.
H. Provide a Class A warehouse/distribution logistics center that takes advantage of
the proximity to 1-605 and its connection to other freeways and transportation
corridors to reduce traffic congestion on surface streets and to reduce
concomitant vehicular-related air pollutant emissions associated with inefficient
travel patterns.
I. Fill an existing need for truck-based goods distribution facilities in the land-
constrained metropolitan region of Los Angeles County.
J. Accommodate new development in a phased, orderly manner that is coordinated
with the provision of necessary infrastructure and public improvements.
B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As identified above, the Project would result in the following significant and
unavoidable impacts, even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures:
Aesthetics Threshold 3: Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impact (Near-Term).
There are no mitigation measures available to eliminate or offset the Project's near-term
effect on the character of an adjacent residential community. The near-term visibility of
the Project's buildings would be eliminated in the long-term upon maturity of the
proposed landscaping._(Final EIR, p. 5-1.)
Air Quality Threshold 1: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Impact. There are no mitigation measures available to eliminate or offset
122
the Project's inconsistency with AQMP growth and emission forecasts based, in part, on
the current Arcadia General Plan. If this Project is approved, this inconsistency would
likely be eliminated in the next update of the AQMP that will adjust the growth forecasts
to align with updates of local General Plans and a variety of regional socio-economic
variables. (Final EIR, p. 5-1.)
Air Quality Thresholds 2 and 3: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and
Cumulatively Considerable (Long-Term) Impact. Even with the incorporation of the
required mitigation measures and regulatory requirements specified in Subsection 4.2 of
the Final EIR, Project emissions of NOx and VOCs would still be above the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Regional Thresholds for these pollutants.
No other mitigation measures are available that are feasible for the Project Applicant to
implement and for the City of Arcadia to enforce that have a proportional nexus to the
Project's level of impact. As such, it is concluded that the Project's long-term emissions
of VOCs and NOx would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on both a direct
and cumulatively considerable basis. (Final EIR, p. 5-1.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds 1 and 2: Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulatively Considerable Impact. Greenhouse gases would be emitted by the Project,
primarily from mobile sources (vehicles traveling to and from the Project site). Given
the methodologies applied in the GHG analysis and the conservatively estimated
number of traffic trips and vehicle miles traveled that are assumed in the analysis (which
likely overstate impacts by a substantial margin), the proposed Project would not reduce
GHG emissions by 28.5% or greater as compared to the business as usual (BAU)
scenario, pursuant to the mandates of AB 32, and would emit more than 10,000
123
MTCO2e per year, which is the quantitative threshold of significance used by the Final
EIR. Mitigation measures are imposed, but additional feasible mitigation measures with
a proportional nexus to the Project's level of impact are not available to further reduce
Project-related GHG emissions. (Final EIR, p. 5-1.)
Land Use and Planning Threshold 2: Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impact
(AQMP Inconsistency: Air Quality). The Project would conflict with the SCAQMD's
AQMP which represents a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project
under the topic of Air Quality for which additional mitigation, beyond those mitigation
measures provided in Final EIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, is not available. (Final EIR,
p. 5-2.)
Noise Thresholds 1 and 4: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively,
Considerable Impact (Short-Term Construction Activities). Although implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2 and the General Plan EIR Standard
Conditions and Mitigation Measures would reduce construction-related noise levels,
these measures would not reduce construction-related noise impacts to sensitive
receptors located near the Project site to below a level of significance. These properties
would experience noise levels above 75 dBA Leg during construction of the Project.
Additional feasible mitigation measures with a proportional nexus to the Project's level
of impact are not available to further reduce Project-related construction noise levels.
(Final EIR, p. 5-2.)
Transportation Threshold 1: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively
Considerable Impact. For Horizon Year (2035) forecast conditions, Project traffic would
have a cumulatively considerable impact at the intersection of Peck Road/Lower Azusa
124
Road during both the peak hours, and a cumulatively considerable impact at the 1-605
northbound ramps/Lower Azusa Road interchange during both the peak hours.
Although mitigation is identified that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant
levels, implementation of the specified mitigation is outside of the Applicant's control
and outside of the City's control. Thus, implementation of these Mitigation Measures
cannot be guaranteed. If these Mitigation Measures are not implemented, the Project's
traffic impacts at one or both of these locations would be significant and unavoidable.
(Final EIR, p. 5-2.)
Transportation Threshold 2: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively
Considerable Impact. Project-related traffic would result in a significant cumulatively
considerable impact at the northbound ramp of the I-605/Lower Azusa Road
Interchange during the PM peak hour for the Opening Year Cumulative (2017) With
Project Conditions and Horizon Year (2035) With Project Conditions. Although
mitigation is identified that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels,
implementation of the specified mitigation is outside of the Applicant's control and
outside of the City's control. Thus, implementation of these Mitigation Measures cannot
be guaranteed. If these Mitigation Measures are not implemented, the Project's traffic
impacts at one or both of these locations would be significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, no mitigation measures are available to mitigate the Project's impacts to
freeway mainlines. Although the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) is studying the feasibility of a regional mitigation fee, such a fee
program is not yet in place. (Final EIR, p. 5-2.)
125
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/ PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed
consideration in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic Project
objectives, be feasible, and whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the
significant environmental impacts of the Project. (State CEQA Guidelines §15126(c).)
1. Alternate Sites
Description: State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2) requires consideration
regarding development at one or more alternative location(s). The Project site is
designated "Commercial/Light Industrial" by the City of Arcadia General Plan. The
proposed Project is consistent with this land use designation applied to the property. In
cases where a proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan, the
alternatives analysis should typically focus on options for developing the site consistent
with adopted plan policies and the discussion of alternatives should search for an
environmentally superior version of the Project on the site instead of an alternative site.
Under existing conditions, the Project site is the former site of the Rodeffer sand
and gravel quarry that is undergoing reclamation as a IDEFO. When the current IDEFO
activities are completed, the site will be in a condition where the surface topography is
similar to the elevations that occurred prior to initiation of the former surface mining
activities in the 1960s, and the land will be readily developable, with few constraints. No
sensitive environmental resources have been identified within the boundaries of the
Project Site that would be impacted by the Project.
Few other vacant, available properties of similar size as the Project Site in the
City or this part of the San Gabriel Valley would offer less developmental and
126
environmental constraints, or fewer physical environmental impacts than the Project
Site. Development of the Project in an alternate location would have similar impacts as
would occur with implementation of the Project at its proposed location. Also, if the
alternative site were to be located further from major regional transportation routes (I-
605 and the local truck routes), operational impacts associated with traffic and vehicular
noise and air emissions would be greater as the vehicles would need to travel further
distances on local roads to reach the freeways. Further, it is likely that selection of an
alternative site would merely displace the development activity proposed by the Project
to another location resulting in the same or greater environmental effects, given the
regional demand for logistics and warehousing space in the SCAG region.
In addition, there is no other location to establish an end use on the reclaimed
Rodeffer sand and gravel quarry than the Project site itself. For these reasons, an
alternative sites analysis is not required for the proposed Project. (Final EIR, pp. 6-5
and 6-6.)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each
of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1)
the alternative is infeasible, given that there is no other location to establish an end use
on the former Rodeffer quarry site than the Project site itself; and (2) an alternative site
is not likely to reduce the significant impacts associated with the Project, and is likely to
increase impacts.
2. Preliminary Site Plan Alternative
Description: This alternative considered three industrial buildings, with truck
loading bays on the west side of the buildings, facing the adjacent residential
127
neighborhood in the City of El Monte. This Alternative would provide the same total
building area as the proposed Project and a similar mix of land uses, a similar approach
to storm water detention and drainage controls, and similar walls, fencing, landscaping,
and lighting restrictions.
Larger buildings with truck bays facing the adjacent residential area would result
in more potential nuisance effects from trucking operations along the western edge of
the Project Site, would have a more bulky-appearing development profile, would have
generated the same amount or possibly more traffic, air pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions, and could generate construction noise over a longer period of time,
compared to construction of the smaller buildings along the western edge as
contemplated by the proposed Specific Plan, which restricts loading docks and truck
courts from occurring immediately adjacent to the City of El Monte boundary. (Final
EIR, p. 6-7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each
of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1)
the Alternative would produce adverse aesthetic, noise, and lighting impacts affecting
the adjacent residential neighborhoods in the City of El Monte; and (2) none of the
primary or secondary environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would
be reduced or eliminated.
3. Grid Pattern Streets Alternative
Description: The Project Site is located immediately east of a City of El Monte
residential neighborhood that includes several streets that dead-end at the Project site's
property boundary. An alternative considered extending these streets into the Project
128
site while developing the site in accordance with its existing zoning designation of
Commercial-Manufacturing. There would be a potential for land use conflicts
associated with extending residential streets directly into an area of uses that would
disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood. In addition, traffic from the Project
Site would then use these streets and create a host of environmental effects in the
residential community. (Final EIR, p. 6-7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each
of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1)
traffic congestion and vehicular-related noise and air pollution impacts would be
increased on and along residential streets in the adjacent City of El Monte; and (2) the
residential character of adjacent residential neighborhoods in the City of El Monte would
be adversely affected.
4. Residential Alternative
Description: An alternative considered developing the Project site as a
residential neighborhood. At a density average of 5 homes per acre, the property would
accommodate about 400 homes. (Final EIR, p. 6-7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each
of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1)
residential development would not meet any of the Project objectives; and (2) residential
development would be inconsistent with the City of Arcadia's General Plan and Zoning
designations for the property which call for development of the property with
employment-generating uses.
5. Open Space and Recreation Alternative
129
Description: An alternative considered using the Project site as permanent open
space and recreational space following completion of IDEFO activities. (Final EIR, p. 6-
7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each
of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1)
given the economic value of the Project, site, is unreasonable to expect any entity to
acquire the Project Site with the intent of providing improvements for open space and
recreation uses; and (2) no proposals have been made by any entity to acquire the
Project site for use as permanent open space or for recreational purposes, and without
an offer to purchase this land from the private landowner, this type of alternative is
considered infeasible; and (3) this alternative would not meet any of the Project
objectives; and (4) this alternative would be inconsistent with the City of Arcadia's
General Plan and Zoning designations which call for development of the property with
employment-generating uses.
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE FINAL EIR
The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the Final EIR.
These alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below.
1. No Project/No Development Alternative
Description: Section 15126(2)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
evaluation of the No Project Alternative. As described in the State CEQA Guidelines,
the purpose of describing and analyzing the No Project Alternative is to allow decision
makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not
approving the project. However, "no project" does not necessarily mean that
130
development will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes "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 community
services." Nonetheless, the No Project/No Development Alternative considers no
development on the Project site after the completion of IEDFO activities.
Impacts: The No Project/No Development Alternative, would avoid all of the
Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning (Air Quality) and Transportation and would
avoid all of the Project's less than significant impacts to biological resources, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, noise, utilities
and service systems, and public facilities. (Final EIR, pp. 6-9 to 6-12.)
However, even though the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid
the Project's impacts, it would not reduce the demand for logistics building space in the
Southern California region. Thus, it is likely for the Project's environmental impacts to be
displaced to another property rather than be avoided. (Final EIR, p. 6-12.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project/No Development Alternative would
fail to meet all of the Project's objectives. This alternative would fail to develop a large
part of Focus Area M (Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area) of the City of Arcadia's
General Plan with industrial park and logistics-related warehouse uses as called for by
the City of Arcadia's General Plan. No jobs would be created, no fiscal benefits would
accrue to the City, economic opportunities would be lost, and the regional demand for
logistics buildings would be displaced to other properties. (Final EIR, p. 6-12.)
131
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative on
the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for
rejection of this alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to meet all of the Project objectives;
(2) even though the Alternative would avoid impacts relating to development of the
Project site, given the high demand for logistics building space in the Southern
California region this Alternative would most likely displace impacts to another location
rather than reduce or avoid impacts to the environment; and (3) this Alternative would
return no fiscal benefits to the City and would not generate any employment
opportunities; and (4) the Alternative is infeasible given that retention of the site in its
vacant condition would be inconsistent with the City of Arcadia General Plan.
Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative is eliminated from further
consideration.
2. No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative
Description: The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative was
selected to evaluate the comparative benefits of developing the Project site with one or
more large warehouse-style commercial tenants that conduct retail sales, plus smaller
retail outlets, commercial services, food services, and possibly automotive services.
Because parking standards for retail uses and commercial centers are much higher
than for logistics center uses, the No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial
Alternative assumes development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.25
FAR, yielding approximately 885,000 s.f. of building space. The No Project/Retail
Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would be consistent with the subject property's
General Plan and zoning designations. The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light
132
Industrial Alternative was selected for evaluation to determine if developing the site with
more large warehouse-style commercial tenants would reduce the Project's significant
and unavoidable impacts pertaining to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, land use and planning, noise, and transportation. (Final EIR p. 6-12)
Impacts: The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would
worsen the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to air quality;
greenhouse gas emissions; noise; and transportation due to the Alternative's substantial
increase in traffic. Based on trip generation factors developed by the Institute for
Transportation Engineers (ITE), this Alternative would generate approximately 18,493
actual vehicle trips on a daily basis compared to approximately 7,932 actual vehicle
trips on a daily basis that would be generated by the Project (Final EIR, p. 6-17.). The
No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative also would worsen the
Project's less-than-significant impacts pertaining to public services and utilities and
service systems. The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would
result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to aesthetic and similar
less-than-significant impacts pertaining to biological resources; geology and soils;
hazards and hazardous materials; and hydrology and water quality. The No
Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would reduce the significant and
unavoidable impacts pertaining to Land Use and Planning (Air Quality) because this
Alternative would be consistent with the growth projections assumed by the SCAQMD's
2012 AQMP. (Final EIR, p. 6-12 to 6-18.)
In addition, the No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would
not reduce the demand for logistics building space in the Southern California region.
133
Thus, it is likely for the Project's environmental impacts to be displaced to another
property. (Final EIR, p. 6-12.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light Industrial
Alternative would fail to meet the Project's objective to develop a warehouse/distribution
logistics and fulfillment center to fill an existing need for a truck-based, regional goods
distribution facility. Because employment uses would be provided, this Alternative would
meet the Project's objectives to provide economic opportunities, job growth, and
generate tax revenue for the City of Arcadia. Although less building square footage
would be constructed, because retail commercial and light industrial uses would
generate substantially more traffic than would be generated by the proposed Project, all
vehicular-related impacts in relation to traffic, noise, air pollutants, and greenhouse gas
emissions would be increased, creating greater environmental effects. (Final EIR pp.
6-12 to 6-18)
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/Retail Commercial/Light
Industrial Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides
justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light
Industrial Alternative would fail to meet the Project's objective to develop a
warehouse/distribution logistics and fulfillment center to fill an existing need for a truck-
based, regional goods distribution facility; (2) The No Project/Retail Commercial/Light
Industrial Alternative would generate much higher levels of traffic, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions and vehicular noise impacts; (3) The No Project/Retail
Commercial/Light Industrial Alternative would result in the regional demand for logistics
buildings and the associated environmental effects to be displaced to other properties;
134
(4) Because the Economic Impact Study and Strategic Market Analysis contained in the
Final EIR Appendices K1 and K2 indicate that there is no demand for retail space on the
Site, the property would likely sit fallow for the foreseeable future.
3. Materials Processing Alternative
Description: The Materials Processing Alternative assumes that after the IDEFO
activities are completed, the Project Site would be used as a materials processing
facility. Such a use is a logical continuation of the past uses of the property as a quarry
and inert debris landfill and the predictable course of action that would be taken by the
landowner. The Project Applicant indicated that this would be a likely use for the Site
upon completion of the IDEFO activities in lieu of development. The principal function
of the use would be to receive, store, separate, convert, or otherwise process raw
materials, organic materials, and/or manufactured materials for commercial use or
recycling. Under such a scenario, materials would be brought to the Site by truck
similar to the condition that occurs under existing conditions, stockpiled, processed
(including potential crushing of aggregate material), and then transported off site by
truck. On-site heavy equipment would be similar to the equipment used for the
reclamation activities, and Site conditions would be similar to the portions of the Site
that have been reclaimed to final grade under existing conditions. No additional
development or infrastructure improvements would be constructed with the Materials
Processing Alternative.
Impacts: The Materials Processing Alternative would reduce the Project's
significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to aesthetics; air quality; greenhouse gas
emissions; land use and planning (air quality); noise; and transportation. The Materials
135
Processing Alternative would reduce the Project's less-than-significant impacts
pertaining to public services. The Materials Processing Alternative would result in
similar less-than-significant impacts pertaining to biological resources; geology and
soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and hydrology and water quality. (Final EIR pp.
6-21 to 6-24.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Materials Processing Alternative would fail to
meet all of the Project's objectives, and would not establish an end use for the property
in accordance with the City's General Plan. (Final EIR pp. 6-22 and 6-24.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Materials Processing Alternative on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1) The Materials Processing Alternative would be inconsistent with the City
of Arcadia General Plan; (2) The Materials Processing Alternative would fail to develop
a large part of Focus Area M (Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area) of the City of
Arcadia's General Plan with industrial park and logistics-related warehouse uses; (3)
As a result of the Materials Processing Alternative, no jobs would be created, few fiscal
benefits would accrue to the City, economic opportunities would be lost, and the
regional demand for logistics buildings would be displaced to other properties; and (5)
The Materials Processing Alternative would not reduce the demand for logistics park
development in the Southern California region, thereby displacing associated
environmental effects to other locations.
4. High Cube Warehouse Alternative
Description: The High Cube Warehouse Alternative was selected to evaluate the
comparative benefits of developing the Project site in exactly the same manner as the
136
Project proposes, except that the type of building user would be strictly limited to high
cube warehouse. High cube warehouse is a building type that caters to the storage and
consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their
distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. These facilities are generally very
large buildings characterized by a small employment count due to a high level of
automation, and truck activities frequently outside of the peak hour of the adjacent
street system. When compared to the proposed Project, the High Cube Warehouse
Alternative would have an identical design and building footprint, therefore the physical
impacts would be identical. (Final EIR p. 6-25.)
Impacts: The High Cube Warehouse Alternative would reduce but not avoid the
Project's significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, and noise. However, the Project's impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, transportation, and noise would decrease under the High Cube Warehouse
Alternative due to the alternative's decrease in traffic and therefore associated
vehicular-related emissions. The High Cube Warehouse Alternative would reduce but
not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to transportation,
with exception of the Project's significant and unavoidable impact at the intersection of
Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road that would be reduced to less than significant under this
alternative. The High Cube Warehouse Alternative would have similar impacts
pertaining to aesthetics; biological resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous
materials; hydrology and water quality; public services; and utility and service systems,
although under the topic of utility and service systems, transportation fuel (energy) use
137
would be less because there would be fewer traffic trips requiring fuel associated with
this Alternative than the proposed Project. (Final EIR pp. 6-26 and 6-27.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The High Cube Warehouse Alternative would meet
most of the Project's objectives but to a lesser degree. Although the High Cube
Warehouse Alternative would fill an existing need for a truck-based goods distribution
facility, the facility would be less economically diverse than the proposed Project and
could preclude point of sale uses that would generate sales tax revenue. Although the
High Cube Warehouse Alternative would provide economic opportunities, job growth,
and would generate some tax revenue for the City of Arcadia, all of these objectives
would be achieved to a lesser degree than would be achieved by the Project. (Final
EIR, pp. 6-27 and 6-28.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the High Cube Warehouse Alternative on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1) Under the Materials Processing Alternative, the Project Applicant would
be required to restrict potential occupants to the land uses and trip generation rates
outlined by ITE Code 152 for High Cube Warehouse. Such restrictions are difficult to
enforce and would restrict the ability of the Site to remain economically competitive in
the market for similar warehousing space; (2) The high cube warehouse land uses
proposed by the High Cube Warehouse Alternative do not necessarily generate sales
taxes as many are used simply for storage and distribution of products sold elsewhere;
and (3) Under the High Cube Warehouse Alternative the economic benefits related to
offering competitive warehouse space and revenue-generating land uses would be
decreased in comparison to the proposed Project.
138
4. Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative
Description: The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative was selected to
evaluate the comparative benefits of developing the proposed Arcadia Logistics Center
Specific Plan's Planning Area 2 (closest to Lower Azusa Road) in exactly the same
manner as proposed, but would replace proposed development in Planning Area 1
(along the western edge of the site closest to the City of El Monte) with a parking yard
for truck trailers associated with the buildings that would be developed in Planning Area
2. Planning Area 2 allows for development of the Site with a maximum of 743,000 s.f.
of building floor area. The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative was selected by the
City to evaluate whether reducing the Project's building area would avoid or
substantially reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
(Final EIR, p. 6-27.)
Impacts: The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would reduce but not
avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to air quality;
greenhouse gas emissions; and noise. The Project's impacts to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, transportation, and noise would decrease under the Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternative due to the Alternative's decrease in traffic, and reduced
building energy consumption. The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would
reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to aesthetics; land use and
planning; transportation; and utilities and service systems. The Project's significant and
unavoidable impact at the intersection of Peck Road/Lower Azusa Road would be
reduced to less than significant under the Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative. The
Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would result in similar less-than-significant
139
impacts pertaining to biological resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous
materials; hydrology and water quality; and public services. (Final EIR, pp. 6-28 to 6-
33.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would
meet most of the Project's objectives, but to a lesser degree. The Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would consist of warehouse, distribution/logistics, and
fulfillment center uses on-site and would fill an existing need for a truck-based goods
distribution facility. However, this facility would be smaller in size and capacity than the
proposed Project. In addition, the Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would
provide economic opportunities, job growth, and would generate tax revenue for the City
of Arcadia; however, job growth and tax revenue would be decreased under the
Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative. Selection of the Reduced Project/Trailer Yard
Alternative, while preventing full development of the property with logistics uses, would
not result in a reduction in demand for logistics park development in the SCAG region.
(Final EIR, pp. 6-32 and 6-33.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative on
the following grounds, each of which individually provides justification for rejection of
this alternative: (1) The Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative would result in a
decrease in job growth and tax revenue compared to the Project; (2) the Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternative, while preventing full development of the property with
logistics uses, would not result in a reduction in demand for logistics park development
in the Southern California region and, thus, the regional demand for logistics buildings
140
and the environmental effects associated with the development of these uses would be
displaced to other properties.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of
alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.
None of the alternatives would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable
impacts relating to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and
planning (air quality), and transportation. (Final EIR, p. 6-33.) However, the Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternatives does reduce these impacts, although not to a less than
significant level. Therefore, the Reduced Project/Trailer Yard Alternative is identified as
the environmentally superior alternative. (Final EIR, p. 6-24.)
However, as determined above, the City Council rejects the Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually
provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative may
reduce, but does not avoid, the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) it is
likely that the impacts reduced by the alternative will occur elsewhere given the demand
for warehouse distribution/logistics uses; and (3) the alternative meets the Project
objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Therefore, the Reduced
Project/Trailer Yard Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
SECTION 12. ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
141
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines
§15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any
unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh
the proposed Project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may
be considered "acceptable."
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the
extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the Final EIR, the
MMRP, and this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative record on the
Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse
impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social,
economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually
outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse
environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
A. Implementation of the City of Arcadia General Plan in Focus Area M.
B. Establishment of an end-use on a former sand and gravel quarry site and
landfill site.
C. Elimination of the landfill activity existing at the Project site.
D. Provision of a permanent land use transition buffer at the Project site's
western property line adjacent to the City of El Monte.
E. Maximization of economic growth and development in Focus Area M in a
way that serves the residents of the City of Arcadia.
F. Diversification of industrial land uses and employment opportunities in the
City of Arcadia.
G. Diversification of the City's economy by adding logistics buildings that are
in demand in the regional, state, and international marketplace.
142
H. Provision of an attractive, state-of-the-art, Class A logistics center that
meets current industry standards for operational design, in close proximity
to 1-605 on- and off-ramps.
I. Increase in the number of jobs provided in the City of Arcadia that will be
available to residents of the City and surrounding areas. The Project is
expected to create approximately 995 new, recurring, permanent jobs that
are calculated to generate approximately $46.7 million in recurring annual
employee wages, notwithstanding the multiplier effect that will create
secondary jobs to support the Project and its employees.
J. Creation of approximately 712 one-time, construction jobs that will
generate approximately $39.2 million in one-time employee wages,
notwithstanding the multiplier effect that will create secondary jobs to
support Project-related construction activities and the needs of
construction workers.
K. Improve the existing unfavorable jobs-housing balance in the City and the
surrounding area.
L. Construction of infrastructure improvements in and adjacent to Focus Area
M, including roadway improvements, sidewalk, landscaped parkways,
domestic water, sewer, street lights, and a traffic signal, which will benefit
the general public and properties in the surrounding area.
M. Collection of approximately $1.3 million in City Traffic Impact Fees and
approximately $3 million in City permitting fees. The City uses these fees
to benefit the greater community by increasing available funding for
needed public services and infrastructure.
N. Provision of additional property tax revenue to the City, which will help pay
for public services. The Project will provide the City with an estimated
recurring, annual surplus of approximately $205,000, after accounting for
the Project's recurring revenues (tax revenue) and the City's costs to
provide public services to the Project.
0. Provision of approximately $600,000 in development impact fees to the El
Monte City School District and El Monte Union High School District.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the
public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified
significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The
City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs
143
....
all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 13. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit "A." Implementation of the Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a
condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the
Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. In the event of
any inconsistencies between the Regulatory Requirements set forth herein, in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and State, federal, and local laws, the
State, federal, and local laws shall control.
SECTION 14. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the Final EIR, which it has
reviewed and considered, and further finds that the Final EIR is an accurate and
objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined
by the State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 have been received by the City Council after
circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.
144
inmismimponimow
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR based on the entirety of
the record of proceedings.
SECTION 15. CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
this Resolution has been based are located in the office of the City Clerk, Arcadia City
Hall at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA. The custodian for these records is the
Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager. This information is provided in compliance
with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 16. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles and the
State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval.
SECTION 17. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2016.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
gtirht, 1? 14=4
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
145
Exhibit "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
146