HomeMy WebLinkAbout7530RESOLUTION NO. 7530
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
"THE DERBY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT" WITH 214 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, INCLUDING 9 AFFORDABLE UNITS, LOCATED AT 233 & 301 E.
HUNTINGTON DRIVE
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2022, applications were filed with the City of Arcadia
("City") for General Plan Amendment No. GPA 22-01, Zone Change No. ZC 22-01, Minor
Use Permit No. MUP 22-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 22-06, along with a
Lot Line Adjustment (filed on August 11, 2022), to construct "The Derby Mixed -Use
Development' a new mixed-use development at 233 & 301 East Huntington Drive. The
project includes a density bonus and will result in a six -story mixed-use building
containing 214 residential units, including 9 affordable units (collectively, the "Project"),
and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been prepared by
the City for the Project. This Final EIR has been prepared in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA") statutes (Cal. Pub. Res. Code,
Section 21000 et. seq., as amended) and implementing guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title
14, Section 15000 et. seq.); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation
("NOP") was circulated for a 30 -day public review starting on October 14, 2022, to public
agencies, organizations, and interested individuals; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2022, an in-person scoping meeting was held. The
purpose of this meeting was to seek input from public agencies and the general public
1
regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The City received
no comments/questions with environmental concerns during the scoping meeting but
eight (8) individuals requested to be placed on a mailing list for further information; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The 45 -day public review period for the
Draft EIR started on August 4, 2023, and ended on September 19, 2023. At the beginning
of the public review period, an electronic copy of the Draft EIR and an electronic copy of
the Notice of Completion ("NOC") and Notice of Availability ("NOK) were submitted to the
State Clearinghouse and Los Angeles Recorders Office. The 45 -day public review period
provided interested public agencies, groups, and individuals the opportunity to comment
on the contents of the Draft EIR. A total of three agency, organization, and individual
comment letters were received and are included in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments,
of this Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR addresses the comments received during the public
review period and includes minor changes to the text of the Draft EIR in accordance with
comments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council shall
make findings for each of the significant effects identified in the EIR and shall support the
findings with substantial evidence in the record. After considering the Final EIR in
conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the City may decide whether or
how to approve or carry out the Project. When a lead agency approves a project that will
result in the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency is required by CEQA to state in writing the
K
specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in
the record. Because the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts,
a "statement of overriding considerations" is not required to be prepared. The Final EIR
identified potentially significant effects that could result from the Project but can be
mitigated through mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, a duly noticed public hearing was held before
the Planning Commission on said applications, at which time all interested persons were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH #2022100298) consisting of the Draft EIR and responses to comments and
errata have been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA;
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and recommended with a 5-0 vote that
the City Council adopt the CEQA findings of fact; the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program; and certify the Final EIR for the Derby Mixed Use Development and approve
the Project with conditions and mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Final EIR prepared for the Project,
the staff reports pertaining to the Final EIR, the Planning Commission hearing minutes
and staff report, and all evidence and comments received by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified certain significant and potential significant
adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project, but that the inclusion of certain
mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project will reduce all impacts to less -
3
than -significant levels; therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures
or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant
environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Exhibit "A" (Findings of Fact) and Exhibit "B" (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program) of this Resolution provide findings required under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines for significant effects of the Project. The City Council hereby adopts these
various findings of fact attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".
2. Exhibit "A" of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section 15093 of
the CEQA Guidelines that addresses the environmental effects associated with the
proposed Derby Mixed -Use Development, as described in the Draft EIR. The Findings of
Fact, attached hereto, examines the full range of potential effects of construction and
operation of the Project and identifies mitigation measures that could be employed to
reduce, minimize, or avoid any potential effects.
3. After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City
Council hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval
of the Project will result in less -than -significant effects on the environment.
4. The City Council has considered alternatives to the Project and finds based on
substantial evidence in the record that the Project is the best alternative that can be
feasibly implemented in light of relevant economic, legal, social, technological, or other
0
considerations make the Project infeasible. The City Council hereby rejects all other
alternatives, thereof.
5. These findings made by the City Council are supported by substantial evidence in
the record, which is summarized herein.
6. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
("MMRP") is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures
identified in the EIR. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures are fully
enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be binding upon the City and affected
parties.
7. The City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and that
approval of the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for public health, safety,
and welfare.
SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council hereby certifies the Final
EIR in accordance with CEQA, for the Derby Mixed -Use Development approved under
Resolution No. 7532 for the Derby Mixed -Use Development at 233 & 301 E. Huntington
Drive, subject to the conditions of approval in Resolution No. 7532 and mitigation
measures, attached hereto and under Resolution No. 7532.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
[SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE]
yIS
Passed, approved and adopted this 19th day of December, 2023.
ATTEST:
dla�
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Maurer
City Attorney
C:
of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, GENE GLASCO, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the
foregoing Resolution No. 7530 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 19th day of December, 2023 and that said Resolution was adopted by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cheng, Kwan, Wang, Cao, and Verlato
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
EXHIBIT "A
FINDINGS OF FACT
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR
(SCH No. 2022100298)
Prepared for:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Contact: Lisa Flores, Planning and Community Development Administrator
Prepared by.
DUDEK
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Kristin Starbird, Senior Project Manager
OCTOBER 2023
Printed on 30% post -consumer recycled material.
Table of Contents
SECTION
PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1
Record of Proceedings.............................................................................................................2
1.1.2
Custodian and Location of Records.........................................................................................2
1.2 Project Summary ....................................................................................................................................3
1.2.1
Project Location........................................................................................................................3
1.1.3
Project Objectives.....................................................................................................................3
1.1.3
Project Description...................................................................................................................4
1.1.3
Discretionary Actions................................................................................................................4
2 CEQA FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT........................................................................................ 6
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis.........................................................................................................6
2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation.......................................................6
2.2.1
Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................7
2.2.2
Geology and Soils.....................................................................................................................9
2.2.3
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................
11
2.2.4
Noise.......................................................................................................................................15
2.2.5
Transportation........................................................................................................................17
2.2.6
Tribal Cultural Resources......................................................................................................19
2.2.7
Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................
24
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant.............................................................................
25
2.3.1
Aesthetics...............................................................................................................................26
2.4.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources......................................................................................
26
2.4.3
Air Qua Iity...............................................................................................................................27
2.3.4
Biological Resources.............................................................................................................
30
2.4.5
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................
32
2.3.6
Energy.....................................................................................................................................35
2.3.7
Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................
38
2.3.8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................42
2.3.9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................
44
2.3.10
.........................................
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................... .....
46
2.3.11
.........................
Land Use and Planning........................................................................ .........
50
2.3.12
Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................
52
2.3.13
Noise.......................................................................................................................................53
2.3.14
Population and Housing........................................................................................................
55
2.3.15
Public Services and Recreation............................................................................................
58
2.3.16
Transportation........................................................................................................................62
The Derby Mixed -Use Proiect 11663.05
October 2023
i
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources......................................................................................................64
2.3.18 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................
65
2.3.19 Wildfire...................................................................................................................................
70
3 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................
71
3.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Consideration................................................................................
71
3.1.1 Alternative A- No Project/No Development.........................................................................
71
3.1.2 Alternative 13- Reduced Commercial....................................................................................
73
3.1.2 Alternative C- Reduced Commercial (The Derby)/No H7 Special Height Overlay .............
74
3.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................................................
75
4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................
77
4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation.......................................................................................................
77
4.2 Legal Effects of Findings.....................................................................................................................
78
5 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................
79
6 REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................................................
81
The Derby Mixed -Use Pro ect _ _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 ii
1 Introduction
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed
The Derby Mixed -Use Project (proposed Project), as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These
Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code,
Section 21000 et seq.), specifically California Public Resources Code, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6,
and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), specifically Sections 15091 and 15093. The Draft EIR examines
the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project and identifies mitigation practices
that could be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects.
1.1 Purpose
California Public Resources Code, Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the lead agency, in
this case the City of Arcadia (City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public
agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In accordance with California Public Resource Code, Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093,
whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision-making agency is
required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when
determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." In that case, the decision-making
agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
The Project does not result in any impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant; therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required.
The EIR identified potentially significant effects that could result from the Project. The City finds that the
inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project will reduce all impacts to less -
than -significant levels.
As required by CEQA, the City, in adoptingthese Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the Project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these
Findings, meets the requirements of California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, by providing for the
implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Project.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 1
FINDINGS OF FACT
In accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings for the Project. Pursuant to
California Public Resources Code, Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that these Findings reflect the City's
independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project.
1.1.1 Record of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and the Findings herein set forth, the record of proceedings for the Project consists of
those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e). The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project
consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are incorporated by reference and
made part of the record supporting these Findings:
a) The Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the Project
b) The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents relied upon or incorporated by
reference
c) All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public
review comment period on the Draft EIR and the City's responses to those comments
d) The Final EIR for the Project
e) The MMRP for the Project
f) All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project
prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements
of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Project
g) All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with
the Draft EIR
h) Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings
held by the City in connection with the Project
i) Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings,
and public hearings
j) All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries
related to the adoption of those resolutions
k) Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and
regulations
1) Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and any other materials
required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section 21167.6(e)
1.1.2 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City's actions related to the
Project are located atthe City of Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, California 91007. The City Clerk is the custodian
of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.2 Project Summary
1.2.1 Project Location
The Project site is located within an urban portion of the City within Los Angeles County, approximately 13 miles
east of downtown Los Angeles. The western portion of the Project site (APN 5773-009-070) is an approximately
1.34 -acre parcel which includes The Derby Restaurant at 233 E. Huntington Drive. The eastern portion of the Project
site (APN 5773-009-065) is an approximately 0.89 -acre parcel which includes the closed Souplantation restaurant
at 301 East Huntington Drive. Regional access to the Project site is provided by the eastbound/westbound Foothill
Freeway (Interstate [I-] 210) tothe northeastof the Project site, with freewayaccess ramps via E. Huntington Drive located
approximately 0.23 -mile from the Project site. The Project site is located approximately 0.32 -mile to the southeast of the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) A Line (formerly L/Gold Line) Arcadia Station, which is
located near the intersection of Santa Clara Street and First Avenue.
North of the Project site are commercial uses (e.g., Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn, and Residence Inn hotels) and
associated surface parking lots along with ornamental landscaping. Land uses adjacent to and east of the Project
site include various retail and restaurant uses and accompanying surface parking lots and landscaping. The
neighboring City of Monrovia boundary is approximately 700 feet east of Gateway Drive (in alignment with Fifth
Avenue). Immediately south of the Projectsite, across E. Huntington Drive, are various retail and restaurant spaces,
associated surface parking lots, and landscaping. Further south is the Metro A Line railway as well as the Arcadia
Unified School District office building, Bonita Park, and associated surface parking lots. To the southeast are
multiple office buildings with surface parking lots and ornamental landscaping. The Metro A Line tracks, which run
northwest/southeast in the vicinity of the Project site, are approximately 175 feet to the southwest of the Project
site at their closest point. Immediately west of the Project is the Embassy Suites hotel and associated surface
parking as well as ornamental landscaping. Other hotel buildings, restaurants, retail spaces, and offices are located
west of North 2nd Avenue (Draft EIR, pp. ES -3 and ES -4).
1.1.3 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by the Project. The
objectives assist the City in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The Project
objectives also aid decision makers in preparing Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, if
necessary. The statement of objectives also is to include the purpose of a project and may discuss a project's
benefits. The Project's specific objectives are as follows (Draft EIR, p. ES -5):
1. To efficiently develop currently under-utilized property within a Transit Priority Area into a mixed-use, high-
density, urban development that provides convenient access to alternative forms of transportation,
including bicycling, bus lines and the Metro A Line light-rail station.
2. To provide new multifamily residential housing, including affordable housing, that helps meet the City's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements.
3. To provide a compact, mixed-use development in Downtown Arcadia within an established Land Use Focus
Area to further facilitate the City as a destination stop on the Metro A Line.
4. To encourage building design that creates a cohesive, vibrant look in Downtown Arcadia and that minimizes
the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
5. To provide an adequate amount of on-site vehicle, bicycle, and electric vehicle stalls that satisfy the City's
Municipal Code Parking Requirements
6. To provide employment opportunities through construction, maintenance and operation of new housing
and commercial uses.
7. To support and modernize a locally important business in the neighborhood with a larger, more open
floorplan and up-to-date facilities that meet current building codes.
1.1.3 Project Description
The proposed Project would demolish the existing buildings and surface parking lots on the Project site and a lot
line adjustment would merge the two existing lots into one legal lot. In addition to The Derby's new restaurant space,
the Project would construct 205 market rate units and 9 affordable units (totaling 214 for -rent dwelling units), a
3,300 square foot restaurant space, and a 1,400 square foot cafe space. The proposed six -story mixed-use building
would have an overall maximum height of 71 feet, including a 3 -foot parapet. The Project would also include one
level of subterranean (i.e., basement level) parking for residents, as well as ground -level commercial and valet
parking, including a podium parking structure and surface parking lots. In total, the Project would provide 412
vehicle parking spaces, as well as motorcycle spaces and bicycle parking.
The Project would require a General Plan Amendment to the land use designation of "Downtown Mixed Use" and a
zone change to the zoning designation of Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) with a H7 Height Overlay. The environmental
impact assessments contained in Section 4.1 through Section 4.15 of this Draft EIR are focused on the
environmental impacts associated with redevelopment of the Project site and off-site components required to
implement the Project.
The City's General Plan Downtown Mixed Use land -use designation allows for a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for
commercial uses of 1.0. The total commercial area of the Project consists of 17,550 square feet (consisting of The
Derby restaurant, an adjacent restaurant, and cafe space). The Project site is 2.23 acres or approximately 97,139
square feet. Therefore, the Project's FAR would result in 0.18, which is consistent with the General Plan's maximum
of 1.0 (Draft EIR, p. ES -4).
1.1.3 Discretionary Actions
City of Arcadia
The City of Arcadia, as lead agency for the Project, has the responsibility for reviewing, processing, and approving
the proposed Project. If development is proposed that results in environmental impacts not assumed within this
Draft EIR or covered under the impact analyses and mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR, or if substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken and/or new information of substantial
importance becomes available after the certification of this Draft EIR, the City will evaluate the need for
supplemental environmental documentation per Sections 15162 to 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The following is a summary of discretionary actions the City of Arcadia will consider (Draft EIR, pp. 3-15 and 3-16):
• General Plan Amendment to Downtown Mixed Use (GPA No. 22-01)
• Zone Change to Downtown Mixed Use with Height Overlay (H7) (ZC No. 22-01)
• Certificate of Demolition (COD No. 22-20)
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 4
FINDINGS OF FACT
• Minor Use Permit (Mixed -Use Development; Valet Parking; Outdoor Dining in Excess of 12 Tables (MUP
No. 22-02)
• Lot Line Adjustment (LLA No. 22-02)
• Site Plan and Design Review (Density Bonus) (ADR No. 22-06)
Responsible Agencies
A public agency, other than the lead agency, that has discretionary approval over a project is known as a "responsible
agency," as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15096. There are no other public agencies that have discretionary
authority over the proposed Project.
Other Permits and Approvals
Other permits and approvals are required for Project implementation that are not subject to discretionary review, but
nevertheless require actions by the applicant and/or the City to obtain the necessary approvals to implement the
proposed Project. Other permits and approvals required, and their respective agency administrators, are listed below:
• City of Arcadia
c Reduction of required tandem parking spaces in conformance with State Density Bonus Law
o Tree Permit
o Grading Permit, Demolition, Building and other construction permits
o Encroachment permit for work in the City's right-of-way
• California Department of Transportation, District 7
o Oversized Vehicle Permit
• California Water Resources Control Board
o Coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS000002, General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 5
2 CEQA Findings of
Independent Judgement
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis
Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR; (2) circulate draft documents that
reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects
the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4) submit copies of the documents to the State Clearinghouse
if there is state agency involvement or if the project is of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance (California
Public Resources Code, Section 21082.1[c]).
These Findings reflect the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in
accordance with CEQA Section 21O82.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant in the preparation of
the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final EIR, as well as any and all other information
in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5,
and 21081.6.
2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the Project that require findings to be made under CEQA
Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15O91(a)(1). Based on substantial evidence, the City finds that
adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in this section will reduce the identified significant impacts to less -
than -significant levels:
Cultural Resources
• Archaeological Resources
• Cumulative Effect
Geology and Soils
• Paleontological Resources
• Cumulative Effect
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials/Release of Hazardous Materials and the
Potential for Upset Conditions
• Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials
• Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
• Cumulative Effect
Noise
• Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
• Cumulative Effect
Transportation
• Hazards due to a Road Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
• Short-term Inadequate Emergency Access
Tribal Cultural Resources
• California Public Resource Code, Section 5024.1
• Cumulative Effect
Utilities and Service Systems
• Require Construction of New or Expanded Wastewater Conveyance
• Cumulative Effect
Other impacts addressed for Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public
Services and Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire are addressed under Section
2.3, Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant.
2.2.1 Cultural Resources
2.2.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
No prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources have been identified within the Project site as a result of
background research, CHRIS database records search (completed January 13, 2022), or the archaeological
pedestrian survey (completed August 2022). The potential to encounter unknown intact archaeological resources
is considered low, but possible during ground disturbing activities within native soil (below 2 to 3 ft of existing
grade). Due to the inability to observe native soils during the pedestrian survey and because no previous cultural
investigation had occurred prior to placement of fill soils there could be the potential for archeological resources to
be present in areas below 4ft in depth. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources are encountered during
Project construction, impacts to these resources would be potentially significant. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure (MM-) CUL -1 would require an inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, to be
added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing activities and preparation and implementation of
a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP); requires that a qualified archaeologist is retained and on-call
to respond to any inadvertent discoveries during Project construction; and requires that all construction work
occurring within 50 feet of any find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 7
FINDINGS OF FACT
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find. Thus,
potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less -than -significant levels with MM -
CUL -1 incorporated (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 and 4.3-22).
Cumulative Effect
For archaeological resources, cumulative projects may require extensive excavation in culturally sensitive areas,
and thus, may result in adverse effects to known or previously unknown, inadvertently discovered archaeological
resources. There is the potential for accidental discovery of other archaeological resources by the Project as well
as by cumulative projects. Because all significant cultural resources are unique and non-renewable, all adverse
effects or negative impacts contribute to a dwindling resource base. This is considered a significant cumulative
impact. However, through implementation of MM -CUL -1 the project -level impact to archeological resources would
be reduced to less than significant and no additional mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-23).
2.2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
MM -CUL -1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, an inadvertent discovery clause, written by an
archaeologist, shall be added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing activities
and the Project applicantshall retain a qualified archaeologist, meetingthe Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia Planning and Community
Development Department (City) for review and approval. All construction personnel and monitors
shall be presented the WEAP training prior to the start of construction activities. The WEAP shall be
prepared to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the
area, to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during
construction, to explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant
archaeological resources, and to outline the actions to be taken in the event of a discovery of cultural
resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural
resources or human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. These procedures
include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and
archaeological monitor.
The WEAP shall require that a qualified archaeologist be retained and on-call to respond to and
address any inadvertent discoveries identified during initial excavation in native soils, which
underly the 2-4 feet below ground surface of artificial fill soils. As it pertains to archaeological
monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed
or displaced by project -related construction.
If potential archaeological resources (i.e., sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the Project, the City shall be notified and all construction work occurring
within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The
archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal
of abundant or large artifacts. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15064.5[fj; PRC, Section 21082), the archaeologist may
simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan and data recovery, may
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 1_1663.05
October 2023 8
FINDINGS OF FACT
be warranted. The archaeologist shall also be required to curate any discovered specimens in a
repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a written report to the City of Arcadia for
review and approval prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Once approved, the final
report shall be filed with the South -Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
2.2.1.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.1.1. This feasible measure,
MM -CUL -1, is listed in Section 2.2.1.2.
The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, as adopted, and will reduce the Project's potential impacts
to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA
Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on cultural resources.
2.2.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Cultural Resources
Implementation of MM -CUL -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources by
addressing the inadvertent discovery of archeological resources. There would be no significant, unavoidable
impacts related to cultural resources after implementation of this mitigation measure.
2.2.2 Geology and Soils
2.2.2.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Geology and Soils
Paleontological Resources
No paleontological resources were identified within the Project site as a result of the paleontological records search
and desktop geological review; however, numerous fossil localities from Pleistocene alluvial deposits have been
documented nearby (see Draft EIR Appendix E-2). While the Project site has been disturbed by development over
the years, intact paleontological resources may be present below the original layer of fill and Holocene alluvial
deposits. The Project site has low paleontological sensitive that increases with depth, where Pleistocene deposits
may occur. In the event that intact paleontological resources are present Project site at depth, ground -disturbing
activities associated with construction of the Project have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site. Without mitigation, the potential damage to paleontological resources during construction would be a
potentially significant impact. However, upon implementation of MM-GEO-1, construction impacts would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18).
Cumulative Effect
Most impacts to paleontological resources are site-specific and are therefore generally mitigated on a project -by -
project basis. Cumulative projects would be required to assess impacts to paleontological resources. Additionally,
as needed, projects would incorporate individual mitigation for site-specific geological units present on each
individual project site. Furthermore, the Project does not propose construction (including grading/excavation) or
design features that could directly or indirectly contribute to an increase in a cumulative impact to paleontological
resources, as the mitigation measure provided in this analysis ensures any significant paleontological resources
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 9
FINDINGS OF FACT
uncovered during Project excavations would be properly analyzed and salvaged by a qualified paleontologist.
Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts related to paleontological resources would not be
cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-20 and 4.5-21).
2.2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1 In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are exposed during construction activities
forthe Project, all construction work occurringwithin 50feet ofthefind shall immediatelystop until
a Qualified Paleontologist meeting Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) standards can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If
the discovery is clearly not significant, the paleontologist may document the find and allow work to
continue. If significant paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the
qualified paleontologist shall prepare and submit a Paleontological Resources Recovery Plan
(PRRP) to the City for review and approval. The recovery plan shall include, but is not limited to,
sampling and fossil recovery procedures, museum curation for any scientifically significant
specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the PRRP as approved by the
City shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the
significant paleontological resources were discovered. Any reports and plans resulting from
implementation of this measure shall be submitted to City Planning Division and filed with the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
2.2.2.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.2.1. This feasible measure,
MM-GEO-1, is listed in Section 2.2.2.2.
The City finds thatthis mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the Project's potential impacts to
paleontological resources to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils.
2.2.2.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Geology and Soils
Potential impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant. Incorporation of MM-GEO-1 would reduce
construction -related impacts to paleontological resources to a less -than -significant level. There would be no
significant, unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils after implementation of these mitigation measures.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 10
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2.2.3.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials/Release of Hazardous Materials and the Potential for
Upset Conditions
Short -Term Construction Impacts
Given the age of the building located at 233 E. Huntington Drive (The Derby Restaurant), there is a possibility that
asbestos -containing materials and lead based paint is present at the property. While unlikely given the date of
construction, there is a possibility these materials are also present in the building located at 301 E. Huntington
Drive (former Souplantation restaurant). Additionally, many commercial buildings contain small amounts of PCBs,
mercury, and other universal wastes in such items as light fixtures and thermostats. Demolition of structures that
contain asbestos or other hazardous materials/wastes could result in a hazard during transport and disposal of the
construction debris, if not properly identified and managed. MM-HAZ-1 requires proper abatement of asbestos and
lead-based paint and identification and abatement of other hazardous materials and universal wastes prior to
demolition and construction activities. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, impacts associated with the routine
transport of asbestos, universal wastes, and hazardous materials for offsite disposal would be less -than -significant
with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17).
Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions
Short -Term Construction Impacts
The proposed Project has the potential to expose the public and the environment to hazards associated with the
removal, transport and disposal of hazardous materials including asbestos, lead-based paint (LBP), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) -containing items, and universal wastes present in the buildings scheduled for demolition.
Management of hazardous materials and waste during pre -demolition abatement activities would be addressed by
MM-HAZ-1. Construction activities would not be conducted in areas where hazardous materials are stored, and
potential impacts associated with hazardous materials would be addressed under MM-HAZ-1, therefore impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
A gasoline station was previously located in the eastern portion of the Project site between approximately 1938
and 1964. Prior to the development of the Souplantation restaurant in 1988, soil sampling was conducted in the
area where the former gas station was located (Converse 1988). Soil samples were analyzed for petroleum
hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and oil and grease. None of the samples were found to exceed laboratory
reporting limits (Converse 1988). One sample contained 1,461 mg/kg of total petroleum hydrocarbons and no TPH
was detected that exceeded the laboratory reporting limit. No further analysis was recommended in the Phase I
ESA (see Appendix F-2 of the Draft EIR) (Converse 1988).
The Phase II ESA conducted for the Project site included taking more soil samples and sub -slab vaporsamples. The
samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The analysis
concluded that no VOCs or TPH were present in any of the soil or sub -slab vapor samples (Appendix F-3 of the Draft
EIR). The lack of sub -slab vapor detections, along with the lack of soil detections at depth, indicates that there likely
is not widespread contamination at the site; however, it is still possible that some contamination and/or additional
USTs exist on the property. As a result, MM-HAZ-2 would be implemented, which includes a soil management plan
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 11
FINDINGS OF FACT
(SMP) be prepared to properly handle, transport, and dispose of contaminated soils removed from the Project site.
With adherence to federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and implementation of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-
2, short-term construction impacts associated with potential upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials to the environment would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR, pp.
4.7-18 and 4.7-19).
LongTerm Operational Impacts
According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) the Project site is not located within
300 feet of an oil or gas well or 1,000 feet of a methane -producing site; therefore, impacts due to proximity are not
anticipated (LADPW 2022). Additionally, the on-site soil and soil vapor sampling has indicated that it is unlikely that
widespread contamination of hazardous materials has occurred on the Project site. The implementation of MM-
HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ 2 however, would ensure that the post -construction level of hazardous materials would be
decreased to a less -than -significant level (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-19).
Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Short -Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the Project would occur primarily within the confines of the Project site; however, temporary
construction activities would be required in the adjacent roadway rights-of-way for the removal and/or
reconfiguration of raised medians on Gateway Drive and E. Huntington Drive, removal of a City -maintained
landscaped area protruding onto E. Huntington Drive, removal and reconfiguration of curb cuts, and required utility
connections. In accordance with MM -TRA -3 (discussed in Section 2.2.5, Transportation, of these Findings) the
Project applicant or the contractor shall develop and implement a City -approved Construction Traffic Control Plan
to ensure that appropriate detours and protocols are put in place during construction in order to maintain the safe
pedestrian and traffic flow, including in the event of an emergency evacuation or other emergency response
situation. Additionally, in accordance with Section 3303.1 of the California Fire Code (CFC), the Project applicant or
the contractor would be required to develop and implement a Site Safety Plan which would establish a fire
prevention program at the Project site that would be implemented throughout all phases of construction, repair,
alternation, or demolition work. The Site Safety Plan shall be submitted to the Arcadia Fire Department prior to the
issuance of a grading permit and shall include the designation of a site safety director, procedures for reporting
emergencies, fire department vehicle access routes, locations of fire protection equipment, smoking and cooking
policies, location and safety considerations for temporary heating equipment, plansforcontrol of combustible waste
material, and provisions of site security. Thus, with implementation of MM -TRA 3 and compliance with Section
3303.1 of the CFC, the short-term construction impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR 4.7-20).
Cumulative Effects
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials/Release of Hazardous Materials and the Potential for
Upset Conditions
With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, impacts associated with the routine transport of asbestos, universal wastes,
and hazardous materials for offsite disposal during construction would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated. Through the required CEQA review process, if it is determined that existing regulations are insufficient
to reduce other cumulative project impacts to less than significant levels, than the City would require
implementation of similar mitigation measures on a project -by -project basis. Therefore, through compliance with
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 12
FINDINGS OF FACT
applicable regulations and required CEQA review, which would ensure implementation of any required mitigation,
impacts related to the Project in combination with cumulative projects would not be cumulatively considerable
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-22).
Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions
The Project site has the possibility of soil contamination and/or additional USTs exist on the property. As a result,
the Project incorporates MM-HAZ-2, which requires a SMP to be prepared to properly handle, transport, and dispose
of contaminated soils from the Project site. The SMP required by MM-HAZ-2 would also include health and safety
procedures, including breathing zone monitoring, to prevent possible exposure of onsite workers to elevated
concentrations of hazardous materials. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would ensure that Project -
related activities would not result in significant impacts. Similar to the proposed Project, cumulative projects would
be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws that govern the removal of such substances and the proper
treatment of contaminated soils. Compliance with these laws would prevent the release of hazardous building
materials resulting from construction activities on the sites of cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity and
prevent releases of hazardous materials from soils on the Project site or cumulative project sites into the
environment. As with the Project, cumulative projects would be subject to CEQA, whereby any potential impacts
related to hazards created by upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment would be identified and mitigated, as appropriate. As such by adhering to existing requirements and
regulations, and with implementation of required mitigation, cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-23).
Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The cumulative projects are in the vicinity of E. Huntington Drive and Interstate -210, which are designated disaster
evacuation routes. Although construction of cumulative projects would occur primarily within the project sites,
temporary construction activities may be required in the roadway right-of-way along E. Huntington Drive for
cumulative projects A6, A2, M1, M2, and M3 which has the potential to interfere with traffic flow and emergency
response. However, as with Project, the cumulative projects in the City and neighboring City of Monrovia would be
subject to CEQA review. Through CEQA, any potential construction related impacts with the potential to impair or
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be identified and
mitigated at the project level, as appropriate. Additionally, cumulative projects along E. Huntington Drive are a
substantial enough distance away from one another so as not to cause a bottleneck on a specific block or segment
of E. Huntington Drive. As with the City, the City of Monrovia has adopted the CFC as their municipal fire code. Thus,
all cumulative projects would be subjectto CFC provisions pertainingto emergency access and preparedness, which
would help support emergency responders and emergency response activities in the event of a natural disaster or
other largescale event requiring implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan, such as the OAERP
or EMP. For cumulative projects in the City, the General Plan Safety Element contains policies which require police
and fire department personnel to be involved in the development review process and require new developments to
pay for costs associated with increased public safety needs. Thus, with compliance with applicable CFC standards,
City General Plan policies, and implementation of MM -TRA -3, the Project's impacts, in combination with cumulative
projects, would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-24).
2.2.3.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1 Hazardous Building Materials Survey. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any existing
on-site structures, a qualified environmental specialist shall conduct a survey for asbestos -
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 13
FINDINGS OF FACT
containing materials, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous
building materials, such as universal wastes and refrigerants, to document the presence of any
potentially hazardous materials within the structures. If survey results are positive, all potentially
hazardous materials identified as part of this survey shall be handled and disposed in accordance
with the federal and state hazardous waste and universal waste regulations. Demolition plans and
contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with
the findings of the hazardous building materials survey and federal, state, and local regulations,
including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates disposal),
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (which regulates employee exposure), the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, and the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (Public Resources Code, Section 42160 et seq.),
particularly Public Resources Code, Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the
removal of mercury switches, PCB -containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Upon completion of
construction activities, proof of proper handling and disposal shall be provided to the City's Public
Works Department.
MM-HAZ-2 Contaminated Soil Management. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
applicant/developer shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a soil
management plan (SMP) that outlines the proper screening, handling, characterization,
transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on site based on the findings of the
site-specific conditions, geophysical surveys, and Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments,
and shall identify any areas of known or suspected soil contamination. The SMP shall be provided
to the City's Development Services Department for review prior to any site grading. The Project's
contractor shall ensure implementation of the SMP through the contract specifications for all
confirmed and suspected contaminated soils which require excavation and offsite disposal. The
SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for construction workers who may
come into contact with contaminated soils. The health and safety procedures shall include periodic
breathing zone monitoring for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a handheld organic vapor
analyzer and include required actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable
screening levels for health and safety of onsite workers and the public. The SMP shall also include
instructions for the identification of potentially -impacted soils, procedures for temporary cessation
of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern if potentially -impacted
soils or underground storage tanks are encountered, procedures for characterizing and managing
potentially -impacted soils, and follow-up procedures such as disposal and reporting, as necessary.
Contaminated soil shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations. Upon completion of construction activities, proof of compliance with the SMP
shall be provided to the City's Development Services Department.
MM -TRA -3 See Section 2.2.5, Transportation, of these Findings.
2.2.3.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.3.1. These feasible measures,
MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM -TRA -3 are listed in Section 2.2.3.2.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 14
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City finds that these mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the Project's potential
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that,
pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in or incorporated into the Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials.
2.2.3.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM -TRA -3 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials after implementation of this mitigation measure.
2.2.4 Noise
2.2.4.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Noise
Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Construction
Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities
occur outside the City's allowable hours of operation (see Conditions of Approval under Section 4.10.2.3 of the
Draft EIR). At the nearest noise sensitive receptor location (the Hampton Inn hotel pool), construction noise would
reach up to 89 dBA Leq, which is below Cal/OSHA's PEL (90 dBA) but greater than the AL limit (85 dBA) and thus
trigger a potential impact. Therefore, mitigation measure MM-NOI-1 is included to reduce construction noise
exposure levels below the action level when construction activities are allowed to occur during specified time
periods. Outside of these hours, and as emphasized by the City's Conditions of Approval, Sections 4261-4263 of
the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC) prohibits construction activity during these hours: 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on any
weekday, 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on any Saturday, and any time on Sunday or holidays. Therefore, with MM-NOI-1
applied to the Project, construction noise would be considered less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18 and 4.10-
19).
Cumulative Effects
Noise in Excess of Standards
Implementation of the Project as well as unrelated development projects within its vicinity would all be individually
subject to applicable noise standards. On this basis, and because noise impacts of the Project with respect to
relevant standards would be less than significant with mitigation, the Project would not contribute to cumulative
exceedances of noise standards, and its incremental effect would be a less -than -significant impact (Draft EIR, p.
4.10-22).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ _ _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 15
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.2.4.2 Mitigation Measures
MM -N01-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant/developer shall ensure that the
following measures are included in the construction contractor's contract specifications and that
the following measures are implemented and monitored for compliance throughout construction:
■ All construction equipment must have supplier -approved sound muffling devices (e.g., engine
air intake or exhaust treatment) installed and used in compliance with relevant industry
standards and Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to construction noise, which shall be properly
maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.
■ The construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site, including the hotels
located adjacent to the northern and northwestern boundaries of the Project site.
■ The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize
the distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors
nearest the Project site during the construction period.
■ All noise producing construction activities, including warming -up or servicing equipment and
any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on weekdays.
■ An eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected or installed along an extent of the
northern Project site property line where it is adjacent to the nearest noise -sensitive receptor.
The barrier can comprise one or more materials of construction and/or assembly, so long as
the net sound transmission class (STC) is 15 or better, and thus expected to yield a minimum
of 5 dB noise reduction when blocking direct sound paths between onsite Project construction
noise -producing activities or equipment and the offsite receptor of concern. The horizontal
extent of the installed barrier should be compatible with Caltrans or other industry guidance
with respect to minimizing flanking effects around the ends of the barrier, based on both the
offsite receptor position and the onsite position or zone of construction activity.
2.2.4.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.4.1. This feasible measure,
MM -N01-1, is listed in Section 2.2.4.2.
The Cityfinds thatthis mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reducethe potential noise -related impacts
of the Project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1)
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts related to noise.
2.2.4.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Noise
With incorporation of MM -N01-1, potential significant impacts related to construction noise would be reduced to
less than significant. All other potential environmental impacts to noise would be less than significant. There would
be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to noise after implementation of this mitigation measure.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 16
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.2.5 Transportation
2.2.5.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Transportation
Hazards due to a Road Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
On and Off -Site Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis was prepared for all Project driveways to assess the adequacy of any off-site storage lanes into
the Project site, as well as the adequacy of driveway throat lengths and space on-site for vehicles to queue without
effecting the internal circulation on the Project site. None of the calculated 95th percentile (design) queues exceed
storage capacities within the existing left -turn pockets on Gateway Drive or the two -way -left -turn lane (TWLTL) along
E. Huntington Drive, with exception of the eastbound left -turn pocket at the Gateway Drive/E. Huntington Drive
intersection. Analysis of existing conditions shows that queuing extends past the approximately 35 feet left -turn
pocket (see Appendix J of the Draft EIR). As this pocket length is limited under current conditions, further
exceedance of the available storage capacity is expected with the addition of Project trips. Therefore, impacts
related to roadway design would be significant prior to mitigation.
Therefore, to ensure that adequate stacking distance is available, Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA -1 is required and
includes removing and reconfiguring the raised median on E. Huntington Drive to extend the eastbound left -turn
pocket onto Gateway Drive to be at least 75 feet in length. It is anticipated that implementation of MM -TRA -1 would
likely require the elimination of the median in its entirety; however, design plans must be prepared and submitted
to the City and implemented to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director.
Additionally, queuing is forecast to extend up to 255 feet (approximately 10 vehicles) within the courtyard for
vehicles exiting out to E. Huntington Drive under Horizon Year (2040) plus Project conditions. Approximately 125
feet (or five (5) vehicles) could queue within the courtyard to exit the site before queued vehicles begin to impact
other on-site operations. However, it should be noted that this driveway is primarily set up as a valet entrance and
exit for The Derby restaurant, and other users would likely use the parking garage entrance along Gateway Drive
(Driveway B) if they observe queuing within the courtyard. To limit driver confusion, MM -TRA -2 is required, which
would mandate the preparation of a Parking Signage Plan that requires appropriate signage for residents and
commercial visitors. The Plan must include signage within the commercial section of the parking structure directing
personal vehicles to use the Gateway Drive egress to exit the Project site in order to eliminate potential conflicts
with valet operations.
Implementation of MM -TRA -1 and MM -TRA -2 would reduce potential impacts related to queuing to less than
significant. Aside from the above-mentioned queues, none of the other queues are forecast to conflict with turning
movements into or out of the Project site, or within the internal access drive aisles, with Project -added traffic during
the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) conditions (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-12 through 4.13-14).
Inadequate Emergency Access.
Construction
Short-term adverse traffic and parking impacts could occur in the Project vicinity during construction of the Project.
Additional trips generated by the truck deliveries and construction employees could affect traffic flow in the study
area; construction activity could impact traffic near the Project site; and pedestrian traffic flow near the Project site
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 17
FINDINGS OF FACT
could also be altered as a result of construction. To ensure adequate safeguards for pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access during short-term construction activities, MM- TRA -3 requires
preparation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan to address pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation during
construction activities. Implementation of MM -TRA -3 would reduce potential impacts related to emergency access
to less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-14).
Cumulative Effect
Hazards due to a Road Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
As discussed above, the Project's reconfiguration of the existing site access would not result in hazardous
conditions into or out of the Project site, with the exception of the eastbound left -turn pocket at the Gateway Drive/E.
Huntington Drive intersection. Therefore, to ensure that adequate stacking distance is available, MM -TRA -1 is
required and includes removing and reconfiguring the raised median on E. Huntington Drive to extend the
eastbound left -turn pocketto at least 75 feet. Extendingthe left turn pocket would accommodate the Opening Year
(2025) Plus Project and Horizon Year (2040) Plus Project conditions, which accounts for cumulative traffic in the
study area. Additionally, queuing is forecast to extend up to 193 feet (approximately 8 vehicles) within the courtyard
for vehicles exiting out to E. Huntington Drive under Horizon Year (2040) plus Project conditions. To limit driver
confusion, MM -TRA -2 is required and includes installing signage within the commercial section of the parking
structure directing personal vehicles to use the Gateway Drive egress to exit the Project site during valet
operations. With implementation of MM -TRA -1 and MM -TRA -2, the Project would not result in adverse circulation
conditions and would be less than significant. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts with respect
to hazardous design features.
Inadequate Emergency Access
Impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be identical to the impacts described in the Project -specific
impacts section; therefore, they are not repeated in the cumulative impact's evaluation. MM -TRA -3 requires
preparation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan to address pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation during
construction activities, which would address any potential cumulative impacts related to traffic along E. Huntington
Drive. Implementation of MM -TRA -3 would reduce potential impacts related to emergency access to less than
significant and the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to inadequate emergency access.
2.2.5.2 Mitigation Measures
MM -TRA -IL Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant/developer shall coordinate with the
City Engineer to prepare engineering plans that remove and reconfigure the raised median on
E. Huntington Drive to extend the eastbound left -turn pocket to at least 75 feet. Plans shall be
prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director. The reconfigured
median on E. Huntington Drive shall be completed and operational prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for The Derby restaurant.
MM -TRA -2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project applicant/developer shall prepare a Parking
Signage Plan to clearly identify ingress/egress and circulation for residents and commercial
visitors. The Parking Signage Plan shall require that adequate signage be installed within the
commercial section of the parking structure directing personal vehicles to use the Gateway Drive
The Derbv Mixed -Use Proiect 11663.05
October 2023 18
FINDINGS OF FACT
egress to exit the Project site, and to prohibit egress through the courtyard to E. Huntington Drive,
in order to avoid conflicts with valet operations.
MM -TRA -3 Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project applicant/developer shall have
a qualified transportation professional prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan, which shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with
applicable City guidelines and shall address the potential for construction -related vehicular traffic,
as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation disruption in the public right-of-way. The Plan shall
describe safe detours and shall include protocols for implementing the following: temporary traffic
controls (e.g., a flag person during heavy truck traffic for soil export) to maintain safe pedestrian
and trafficflow; dedicated on-site turn lanes for construction trucks and equipment leavingthe site;
scheduling of peak construction truck traffic that affects traffic flow on the arterial system to off-
peak hours; consolidation of truck deliveries; and/or rerouting of construction trucks away from
congested streets or sensitive receptors.
2.2.5.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed forthe potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.5.1. Thesefeasible measures
MM -TRA -1, MM -TRA -2, and MM -TRA -3 are listed in Section 2.2.5.2.
The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential transportation -
related impacts of the Project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA
Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts related to transportation.
2.2.5.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Transportation
With incorporation of MM -TRA -1, MM -TRA -2, and MM -TRA -3, potential significant impacts related transportation
would be reduced to less than significant. All other potential environmental impacts to transportation would be less
than significant. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to transportation after implementation
of this mitigation measure.
2.2.6 Tribal Cultural Resources
2.2.6.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources
Register of Historical Resources and Public Resource Code Section 5024.1
Assembly Bill (AB 52) requires lead agencies to provide tribes who have requested notification with early notice of
the proposed Project and, if requested, consultation to inform the CEQA process with respect to tribal cultural
resources (TCRs). Two Native American tribes (the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation [Kizh Nation)
and the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe) requested to be notified of AB -52 -eligible projects under the City's jurisdiction.
Consultation with the Kizh Nation occurred on January 31, 2023 and has been concluded.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project
October 2023
11663.05
19
FINDINGS OF FACT
Visual observation of the current conditions within the proposed Project site indicate that all areas have been
disturbed as a result of urban development. Neitherthe California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
records search nor the pedestrian survey was able to identify any archaeological resources within the Project site.
However, the Kizh Nation provided tribal archival documentation to the City that demonstrates the cultural
sensitivity of the area to the Tribe. Consultation under Senate Bill (SB) 18 did not identify any specific, known TCRs
within the Project site.
Project construction would involve some disturbance to native soils whether intact or previously disturbed. Because
the proposed Project would involve excavations to a depth of up to 14 feet below ground surface and drilling up to
a depth of 45 feet below ground surface, and due to the cultural sensitivity of the area, as determined through
consultation with the Kizh Nation, it is determined that there is potential for a previously undiscovered resource to
be encountered during excavation, particularly within native soils. If resources wereto be uncovered but not properly
treated, they could be destroyed or damaged, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure (MM)
MM -CUL -1 has been provided to ensure that potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of archaeological
resources would be less than significant. In the event of a discovery of human remains on the Project site during
construction activities, the most likely descendent (MLD) would be assigned by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) through the mandated process under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and other
regulatory conditions. In consideration of the information provided by the Kizh Nation during tribal consultation,
additional mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure anticipatory measures are taken in the event that
unknown TCRs are inadvertently encountered during Project construction -related earthwork activities. These
mitigation measures are outlined in MM -TCR -1 through MM -TCR -3 intended to be implemented in concert with MM -
CUL -1. Therefore, with implementation of MM -TCR -1 through MM -TCR -3, the impact regarding a potential
substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR would be less than significant with mitigation.
Cumulative Effects
Register of Historical Resources and Public Resource Code Section 5024.1
Although there are no knows TCRs on the Project site, the potential to encounter TCRs during construction activities
is still possible. For archaeological resources of Native American origin, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
cumulative projects may require extensive excavation in culturally sensitive areas and, thus, may result in adverse
effects to known or previously unknown, inadvertently discovered archaeological resources of Native American
origin. Because all TCRs are unique and nonrenewable resources, projects that cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a TCR have the potential to erode a general tribal cultural landscape to which the resources
belong. Therefore, if an impact to an unknown TCR occurs due to implementation of the Project, a cumulative
significant effect on TCRs could result when combined with other cumulative development in the area.
Any inadvertent discoveries associated with the Project would be protected to the extent required by law and as
outlined in MM -CUL -1 and MM -TCR -1 through MM -TCR -3. Upon implementation of these measures, the Project
would not have a significant impact on any resources that may be inadvertently discovered during construction. The
cumulative projects that would occur in accordance with the City's General Plan growth and buildout, as applicable,
are all subject to PRC 21083.2 and other the regulatory requirements that mandate evaluation and consideration
of potential impacts to TCRs prior to approval of any discretionary permit for site development. Other individual
projects occurring in the vicinity of the Project site would also be subject to the same requirements of CEQA as the
proposed Project and any impacts to cultural or tribal cultural resources would be mitigated, as applicable. For
these reasons, cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 20
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.2.6.2 Mitigation Measures
MM -TCR -1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground -Disturbing Activities.
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved
by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained
prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject project at all
project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project
description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public
improvement work). "Ground -disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior
to the earlier of the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of
any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity.
C. The monitorwill complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant
ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of
ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify
and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural
and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human
remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project
applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written
confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead
agency that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing
activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification bythe Kizh to the project applicant/lead agencythat
no future, planned construction activity and/or develop ment/construction phase at the
project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume
until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose
the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
MM -TCR -2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Object.
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or
cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects,
called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be
treated according to this statute.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 21
FINDINGS OF FACT
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the
project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be
immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities shall
immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of
the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American
or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone
within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200
feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in
its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and
provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other
mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered
human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin (non -TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no
institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent
further disturbance.
MM -TCR -3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains.
If it is determined, through compliance with Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and other
applicable regulatory requirements thatthe Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation is the
Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the following shall be implemented:
A. As the MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term
"human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic
times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for
burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of
human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location
shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone
fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the
death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 22
FINDINGS OF FACT
individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively
for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated
funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to
ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered
on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can
be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation openingto protect the remains.
If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of
working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and
keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be
determined that burials will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project
applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground -disturbing activities may resume on
the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint
of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using
opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of
cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items
should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of
reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the
Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity
regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that the
excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by
the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed
descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery -related forms of
documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is
performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The
Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains.
MM -CUL -1 See Section 2.2.1, Cultural Resources, of these Findings.
2.2.6.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.6.1. These feasible measures,
MM -TCR -1, MM -TCR -2, and MM -TCR -3, as well as MM -CUL -1, are listed in Section 2.2.6.2.
The City finds that these mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential tribal cultural
resource impacts of the Project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA
Section 21O81(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15O91(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on tribal cultural resources.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 23
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.2.6.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Tribal Cultural Resources
The implementation of MM -TCR -1, MM -TCR -2, and MM -TCR -3, as well as MM -CUL -1, would reduce potential impacts
to tribal resources to less -than -significant levels. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to
tribal cultural resources after implementation of these mitigation measures.
2.2.7 Utilities and Service Systems
2.2.7.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems
Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
A Sewer Area Study was conducted for the proposed Project. The anticipated net increase in wastewater flows for
the Project would be 50,938 GPD, which considers the existing sewer generation of 9,012 GPD from The Derby
Restaurant subtracted from the proposed Project's sewer generation of 59,950 GPD. These additional flows are
anticipated to increase the monitored sewer flows within one sewer pipeline segment beyond the City's capacity
limit of 50 percent capacity. There would be an increase in the flow depth between Manholes 609-45 and 609-53
located on the sewer pipeline segment beneath Fifth Avenue (north of Duarte Road) from 37.5 percent full to 53.8
percent full. Therefore, a portion of the sewer pipeline must be replaced and increased from the existing 8 -inch
diameter to a larger 10 -inch diameter pipeline. As a result, the proposed Project would result in the construction of
new sewer infrastructure and mitigation is required.
MM-UTL-1 is required to ensure the timely replacement of a portion of the off-site sewer pipeline. As required, the
Project Applicant must make a fair -share contribution to the City's costs to upgrade the sewer, which will be
accomplished by the end of the City's 2024-25 fiscal year. The sewer improvement would be completed and
operational by the time the proposed Project begins to occupy the available residential units, which is anticipated
to be November 2025. The construction of the sewer infrastructure would be accomplished by the City and the
impacts of the construction would be assessed under the City's environmental documentation pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as lead agency for the proposed Project as well as the off-site
sewer infrastructure improvement, has the authority to ensure the approval, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the sewer infrastructure required for the proposed Project. In addition, the Districts are empowered
by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts'
Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This
connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before
this Project is permitted to discharge to the Districts' Sewerage System. With incorporation of MM-UTL-1, and
payment of all applicable fees, potential impacts related to the construction of new sewer facilities would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21).
Cumulative Effects
The proposed Project would generate sewer flow that would exceed the capacity of a segment of the sewer lines
under Fifth Avenue, and mitigation is required accordingly. MM-UTL-1 would require fair share payment of the costs
of upgrading this sewer line. It is anticipated that future development that would contribute sewer flows to this
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 24
FINDINGS OF FACT
sewer line would also benefit from the City's upsizing of the existing 8 -inch line to a larger 10 -inch diameter line. As
such, with mitigation, the Project would reduce potential project -specific as well as cumulative impacts to a level
less than significant. Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts related to sewer infrastructure
would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of MM-UTL-1.
2.2.7.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-UTL-1 Sewer Upgrade Fair Share Payment. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit for the
Project, the Applicant/Property Owner shall make a fair share contribution of 9 percent of the Fifth
Avenue sewer upgrade project cost, not to exceed $108,000, to the City to help fund upgrading of
the sewer line in Fifth Avenue. The Fifth Avenue Sewer Upgrade Project will be included in the City's
2024-25 Capital Improvement Plan budget and the work will be completed by the City's Public
Works Department by the end of the 2024-25 Fiscal Year. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the City Public Works Services Department as
appropriate.
2.2.7.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed forthe potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.2.7.1. This feasible measure, MM-
UTL-1, is listed in Section 2.2.7.2.
The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential impacts related to
utilities and service systems to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the Cityfinds that, pursuantto CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the Project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts related to utilities and service
systems.
2.2.6.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Utilities and Service Systems
The implementation of MM-UTL-1 would reduce potential impacts related to utilities and service systems to a less -
than -significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to utilities and service systems
after implementation of this mitigation measure.
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
Based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the following issue areas have been determined to fall within the "less -
than -significant impact" category for all thresholds: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population
and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Other impacts for Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation,
and Tribal Cultural Resources not addressed below, are addressed in Section 2.2.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 25
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.1 Aesthetics
Public Resources Code Section 21099(d)(1) sets forth new guidelines for evaluating project impacts under CEQA,
as follows: "Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on
an infill site within transportation priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment."
PRC Section 21099 defines a "transit priority area" as an area within 0.5 -mile of a major transit stop that is "existing
or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a
Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations." PRC Section 21064.3 defines "major transit stop" as "a site containing an existing rail transit
station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus
routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods." PRC Section 21099 defines an "infill site" as a lot located within an urban area that has been previously
developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an
improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
The Project is a mixed-use development and PRC Section 21099 applies to the Project. Specifically, the property is
a previously developed "infill" site located approximately 0.3 -mile from the Metro A Line Station which meets the
definition of a "major transit stop" established under PRC Section 21099. Therefore, the Project's aesthetic effects
cannot be considered a significant impact. The analysis presented in these Findings is for informational purposes
only and not for determining whether the Project would result in a significant impact on the environment (Draft EIR,
p. 4.1-10).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on aesthetics as it relates to scenic vistas, scenic resource damage within a state scenic highway,
regulations governing scenic quality, lighting and glare, and cumulative aesthetic impacts; therefore, no mitigation
is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project site is located in an urban area on a site that is fully developed with buildings and asphalt paving and
is entirely within the Commercial (0.5 FAR) zone ("Commercial (0.5 FAR)" General Plan land use designation), with
adjacent Commercial (0.5 FAR) zone parcels. There are no existing agriculture or forestry activities on the site. No
readily available opportunities for agricultural or forestry operations exist on site or in the surrounding area.
Accordingto the California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder, most of Los Angeles
County, including the City, is not mapped as part of the state's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; thus,
the Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State Importance (collectively
"Important Farmland") (DOC 2022a), nor does it contain any parcels under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2022b).
Additionally, the Project site nor the surrounding area contain forestland or timberland. Therefore, impacts
associated with agricultural and forestry resources would not occur (Draft EIR, p. 5-10).
Finding
Appendix A of the Notice of Preparation for the Project found no potential for significant impacts to agriculture and
forestry resources; therefore, agriculture and forestry resources was not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation
would be required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 26
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.4.3 Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
The most recent adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the 2022 AQMP The Southern California Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable
AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-26
and 4.2-27).
Consistency Criterion No.1
The Project would not result in construction or operational criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the
SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. Because it would not exceed the SCAQMD criteria air pollutant mass thresholds,
the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or
contribute to new violations, and thus, the Project would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1 of the SCAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27).
Consistency Criterion No. 2
The second criterion regarding the Project's potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP is primarily assessed
by determining consistency between the Project's land use designations and potential to generate population
growth. In general, a project would be consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of,
the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop
the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). The SCAQMD primarily uses
demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by
industry) developed by SCAG for its RTP/SCS (SCAG 2020a). SCAG bases its growth forecasts on general plans for
cities and counties in the SCAB. The SCAQMD uses these growth forecasts for the development of the AQMP
emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2022).1 SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS RTP/SCS, and associated Regional Growth
Forecast, are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2022 AQMP is generally consistent with local
government plans.
Because the Project's proposed land use designation is not consistent with the current City's General Plan land use
designation, the Project may result in population (residents and employees) not anticipated in the SCAG 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS, and therefore, the 2022 SCAQMD AQMP. Accordingly, an evaluation of the Project's anticipated
population in comparison to the population and employment projections for the City is warranted.
The proposed Project's residential units would accommodate up to 608 residents. Additionally, the Project is
estimated to result in a net addition of 34 employees as compared to existing conditions. The Final SCAG 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS provides population estimates for the years 2016 and 2045 (SCAG 2020b). SCAG estimated there
were 57,300 residents in the City in 2016 and 62,200 residents by 2045 (SCAG 2020b), for a delta growth of
4,900 residents between 2016 and 2045. Current estimates place the population at 56,364, which is below the
1 Information necessary to produce the emission inventory for the SCAB is obtained from the SCAQMD and other governmental
agencies, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Department of Transportation, and SCAG. Each of these
agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission
factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast
improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into its Travel Demand
Model for estimating/projecting vehicle miles traveled and driving speeds. SCAG's socioeconomic and transportation activities
projections in their 2016 RTP/SCS are integrated in the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017).
The Derr Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 27
FINDINGS OF FACT
population of 57,300 residents in 2016, as detailed by the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (U.S. Census Bureau 2021,
SCAG 2022b). Currently, the City's housing stock and residential population is below the predicted housing and
population. Since 2010, the City has added a total of 413 new residential units, which is below the City's estimate
for new housing (Graham 2022). The Project would be operational in 2025. Assuming linear growth from 2016 to
2045 of the SCAG's growth projections, there would be an increase of 1,521 residents by 2025, for a total projection
58,821 residents in the City. However, as the City's current housing and residential population is below SCAG's
predicted housing and, the Project's addition of 608 residents would not exceed the SCAG's population estimate
of 58,821 residents in 2025. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the SCAG's population growth projections for
2025.
Similarly, the Final SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS provides employment estimates forthe years 2016 and 2045 (SCAG
2022b). SCAG estimated 32,600 employees in 2016 and 36,100employees in 2045 (SCAG 2020b). Assuming
linear growth from 2016 to 2045 of the SCAG's growth projections, there would be an increase of 1,569 employees
by 2025, for a total projection 34,169 employees in the City in 2025. The Project would employ 34 persons in 2025
when compared to existing conditions. This represents approximately 2.2% of the employment projections in the
City by 2025. The Project's designated employment does not exceed the annual growth projections for the City
based on SCAG's employment growth projections for 2025. As demonstrated, the Project would not exceed the
SCAG's population and employment growth projections in the City, and therefore, the Project would not conflict with
Criterion 2 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
As the Project would not conflict with Criterion No. 1 and No. 2 of the 2022 AQMP, there would be a less -than -
significant impact with regard to potential to conflict with an applicable AQMP (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-27 and 4.2-28).
Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and
present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality
standards. Based on these considerations, project -level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used
to help determine whether a project's individual emissions would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on
air quality. If a project's emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would be considered to
have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project -specific
thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD 2003) (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-28).
Construction Emissions
Daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10,
or PM2.5 during construction in all construction years. Construction -generated emissions would be temporary and
would not represent a long-term source of criteria air pollutant emissions (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-28 through 4.2-30).
Operational Emissions
The Project's net increase in emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds for VOC, NO., CO,
SOx, PM1o, and PM2.5. Air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be
reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SCAQMD. Cumulative PM10 and PM2.5
emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust),
which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SCAQMD. The maximum daily
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds during Project construction activities.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 28
FINDINGS OF FACT
With regard to operational cumulative impacts associated with nonattainment pollutants, in general, if a project is
consistent with the community and/or general plans, it has been accounted for in the attainment demonstration
contained within the state implementation plan and would therefore not cause a cumulatively significant impact on
the ambient air quality. The Project would be consistent with the growth projections anticipated in SCAQMD's 2022
AQMP. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment
pollutants in the SCAB. Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant during
construction and operation (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-30 and 4.2-31).
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Localized Significance Threshold
For the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) CO and NO2 exposure analyses, receptors who could be exposed for
one hour or more are considered. For the LST PM10 and PM2.5 exposure analyses, receptors who could be exposed
for 24 hours are considered. As the Project site is proximate to two hotels adjacent to the Project's northern
boundary (and hotel guests could be exposed for 24 hours), the threshold for 25 -meters (approximately 82 feet) is
used forthis analysis. Construction activities would notgenerate emissions in excess of site-specific LSTs; therefore,
site-specific impacts during construction of the Project would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-32 and 4.2-
33).
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1 -hour or 8 -hour CO CAAQS unless projected
daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day. As detailed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR,
the maximum average daily trips (ADTs) at a studied intersection, with inclusion of the Project, would be 34,739
ADTs at the intersection of E. Huntington Drive and North 2nd Avenue. As the Project would not increase daily traffic
volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur,
and associated impacts would be less than significant. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular
emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the
SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the Project would result in a less -than -significant
impact to air quality with regard to potential CO hotspots (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33 and 4.2-34).
Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction activities would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 3.9 in 1 million,
which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. Project construction would result in a Residential
Chronic Hazard Index of 0.003, which is below the 1.0 significance threshold. Impacts would be less than significant
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-34).
Health Imocts of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Although construction of future development allowed for under the Project may generate NOx emissions, it is not
anticipated to contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 because the SCAB is designated as in
attainment of the NAAQS a nd CAAQS for NO2 and the existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS
and CAAQS standards. As noted above, the Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD NOx thresholds during
construction and operation.
The Derby Mixed -Use Pro'ect 11663.05
October 2023 29
FINDINGS OF FACT
CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The associated potential for CO hotspots
is discussed above and is determined to be a less -than -significant impact. Thus, the Project's CO emissions would
not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.
Because the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during construction and operation, the
potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are considered less than significant. Therefore, the
Project does not have the potential to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation and the health effects associated with criteria air pollutants would be considered less
than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-34 through 4.2-37).
Other Emissions
Based on available information, the Project is not anticipated to result in other emissions (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27).
Construction Impacts
Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the
Project. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not
affect substantial numbers of people. In addition, Project construction and operation would be required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air pollutants from a facility that could cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or damage business or property. Therefore, impacts
associated with odors during construction would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-38).
Operational Impacts
The Project does not propose odor -generating land uses duringthe operational phase of the Project. The residences
and restaurant/caf6 uses may emit odors outside during cooking. These would be limited to the areas adjacent to
the source and would not impact substantial numbers of people. These odors would also be short term in nature
and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, as stated above, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402,
Nuisance, which prohibits the release of odors which may cause annoyance to a considerable number of persons,
as well as other SCAQMD rules related to odor generation from restaurant activities. Therefore, the potential for the
Project to generate an odor impact is considered less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-38).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on air quality as it relates to applicable air quality plans, criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors, and other
emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.4 Biological Resources
Special -Status Species
A qualified Dudek Senior Biologist conducted electronic searches of California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) databases. The
Project is not located within any designated critical habitat (USFWS 2021). No natural vegetation communities,
soils, or hydrology occur on the Project site, so no special -status plant or wildlife species are expected on the Project
and no impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 5-10).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 30
FINDINGS OF FACT
Riparian Habitat/Sensitive Natural Communities
The Project site is developed with paved surfaces and buildings, with no native or naturalized vegetation
communities present. No riparian or wetland features are present to support riparian habitat (USFWS 2022b). No
impacts would occur (Draft EIR, p. 5-11).
Wetlands
No wetlands or other jurisdiction waters are within the Project site (USFWS 2022b). Water from rainfall flows across the
impervious surfaces found on the Project site and enterthe municipal stormwater system. No impacts would occur (Draft
EIR, p. 5-11).
Wildlife Movement/Use of Nursery Sites
There are no on-site drainages or ponds that may serve as habitat for fish species. The Project site is developed
and surrounded by developed area, and it does not reside within any designated wildlife corridors and/or habitat
linkages identified in the South Coast Missing Linkages analysis project or California Essential Habitat Connectivity
project, so the Project would not affect the movement of any native resident or land-based wildlife species, nor
would it affect established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Ornamental vegetation located on the
Project site could provide suitable nesting habitat for some urban -adapted bird species. All development activities
are subject to the requirement to protect nesting birds, in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections
3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits the accidental or "incidental" taking
or killing of migratory birds. The Project would be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections
3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code by preventing the disturbance of nesting birds
during Project construction activities. No impacts would occur (Draft EIR, p. 5-11).
Conflict with Biological Resources Protection Policies and Ordinances
Any development activities associated with implementation of the Project would be required to comply with all
applicable requirements set forth by the City, including adherence to tree preservation and maintenance
requirements. The Project site area includes 66 on-site trees, as well as seven (7) off-site street -trees adjacent to
the Project's southern boundary line. Sixty-four (64) on-site trees would be removed and two (2) would be
encroached upon as a result of Project implementation. None of the on-site trees are protected. In addition, one (1)
off-site City owned street located on Huntington Drive would be removed and, and six (6) City owned trees within
the public right-of-way along Huntington Drive would be encroached upon. According to Division 10, Section
9110.01, Tree Preservation, of the City's Development Code, a permit is required prior to removal of any protected
tree, as well as prior to any encroachment into the protected zone of any protected tree. Due to the required
adherence to City regulations, impacts associated with biological resources protection policies and ordinances
would be less than significant and would not require further evaluation in the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, pp. 5-11 and 5-
12).
Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area, and there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan for the site or the surrounding area. No conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan would occur with the Project (Draft EIR, p. 5-12).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 31
FINDINGS OF FACT
Finding
Appendix A of the Notice of Preparation for the Project found no potential for significant impacts to biological
resources; therefore, biological resources were not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation would be required,
and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Historical Resources
In order to determine if the Project would impact historical resources under CEQA, all buildings or structures over
45 years in age within or immediately adjacent to the Project site were evaluated for historical significance and
integrity in consideration of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), and the City of Arcadia designation criteria and integrity requirements (see Appendix D-2 of the
Draft EIR). One property within the Project site is over the age of 50 and required inventory and evaluation
consideration under CEQA; The Derby Restaurant, located at 223 E. Huntington Drive. The other property on the
site, 301 E. Huntington Drive, includes a building constructed in 1988. Because this building is not 45 years or
older it does not require further consideration under CEQA. The following discussion provides a detailed significance
evaluation of the Derby Restaurant.
Criterion A/1,/1: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history.
The Derby Restaurant has associations with a pattern of events that have made contributions to the development
of the horseracing community under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, and City of Arcadia Historic Landmark
Criterion 1. The period of significance for the subject property is 1931 to 1951; spanning the year the restaurant
was first established at its location, to the date that the property was no longer operated by the Woolf family. This
is the period in which the restaurant grew in popularity, became a well-known establishment, and solidified its link
to the horse racing community. The property's ability to convey significance under this Criterion is addressed below
after Criterion D/4/4 under "Integrity Discussion."
Criterion B/2/2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Famed horseracing jockey George Woolf briefly owned the restaurant from December of 1938 until his death in
1946. While George Woolf is historically significant as a horse racing jockey, the connection to the work he is known
for, horseracing, is shown through the memorabilia that remains inside the restaurant. However, The Derby
Restaurant is not where he performed the work for which he is known (i.e., horse racing). Woolf is famous for his
career as a jockey and his productive years are most closely associated with the Santa Anita racetrack where he
famously raced. The racing facility serves as a more intact representative example of his career than The Derby
Restaurantthat he brieflyowned. Lackinga direct association with an individual's important achievements for which
they are known, The Derby Restaurant is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B, CRHR Criterion 2, or City of Arcadia
Historic Landmark Criterion 2.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 32
FINDINGS OF FACT
Criterion C1313: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Hudson M. Proctor constructed the building that would house The Derby Restaurant in 1931 in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style. He was reported in a few articles to have experience in construction, and he did not hire a contractor
or architect to design the building. Owners Dominic and Lorene Sturniolo completely remodeled the restaurant in
1951 with additions to the primary and west elevations that removed all former Spanish Colonial Revival elements
in addition to removing original freestanding signage and removingthe large oak tree that once fronted the building.
Beyond the upstairs office, no elements of the 1931 era building remain. Since the late 1990s, the restaurant has
experienced large additions to the west elevation, removal of original exterior brick, and the addition of new exterior
chimneys. Due to numerous alterations, the building no longer possesses any character -defining features of the
1930s Spanish Colonial Revival style. Although the building as it currently stands features Ranch and neo -
Craftsman elements, it no longer possesses a discernable architectural style. In addition, the restaurant no longer
exhibits the architectural and site -planning elements of its original 1930s -era cafe -restaurant type due to
alterations. Lacking architectural distinction, or any known connection with the work of a master architect, The
Derby Restaurant is not eligible under NRHP Criterion C, CRHR Criterion 3, or City of Arcadia Historic Landmark
Criterion 3.
Criterion D/4/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The Derby Restaurant is not significant under Criterion D of the NRNP, Criterion 4 of the CRHR, or City of Arcadia
Historic Landmark Criterion 4 as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear
likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials or technologies.
Integrity Discussion
To be eligible for listing in the NRNP, CRHR, or as a landmark in the City of Arcadia, properties must have a clear
association under one or more Criterion and retain historic integrity to the period of significance established under
the Criterion for which it has an association.
Despite a clear association under Criterion A/1/1, alterations to the propertysince 1951 have modified the property
to extent that it appears to be a building constructed in the latter half of the twentieth century rather than a building
from the 1931 to 1951 period (i.e., the period when the building was originally constructed and gained prominence
as a restaurant associated with the horseracing community through Woolf). Despite the connection to Woolf that
remains through his horseracing memorabilia collection featured in the interior, the interior space has been altered
since 1951 to the extent that even with elements of the collection exhibited the connection to the period of
significance has been lost. Additionally, no exterior elements of the restaurant remain from the historic era
establishment that Woolf would recognize. The original Spanish Colonial Design of the building has been completely
altered, original signage removed, and large oak tree fronting the building has also been removed. The building is
now surrounded by paved parking lots and more recent commercial building construction. These changes have
resulted in destroying the connection to the period when the restaurant became "The Derby" (i.e., 1931 to 1951;
the period of significance for the subject property). In summary, the loss of integrity in the areas of design, materials,
workmanship, setting and feeling, has caused the property to no longer be capable of conveying an association to
the period of significance (1931 to 1951) when it was first developed and the connection for which it is known.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 33
FINDINGS OF FACT
Despite The Derby Restaurant's association under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, or City of Arcadia Historic
Landmark Criterion 1, the substantial loss of historic integrity to its period of significance precludes the property
from being considered eligible for listing.
Additional City of Arcadia Criteria Considerations
For a resource to be found significant as a City of Arcadia historic landmark, in addition to meeting City of Arcadia
Criterion 1 through 4, it must be listed in the NRHP or CRHR (Criteria 5) or considered an iconic property (Criteria
6). The Derby Restaurant, as stated above, does not meet Criteria 1 due to a lack of historic integrity to its period
of significance and the property does not meet Criterion 2 through 4 due to a lack of significance. As such the
property is not eligible for listing as a City of Arcadia historic landmark.
Summary of Findings
The property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Further, no potential indirect impacts
to historical resources were identified. Removal of this building would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource, or otherwise result in a direct impact to a historical resource. No other
adjacent resources were identified as historical resources as a result of the records search or survey that could be
indirectly impacted by the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than- significant impact on historical
resources. No mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-21).
Disturbance of Human Remains
No prehistoric or historic burials were identified within the Project site as a result of the CHRIS records search.
Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains are mandated by California Health and Safety
Code §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). Compliance with these
existing regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains resulting from the Project would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required (Draft EIR 4.3-22).
Cumulative Effects
Historical Resources
The Derby Restaurant (i.e., the property located within the Project site at 233 E. Huntington Drive), is not eligible
for NRNP, CRHR, or City designation due to a lack of significant historical associations, architectural merit, and
physical integrity. Therefore, the property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Further,
no potential indirect impacts to historical resources were identified. Given this, the Project would not cumulatively
contribute to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, or otherwise result in a direct
impact to a historical resource. No other adjacent resources were identified as a result of the records search or
survey that could be indirectly impacted by the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less- than -significant
cumulative impact on historical resources (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-23).
Human Remains
The Project was determined to have less -than -significant direct impacts on human remains. Existing regulations are
adequate to address the potential for impacts due to the inadvertent discovery of human remains on the Project
site. Other individual projects occurring in the vicinity of the Project site would also be subject to the same state
requirements to contact appropriate agencies and coordinate with the County Coroner. Therefore, the Project's
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 34
FINDINGS OF FACT
incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable resulting in a less -than -significant
cumulative impact (Draft EIR p. 4.3-24).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on cultural resources as it relates to historical resources and disturbance of human remains, therefore, no
mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.6 Energy
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy
Electricity
Construction
There is nothing unusual about construction of the Project that would result in a wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary use of electrical energy. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and would
have a negligible contribution to the Project's overall energy consumption. Impacts to electricity during construction
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-12 and 4.4-13).
The Project's electrical consumption would be a small percentage (0.003%) of the County's current annual use.
SCE forecasts that its total energy consumption in 2025 (the Project buildout year) will be approximately 116,647
gigawatt hours of electricity (CEC 2022). Based on the Project's estimated net electrical consumption of 1,582,100
kWh/year, the Project's increase in electricity would account for approximately 0.0014% of SCE's total projected
consumption during 2025 for the Project's buildoutyear.2 In addition, the Project would be built in accordance with
the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) at the time of construction, which include robust
requirements for energy efficiency. Also, the provisions of the CALGreen code apply to the planning, design,
operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure. In mixed occupancy
buildings, such as the Project, each portion of a building must comply with the specific green building measures
applicable to each specific occupancy. Therefore, due to the inherent increase in efficiency of building code
regulations, the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Impacts related to
operational electricity use would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-13 and 4.4-14).
Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the Project. Any minor amounts of natural gas that
may be consumed as a result of Project construction would be substantially less than that required for Project's operation
and would have a negligible contribution to the Project's overall energy consumption (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14).
Operations
2 Project's consumption (2.576 gigawatt hours) divided by SCE's projected consumption (116,647 gigawatt hours).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 35
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Project would consume approximately 3,591,503 net kBTU per year. The Project's estimated net increase in natural
gas consumption of 3,591,503 kBTU (or 35,923 therms) per year would be a small percentage (0.0012%) of SoCalGas'
annual supply to County customers. In addition, the Project is subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as
outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 11, contains energy measures that are
applicable to the Project. The Project would be required to meet Title 24 requirements applicable at thattime, as required
by state regulations through the plan review process. Therefore, due to the inherent increase in efficiency of building
code regulations, the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of natural gas. Impacts related
to operational natural gas use would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 and 4.4-15).
Petroleum
Construction
Construction associated with the Project over the construction period is conservatively anticipated to consume 91,363
gallons of diesel from off-road equipment, haul trucks, and vendor trucks, and 51,851 gallons of gasoline from worker
vehicles. The Project would be subject to California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when
selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (usingthe Diesel Off -Road Online Reporting System) and
labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets startingon January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce
their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
(i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated
fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements. Overall, the
Project would not be unusual when compared to overall local and regional demand for energy resources and would not
involve characteristics that require equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites
in the region or state. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-
15 and 4.4-16).
Operations
The fuel consumption resulting from the Project's operational phase would be attributable to various vehicles associated
with each land use. Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles travelingwithin the City duringoperation
is a function of VMT. Trip generation rates for the Project and existing operational uses were based on the Traffic Impact
Analysis (Appendix) -1 of the Draft EIR). Net mobile sources (includingfrom landscaping equipment) from buildout of the
Project would result in approximately 202,816 gallons of petroleum fuel usage per year. For disclosure, by comparison,
California as a whole consumes approximately 22 billion barrels gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2022d). Over the
lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed
as a result of vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous
regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. As such, operation of the Project is expected
to use decreasing amounts of petroleum overtime dueto advances in vehicle fuel economy standards.
In summary, the Project would increase petroleum use during operation, but due to efficiency increases the amount of
petroleum consumed would diminish over time. Petroleum consumption associated with the Project would not be
considered inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less than significant impact (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 and 4.4-17).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 36
FINDINGS OF FACT
Renewable Energy Potential
As part of the Project's planning process, the City considered how the Project could potentially increase its reliance on
renewable energy sources to meet the Project's anticipated energy demand. Given the Project's location and the infill
nature of the Project, there are anticipated considerable site constraints at a parcel level including incompatibility with
onsite and surrounding land uses for large scale power generation facilities, unknown interconnection feasibility,
compatibility with utility provider systems, and no known water or geothermal resources to harness, that would eliminate
the potential for biomass, geothermal, wind power, and hydroelectric renewable energy to be installed within the Project
area.Regarding solar power, the future Project is anticipated to include solar power, which at a minimum, will be provided
for newly built low-rise residential buildings, and non-residential buildings are anticipated to be solar-readyto comply with
Title 24 building energy efficiency standards. The Project would use renewable energyonsite as determined to befeasible
and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity,
natural gas, or petroleum during Project construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR,
p. 4.4-17).
Conflict or Obstruct Plan for Renewable Energy
Construction
Construction equipment would be required to comply with federal, state, and regional requirements where applicable.
With respect to truck fleet operators, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) have adopted fuel -efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that
will be phased in over time. In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB
regulations regarding heavy-duty truck idling limits of 5 minutes per occurrence. Off-road emissions standards would
increase equipment efficiencies as they are phased -in over time and less -efficient equipment is phased out of
construction fleets. These limitations would result in an increase in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel
consumption from more fuel-efficient engines. Although these requirements are intended to reduce criteria pollutant
emissions, compliance with the anti -idling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of
construction -related energy. Thus, based on the information above, construction and operation of the Project would
comply with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency regarding during Project construction,
and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-17 and 4.4-18).
Operation
The Project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements including Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings based on a state
mandate to reduce California's energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency
measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy
impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, and roofs. Part 6 of Title 24
specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the
State of California in orderto reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 11 of Title 24 also includes the CALGreen
standards, which established mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for new construction
projects. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11, per state regulations. Additionally, the Project
would receive electricity from SCE, which has the mandate to comply with SB 1020. This policy requires that eligible
renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California by
2045, with 90% by 2035, and 95% by 2040, and that the zero -carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 37
FINDINGS OF FACT
emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling. Thus,
the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore,
impacts during construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-18).
Cumulative Effects
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy
Cumulative projects would be required by Los Angeles County or City of Arcadia, as applicable, to conform to current
federal, state, and local energy conservation standards, including the California Energy Code Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6), the CALGreen Code (24 CCR Part 11), and SB 743. Therefore, the energy
demand and use associated with the Project and cumulative projects would not substantially contribute to a
cumulative impact on existing or proposed energy supplies or resources and would not cause a significant
cumulative impact on energy resources. As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to
wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of electricity would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be
less than significant.
Conflict or Obstruct Plan for Renewable Energy
The Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy as it would be required to be solar -ready
pursuant to Title 24. Further, other projects, including development throughout the state, would also be subject to
the Title 24 standards in place at the time of construction. The Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related
to renewable energy or energy efficiency would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than
significant.
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on energy as it relates to consumption of energy, conflict or obstruction of a plan for renewable energy, and
cumulative impacts to energy, therefore, no mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts
would occur.
2.3.7 Geology and Soils
Expose People or Structures to Fault Rupture
The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known Holocene -active or potentially
active faults pass directly beneath the site (CGS 2022a, 2022b). Because no faults traverse the site, the Project
site would not be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Furthermore, the Project site would not directly
or indirectly cause or exacerbate existingfault rupture risks from the construction of new buildings and associated
infrastructure on the Project site because no Project -related activities would occur within the Raymond Fault zone.
Therefore, no impact related to surface rupture of a known earthquake fault would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-12).
Expose People or Structures to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region. The CBC provides procedures for
earthquake -resistant structural design that includes considerations of on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the
configuration of the structure, including the structural system and height. Although conformance with CBC seismic
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 38
FINDINGS OF FACT
design requirements does not guarantee that significant structural damage or ground failure would not occur in the
event of a large earthquake, the proposed structures would be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby
provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage, and loss of life. Standards
provided in CBC Section 1803 require preparation of a geotechnical evaluation and that all recommendations set
forth in a final site-specific design -level geotechnical report - which would be based on the Geotechnical
Investigation that was prepared for the Project - be incorporated into all applicable phases of Project excavation,
grading and construction. Therefore, upon compliance with the CBC and City policies aimed at minimizing geologic
hazards, including CBC Section 1803, requiringthe incorporation of recommendations set forth in the final design -
level site-specific geotechnical investigation, the Project would not directly or indirectly be affected by substantial
adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p.
4.5-13).
Expose People or Structures to Liquefaction
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the historical high groundwater levels for the general area have been
interpreted at 150 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the Project site, and the potential for liquefaction
to occur beneath the Project site is considered to be very low (Appendix E-1 of the Draft EIR). Furthermore, the
Project site is not located within a mapped California Geologic Survey liquefaction hazard zone (Appendix E-1, CGS
2022). As such, seismic -related ground failure due to liquefaction would not be expected to occur on the Project
site and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14).
Expose People or Structures to Landslides
The topography of the Project site and adjacent areas is relatively flat to gently sloping; therefore, the Project site
is not susceptible to landslides. In addition, the Project site is not located within an earthquake -induced landslide
zone, as designated by the CGS and the City. As such, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, Injury, or death involving landslides (Appendix
E-1). Impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14).
Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Construction
The Project site is not located in a hillside development area or agricultural zone that could be susceptible to loss
of topsoil due to site development. The Project site is currently developed with buildings and paved, with only a
negligible amount of soil exposed in areas of ornamental landscaping. Prior to the start of construction activities,
the Contractor is required to file a Permit Registration Document with the SWRCB, in orderto obtain coverage under
the NPDES Construction General Permit. No grading permit would be issued unless the plans for such work include
a SWPPP with details of BMPs, which include erosion control measures to minimize the transport of sediment and
protect public and private property from the effects of erosion. The required SWPPP would establish site-specific
erosion and sediment control BMPs for all construction activities. Although the Project would require excavation of
soils related to construction of the subterranean parking structure and related to removal and re -compaction of
collapsible soils, this would not result in a substantial loss of topsoil. Therefore, with compliance of the NPDES
General Construction Permit, potential impacts associated with soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-14 and 4.5-15).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 39
FINDINGS OF FACT
Operations
Long-term operation of the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil as the majority of
the Project site would be covered by structures and paving, while the remaining portions of the site would contain
irrigated landscaping. No exposed areas subject to erosion would be created or affected by the Project and impacts
related to erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15).
Located on or Would Cause Unstable Soil
Landslides
The Project site is not located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake -induced landslides, as
identified by the CGS and the City (Appendix E-1 of the Draft EIR; City of Arcadia 2010). There are no known
landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the Project would
not be located on a geologic unit that is unstable with respect to landslides. Impacts would be less than significant
(Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16).
Liquefaction/Lateral Spreading
The Project site is not located in an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction or lateral spreading, as discussed in
the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E-1 of the Draft EIR). Impacts associated with lateral spreading would be
similar to those associated with liquefaction and would therefore be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16).
Subsidence
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the existing artificial fill and any unsuitable, soft alluvial soils onsite
are considered suitable for reuse provided they are compacted to meet current building code requirements
(Appendix E-1 of the Draft EIR). In addition, accordingto the Geotechnical Investigation the Projectsite is not located
within an area of known ground subsidence (Appendix E-1). No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or
geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. There appears to be little or no
potential for ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site. As such, impacts related to
subsidence would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16).
Collapsible Soils
The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that after appropriate site preparations (e.g., removal and re -compaction
of artificial fills) settlement is anticipated to be tolerable for the proposed development. A final design -level
geotechnical investigation report is required in accordance with the CBC. As previously discussed, the 2022 edition
of the CBC, including Appendix J, pertaining to grading requirements, is adopted by reference pursuant to Section
8110 of the AMC (City of Arcadia 2021). Geotechnical investigations must be prepared by registered professionals
(i.e., California Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist). Recommendations from geotechnical
investigations must be incorporated into the design and construction of the Project, as reviewed, and approved by
the City's Development Services Department. As such, impacts related to collapsible/compressible soils would be
less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16 and 4.5-17).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 40
FINDINGS OF FACT
Located on Expansive Soil
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the site is underlain by artificial fill and Holocene age alluvium fan
deposits comprised of sand with varying amount of silt, gravel, and cobbles (Appendix E-1 of the Draft EIR). The
granular nature of the soils is considered to be non -expansive, and the Geotechnical Investigation assumes that
proposed foundations and slabs would be constructed with non -expansive materials. As such, the Project would not
create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property with respect to expansive soils and impacts would be
less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-17).
Soils Incapable of Supporting Septic Tanks
The Project site is located in the City and is currently served by existing sewer infrastructure, and any new
development would require connectingto the City's existing sewer infrastructure system. There are no septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal proposed for the Project's use; therefore, implementation of the Project would
result in no impact related to septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-17).
Cumulative Effects
Expose People or Structures to Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, Liquefaction, Landslides
Seismic risks tend to be site-specific rather than cumulative in nature because the effects are so dependent on
site-specific conditions and do not combine from site to site. For current and future projects, any development
occurring within the County of Los Angeles, City of Arcadia, or other nearby municipalities would be subject to site
development and seismic construction standards and code requirements to ensure protection from substantive
damage or injury in the event of a seismic event. Adherence to these existing seismic building code requirements
would ensure that adverse effects related to fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides is minimized
and would not become cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts
related to fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft
EIR, 4.5-19).
Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Similar to the Project, all cumulative projects would be subject to existing regulations, policies, and plans
established by the County of Los Angeles, City of Arcadia, or other nearby municipalities within the Santa Anita Wash
watershed, as well as the Los Angeles RWCQB, that relate to erosion control. While these regulations are primarily
designed to protect water quality of receiving waters, they are also effective in minimizing soil erosion or loss of
topsoil. Regulations and plans that the cumulative projects would likely be subjectto include NPDES permitting and
associated SWPPPs and BMPs; Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters;
the City of Arcadia Development Code, Los Angeles County Code, and development codes of other municipalities
within the watershed; and applicable General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, the Project's incremental
contribution to impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-19).
Located on or Would Cause Unstable Soil, Resulting in Landslides, Liquefaction/Lateral Spreading, Subsidence,
Collapsible Soils
Geotechnical hazards tend to be site-specific because conditions can change over relatively short distances and
they tend not to combine to become cumulatively considerable. In accordance with the local building code
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 41
FINDINGS OF FACT
requirements and CBC, each cumulative project would be required to prepare and implement recommendations
from a comprehensive Final Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report that would be conducted by a California
licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that further evaluates the soils underlying each site to
evaluate the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse and provide
geotechnical engineering improvements in site preparations and/or foundation design consistent with building
code requirements that ensure stability. Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts related to
unstable soils would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19 and 4.5-20).
Located on Expansive Soil
Impacts related to expansive soils tend to be site-specific rather than cumulative in nature, and cumulative projects
occurring within the City and the City of Monrovia would be subject to, at a minimum, building code requirements
which include minimum standards for expansive properties. As with the Project site, cumulative projects would be
subject to the same local, regional, and State regulations pertaining to expansive soil hazards, including CBC and
local building code requirements. With conformance to such regulations and implementation of Project -specific
design features required in their respective geotechnical reports, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts
related to expansive soils would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20).
Soils Incapable of Supporting Septic Tanks
The Project would not include the use of septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems and as a result cannot
contribute to a cumulative impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on fault rupture, strongseismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, unstable soil, expansive soil,
and septic tanks; therefore, no mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CaIEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the construction scenario anticipated to
commence in March 2024 and reach completion in November 2025, lasting a total of 21 months. On-site sources of
GHG emissions include off-road equipment and off-site sources including haul trucks, vendor trucks, on-site trucks,
and worker vehicles. The estimated total GHG emissions during would be approximately 1,419 MT CO2e over the
construction period. When amortized over 30 years, the construction emissions would be approximately 47 MT CO2e
(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-27 and 4.6-28). The net GHG emissions associated with development of the Project equal to
approximately 2,227 CO2e would be below the SCAQMD GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Even without
taking into account the removal of the existing land uses, the Project's estimated emissions would be below the
SCAQMD GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a less than
significant impact (Draft EIR p. 4.6-28 and 4.6-29).
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 42
FINDINGS OF FACT
Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS)
The Project would accommodate an expected 608 residents which would be counted within the overall population
growth projections included in the Connect SoCal of 5,519 residents between 2020 and 2045. Because the Project
would support SCAG's goals and strategies for growth in the region, and because the Project would assist the
development of new housing and improves the City's job/housing balance, impacts related to population growth
assumed in Connect SoCal would be less than significant. The Project would not conflict with any of the goals within
SCAG's Connect SoCal. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the goal to improve air quality and GHG
emissions in the region (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-29 through 4.6-32).
Consistency with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, and EO S-3-05
The Project would not conflict with the applicable strategies and measures in the 2017 Scoping Plan, The Project
would support achievement of the SB 32 and EO S-3-05 goals through compliance with GHG reducing plans and
strategies identified in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to reduce per capita GHG emissions (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-32
through 4.6-38).
Consistency with CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan, AB 1279, and EO B-55-18
The Project site is currently built out with existing underutilized uses, and thus, would not result in the loss or
conversion of the State's natural and working lands. As the Project is within a TPA and in proximity to Metro's A Line
Station, the Project would facilitate transit ridership for future residents and employees at the site. The Projectwould
supportthe use of the existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and mass -transit infrastructure and connectivity. The
Project would not result in a loss of affordable units and would provide new affordable units and residential uses
to a site that currently does provide residential uses. Additionally, the Project would provide 96 dwelling units per
acre, which exceeds the suggested minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre as detailed in the 2022
Scoping Plan. As demonstrated above, the proposed Project would not conflict with CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan
updates and with the state's ability to achieve the GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals. The Project would
not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducingthe emissions of GHGs,
and this impact would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-39).
Cumulative Effect
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impactthrough its incremental
contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. The Project would not result in
GHG emissions in exceedance of the interim SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the Project would not result
in a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to generation of GHG emissions and the cumulative impact would
be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-39 and 4.6-40).
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The Project would be consistent with all applicable GHG reduction plans, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Connect SoCal, CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan, AB 1279, SB 32, EO -S-3-05, and EO 6-55-
18. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable regarding conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-40).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 43
FINDINGS OF FACT
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on emissions generated, consistency with applicable regulations, and cumulative GHG effects; therefore, no
mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials/Release of Hazardous Materials and the Potential for
Upset Conditions
LongTerm Operational Impacts
The operational phase of the proposed Project would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would
be limited to use of commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other
commercially available substances. Such chemicals are typically used in residential and commercial uses, and when
used in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and applicable regulations, do not result in a riskto human
health or the environment. The routine transport, use, and/or disposal of these substances would be subject to
applicable federal, state, and local health and safety laws and regulations, which would minimize health risk to the
public and the environment and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-17 and 4.7-18).
Hazardous Materials within One -Quarter mile of an Existing or Proposed School
The school nearest to the Project site is Rancho Learning Center, which is approximately 0.07 miles south of the
Project site. As such, there is a school located within one-quarter mile of the proposed Project site. The Project
includes residential and commercial (restaurant) uses that do not require the use of large quantities of hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials. Other hazardous materials would be limited to use of commercially available cleaning
products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available substances. Such chemicals
are typically used in residential and commercial uses, and when used in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations and applicable regulations, do not result in a risk to human health or the environment. Therefore,
the potential for the Project to affect Rancho Learning Center is limited, and impacts would be less than significant
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-19).
Cortese List
The Project site is not listed on a Cortese List site, nor is it likelythatthe Projectsite has been impacted by Cortese
List site. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to its
location of a hazardous materials site included on the list compiled under Government Code Section 65762.5, and
no impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-19).
Near an Airport or within an Airport Land Use Plan
The Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public use airport, nor is it located within an airport land use plan.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise due to proximity to an airport for people
residing or working in the Project area, and no impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-20).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 44
FINDINGS OF FACT
Impair or Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
LongTerm Operational Impacts
The Project site is located in an urban area near the City's downtown, which is within the existing service area for
the Arcadia Fire Department and other first responders. The Project would comply with all applicable provisions of
the City's Municipal Code and CFC (as amended) pertaining to emergency access and preparedness, including
Section 403.b, requiring preparation of an approved fire safety and evacuation plan, and Section 501.3, requiring
review and approval of Project plans to ensure adequate roadway and building access for emergency responders.
Compliance with CFC requirements would ensure appropriate access and other conditions (i.e., emergency
responder radio coverage) for first responders during Project operation. Additionally, the Project would be required
to adhere to General Plan Safety Element Policies S-5.1, S-5.2, and S-5.11, which require police and fire department
personnel to be involved in the development review process, require integration of new technologies for crime and
fire prevention in new development, and require new developments to pay for costs associated with increased
public safety needs. The Project's required compliance with the CFC and other City policies and standards adopted
to ensure proper emergency response and evacuation would ensure that operational Project impacts related to
implementation of the EMP and OAERP would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-21).
Wildland Fires
The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area and is not located within an area of high wildfire hazard, such
as a wildland urban interface area, State Responsibility Area, or within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL
FIRE 2022). Therefore, people and structures would not be subject to significant risks related to wildland fires, and
no impacts would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-21).
Cumulative Effect
Hazardous Materials within One -Quarter mile of an Existing or Proposed School
The school nearest to the Project site is Rancho Learning Center, which is approximately 0.07 miles south of the
Project site. As such, there is a school located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Cumulative project A2,
would comply with all existing regulation regarding the use of hazardous materials, which would prevent releases
of hazardous materials from soils on cumulative project sites into the environment. Additionally, similar to the
Project, cumulative project A2 would support mixed commercial and residential uses and would not include
industrial uses that would be likely to generate or store reportable quantities of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials within one quarter mile of a school. Compressed gas canisters used for beverage sales in restaurants
and propane tanks (if used) would not exceed reportable quantities and would be handled and stored pursuant to
applicable CFC, Health and Safety Code, and OSHA standards. Due to the nature of the proposed land uses and
required compliance with applicable regulations, impacts related to the Project in combination with cumulative
project A2 would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, 4.7-24).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on hazards and hazardous materials as it relates to the long-term use, storage and transport of hazardous
materials; proximity of an existing or proposed school; the proximity of the project to an airport or an airport land
use plan; emergency response plan; Cortese list; wildland fires; and cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials; therefore, no mitigation is required and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 45
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Short -Term Construction Impacts
In accordance with the Construction General Permit, as established by the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act, the
development of an acre or more of land must file a notice of intent with the SWRCB, followed by development of a
site-specific SWPPP for construction activities (AMC Section 7827, General Control of Runoff Required, Construction
Activity). The property owner/developer must comply with the Construction General Permit applicable at the time a
grading permit is issued. The SWPPP must include erosion- and sediment -control BMPs that will meet or exceed
measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit, as well as BMPs that control
the other potential construction -related pollutants. Final and comprehensive grading plans would be approved by
the City Engineer before the City issues grading permits, in compliance with all applicable AMC requirements,
including Section 7554.6, Soil and Grading Requirements, and Article VIII, Chapter 13, Los Angeles County Grading
Code.
The historical high groundwater levels in the Project vicinity have been identified at 150 feet below the ground
surface, and as such, excavation activities associated with the subterranean parking garage and elevator pits are
not expected to encounter groundwater. Groundwater dewatering would be controlled in compliance with the Waste
Discharge Requirements for the Discharge of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters
in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Order No. R4-2018-0125, NPDES No. CAG994004). This
permit requires permittees to conduct monitoring of dewatering discharges and adhere to effluent and receiving water
limitations contained within the permit so that the water quality of surface waters is protected. Therefore, compliance
with existing regulations would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs or
otherwise substantially degradesurface orgroundwater qualityfrom demolition and construction activities. Impacts
would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13 through 4.8-15).
Long�Term Operational Impacts
Project design, construction, and operation would be required to be completed consistent with the RH/SGRWQG
EWMP, and in accordance with the City's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Article VII,
Chapter 8 of the AMC), Construction General Permit, MS4 Permit, WDRs, and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact
Development Best Management Practices Handbook (LID Manual), with the goal of reducing the amount of
pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff (City of Arcadia 2022).
The LID Manual requires that BMPs be designed and implemented to manage and capture stormwater runoff.
Based on the Geotechnical Investigation, prepared for the Project (see Appendix E-1) and the LID Report (Appendix
G) it was determined that infiltration is feasible for stormwater treatment. Three drywells and one four -foot diameter
primary settling chamber are proposed to be constructed on the Project site, located in the subterranean parking
lot, which would be able to capture the required runoff volume and treat that volume as quickly as it enters the
dryweII system.
In addition to the drywells and settling chamber, the Project site and its immediate surrounding area contains
existing stormwater infrastructure, including a storm drainpipe that runs under E. Huntington Drive directly south
of the Project site, as well as curb- and side -opening catch basins. Thedrywells and settling chamber to be
constructed as part of the Project would result in the treatment of the entire required volume for the Project site
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 46
FINDINGS OF FACT
and the elimination of pollutant runoff up to the 85th percentile rain event. In accordance with all applicable state
and local regulations, including General Plan Policy RS -9,3 Project source controls to improve water quality would
be provided for impervious surfaces, such as parking areas, trash storage/waste areas, loading/unloading zones,
driveways, and sidewalks. As a result of compliance with existing regulations, the Project would not violate any
water quality standards or WDRs or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality duringthe long-
term Project operations. Impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-17).
Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge
The existing Project site largely consists of impervious surfaces in the form of buildings and paved parking lots, with
minimum landscaping features within the parking lots and around the existing buildings and site boundaries. The
amount of impervious area on the Project site would remain relatively unchanged with implementation of the
proposed Project. Additionally, the Project site is located above the Main Basin (Groundwater Basin 4-013), which
has been designated as Very Low Priority with respect to establishment of a GSA and completion of a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (City of Arcadia 2021; SGMA 2022). (Potable water supplies required to supply the proposed
Project are discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems.) Therefore, the Project would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of a groundwater basin. Impacts would be less than significant
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-17 and 4.8-18).
Alter Existing Drainage Pattern (Erosion, Surface Runoff, Exceed Capacity Drainage System, Impede or Redirect
Flood Flows)
The proposed Project site is fully developed in its existing condition and is located in a highly urbanized portion of
the City, surrounded by developed properties. The Project would infiltrate stormwater in accordance with all
applicable LID regulations and would continue to discharge into the existing storm drain system. Additionally, the
total amount of impervious surface area would remain relatively unchanged and post -project runoff is anticipated
to be reduced when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site, incl ud ing through the alteration of the course of a stream or river orthrough the addition
of impervious surfaces such that downstream streams or rivers would be affected. Impacts would be less than
significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-18).
Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
No areas within the City are designated 100 -year flood zones (City of Arcadia 2010b). Accordingto FEMA, the Project
site is located within Zone D, which is an area of undetermined flood risk (FEMA 2022). Additionally, the Project site
is located within the Santa Anita Dam flood inundation zone. Approximately half of the City is located within this
dam inundation zone and failure of the Santa Anita Dam would lead to inundation of a large area within the eastern
section of the City. At capacity, floodwaters from the dam would travel down Santa Anita Canyon to about Orange
Grove Avenue and then spread across the eastern half of the cityfrom Arcadia Wash, including onto portions of the
Project site (DWR 2022). To comply with state dam safety regulations, the water level behind the dam is restricted
to be no higher than an elevation of 1,230 feet amsl, to meet the California Division of Safety of Dams seismic
safety requirements and to reduce the potential magnitude of downstream flooding (City of Arcadia 2010b).
Furthermore, accordingto the General Plan Safety Element, flood hazards in the City are well addressed by existing
storm control infrastructure (City of Arcadia 2010a). Moreover, the seismic retrofit of the Santa Anita Dam, which
3 As shown in Section 4.9.2 of the Draft EIR, General Plan Policy RS -4.9 requires LID strategies to be incorporated into new construction.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project
October 2023
11663.05
47
FINDINGS OF FACT
was built in 1927, is scheduled to begin in Spring of 2023 to improve public safety and prevent flood damage to
downstream communities (LACDPW 2022). The Project site is not located near a body of water or close to the ocean
and as a result, is not susceptible to a tsunami or seiche (DOC 2022). Therefore, Project impacts would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-18 and 4.8-19).
Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan is the WQMP for the Los Angeles Region (i.e., RWQCB Region 4), which includes
the City (LARWQCB 2014). With compliance with applicable regulations, the Project does not include any facilities
or land uses that could generate pollutants that could result in substantial water quality impacts. Compliance with
the City's stormwater management requirements would protect the water quality of watercourses in a manner
pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, and pursuant to the NPDES Construction General
Permit No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Restrictions in the City's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance
are applicable to both construction activities and operations. Additionally, compliance with the Construction General
Permit issued by the SWRCB would require implementation of BMPs during construction to address the potential
for pollutants from entering downstream waters. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Los Angeles
RWQCB Basin Plan. With respect to groundwater management, a GSA has not been established for the Main San
Gabriel Basin, as it is an adjudicated basin and is not considered a high priority basin. Therefore, a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan is not required and has not been adopted for the Main Basin. Further, the Project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. As a result, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-19 and 4.8-20).
Cumulative Effect
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
The proposed Project as well as other cumulative projects has the potential to increase the amount of pollutants in
the area being released during both construction and operational phases. Typical pollutants of concern would be
associated with the construction phase (e.g., sediment, fuels, litter), private vehicle use (e.g., any leakage of
grease/oils), landscaping/grounds work (e.g., improper/excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, and/or fertilizers),
and/or trash (e.g., due to improper waste disposal). The release of such pollutants; however, would be minimized
through compliance with terms and conditions of the applicable NPDES permits, CALGreen Code, California Building
Code, MS4 Permit, and all applicable AMC requirements, and ordinances of other authorities in the region, including
the requirement to implement a SWPPP for development and redevelopment projects disturbing an area of one or
more acre(s) for coverage under the Construction General Permit. All development within the Los Angeles River
Watershed would be subject to the water quality standards outlined in the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan and
would comply with any established TMDLs. Therefore, with compliance with applicable water quality standards and
implementation of appropriate storm water management measures, the Project would not result in a cumulatively
significant impact to hydrology and water quality (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-20 and 4.8-21).
Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge
The Project site is located in the Rio Hondo subwatershed, which is an area that has largely been urbanized with
impervious surfaces. While future development projects located in the Rio Hondo subwatershed, including those
listed in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR, may slightly increasethe amount of impervious surface in the area, this increase
would be modest. As such, due to the existing developed nature of the Project site, its surrounding area, and the
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 48
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rio Hondo subwatershed, cumulative impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
Because there is not an underlying cumulative impact that the Project could contribute to, cumulative impacts to
groundwater would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-21).
Alter Existing Drainage Pattern (Erosion, Surface Runoff, Exceed Capacity Drainage System, Impede or Redirect
Flood Flows)
All of the drainages and washes in the City, including the Santa Anita Wash and Arcadia Wash, are concrete -lined,
meaning no alteration in the course of these channels would occur from future development. The proposed Project
and its surroundings are located in a built-up, urbanized area that is mainly covered with impervious surfaces. As
such, cumulative projects would not result in a large increase in the amount of impervious surface area. Because
there is not an underlying cumulative impact that the Project could contribute to, cumulative impacts to altering the
existing drainage pattern of the site (which is site specific) would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-22).
Flood Hazard, Tsunami, orSeiche Zones
In the event of dam failure, however, flood waters would impact much of the City. In accordance with the City's
Floodplain Management Regulations, all new construction and major improvements are required to be adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement in the event of a flood; to be constructed with materials
an utility equipment resistant to flood damage; and to have electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air
conditioning equipment and other utility systems that prevent water from entering or accumulating within structures
during floods. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the cumulative impact is less than significant. The
Project site is not located in a coastal area that is subject to tsunami hazards. Therefore, because there is not an
underlying cumulative impact that the Project could contribute to, cumulative impacts associated with a tsunami or
seiche would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-22).
Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The Project and cumulative projects in the area would be subject to the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan, which is the
RWQCB Region (i.e., Region 4). Future projects would be required to comply with requirements related to the
Construction General Permit and MS4 Permit (e.g., implementation of a SWPPP, stormwater BMPs, and LID design).
With the compliance of applicable regulations, the proposed Project, as well as future cumulative projects, would
reduce the potential for impairment of surface and groundwater resources. Further, pursuant to SGMA, both the
Raymond Basin and the Main Basin are identified as very low priority basins and are exempt from the requirements
of developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans. As such, cumulative impacts associated with the conflict or
obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan that could impede
sustainable management of a drainage basin or groundwater basin would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-
22 and 4.8-23).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on hydrology and water quality. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse
impacts would occur.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 49
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.11 Land Use and Planning
Physically Divide an Established Community
Under the existing condition, the Project site is developed and is not used as a connection or thoroughfare between
established communities. Instead, connectivity within the area surrounding the Project site is facilitated via local
roadways. The Project would involve reconfiguration of two existing access points along E. Huntington Drive and one
access point along Gateway Drive to provide one full access driveway along E. Huntington Drive and two access points
along Gateway Drive. Therefore, the number of access point for ingress/egress would not change under the Project.
The Project does not include the construction of a new roadway that would impair mobility within the existing Project
site or the surrounding area. As such, the Project would not impede movement within the Project site, within an
established community, or from one established community to another. Therefore, impacts associated with the
division of an established community would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-9).
Conflict with an Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Consistency with the Connect SoCai (SLAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS)
The Project would accommodate up to approximately 608 residents, which would be approximately 0.98 percent
of the 2045 SCAG estimate for the City's projected total population. Additionally, it is likely that the proposed
residential units would accommodate a combination of existing residents and new residents that either currently
work within the City and/or new residents that would be hired as a result of projected employment generation within
the City.
The Project is replacing the commercial uses that exist on the site with improved commercial space under the
proposed Project; therefore, there would be no net loss of commercial uses or employment. Furthermore, the
Project is estimated to generate a net addition of 34 employees which could be filled by unemployed persons in the
City or by unemployed persons in the County. The estimated 34 new jobs resulting from the Project would make up
a small percentage of the overall expected growth in the City and would not exceed the SCAG employment
projections or induce substantial unplanned population growth to fill these jobs. This indicates that the Project
would not outpace regional infrastructure, since the SCAG RTP/SCS is used for local and regional planning
purposes.
The Project would implement the guiding principles, goals, and policies of SCAG's Connect SoCal as they relate to
livability, economic prosperity, and sustainability through the development of a mixed-use residential development.
The development of the Project within proximity to transit would thereby alleviate pressure on suburban and open
space areas to develop.
The Project would not conflict with any of the goals within SCAG's Connect SoCal. The Project would develop the Project
site, accommodating up to approximately 608 residents and a net addition of 34 employees as compared to existing
conditions. The Project site's vicinity is served by existing public transit such as the Metro A Line and various bus
routes provided by Metro and Foothill Transit. The Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and the impact is less than significant (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.9-10 through 4.9-13).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 50
FINDINGS OF FACT
City of Arcadia General Plan Consistency
The Project would not conflict with applicable goals and policies of the General Plano. The Project requests the
approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 22-01) to change the Land Use Designation from C -G to DMU with
an accompanying Land Use map change. Upon approval of the proposed amendment, the Project would be brought
into compliance with the General Plan Land Use Designation. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan
for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-47).
City of Arcadia Municipal Code
The Project requests a Zone Change (ZC No. 22-01) from C -G to DMU with H7 Height Overlay. The current C -G zone
has a maximum allowable building height of 40 feet and does not allow for residential use. Thus, the zone change
would be required to rezone the Project site to DMU, which would allow for the Project's proposed mixed-use
development. The proposed Zone Change would also include an H7 Special Height Overlay, pursuant to Section
9102.11.040 of the City's Development Code (Development Code) (AMC, Chapter 1, Article IX, Section 9101 et
seq.) The H7 Special Height Overlay would increase the maximum allowable building height on the Project site to
75 feet, thus allowing for the proposed six -story mixed-use building, which would have an overall maximum height
of 71 feet, includinga 3 -foot parapet. Upon approval of the proposed zoningchange, the Project would be consistent
with the Arcadia Municipal Development Code for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect.
Under the proposed DMU zoning, the Project site would have an allowable base density of 80 dwelling units per
acre, allowingfor a total of 178 dwelling units on the 2.23 -acre site. The Project proposes to use a 5 percent density
bonus under the California Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915 - 65918) to increase
the number of housing units. In accordance with Section 9103.15 (Density Bonuses for Affordable and Senior
Housing) of the Development Code, the Project is required to complete an application for Site Plan and Design
Review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review) of the Development Code. Through the
application process, the City would thoroughly review all plans for the Project to ensure compliance with the AMC,
and other relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Upon approval of these discretionary land -use entitlements, less
than significant impacts would occur related to land use regulations adopted for the purposes of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-48).
Cumulative Effects
Physically Divide an Established Community
The Project includes a Lot Line Adjustment which would merge two existing parcels into one legal parcel. In addition,
the Project would involve reconfiguration of two existing access points along E. Huntington Drive and one access point
along Gateway Drive to provide one full access driveway along E. Huntington Drive and two access points along
Gateway Drive. Therefore, the number of access point for ingress/egress would not change under the Project. Given
the above, the Project, in combination with the cumulative projects, would be less than significant (Draft EIR< p.
4.9-49).
4 Note: Table 4.9-2 contains General Plan goals and polices that may be generally related to certain Project components and
potential CEQA issues. However, several policies listed in Table 4.9-2 are marked as "Not Applicable" as they do not fall under the
responsibility of the Project proponent to implement. These policies are included in Table 4.9-2 to provide context for other General
Plan goals and policies.
The Derby Mixed -Use PrpJect _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 51
FINDINGS OF FACT
Conflict with an Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Given the built -out conditions of the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan region, including the Project site, cumulative
development would likely convert existing underutilized properties in the Project site's area to revitalized higher -
density developments to respond to the need for housing, sources of employment, and associated retail land uses.
The Project would benefit the surrounding community by replacing underutilized properties; add residential uses to
a job -rich community; and improve local and regional access to the regional transportation network. Furthermore,
by providing additional housing and employment in close proximity to transit, the Project would assist the City and
region in achieving short- and long-term planning goals and objectives related to reducing urban sprawl, efficiently
using existing infrastructure, reducing regional congestion, and improving air quality through the reduction of VMT.
This would not conflict with SCAG and other regional policies for promoting more intense land uses adjacent to
transit stations and job centers.
Generally, land use conflicts would be related to noise, traffic, air quality, and hazards/human health and safety
issues, which are discussed in the relevant sections of the Draft EIR. Land use conflicts are also typically site-
specific and not cumulative in nature; in other words, despite the number of cumulative projects in a given area,
they would not necessarily compound to create cumulative land use conflicts. Further, all cumulative projects in the
City would be subject to the same local development standards, such as those identified in the City's Development
Code, as the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-49 and 4.9-50).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on land use and planning; therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse
impacts would occur.
2.3.12 Mineral Resources
There are no oil wells or oil/mineral extraction activities on the Project site (CaIGEM 2022). Current on-site land
uses do not allow for oil/mineral extraction. According to the Department of Conservation's California Geological
Survey, the City is within a Mineral Resources Zone -2 area, which is classified as an area or areas where "adequate
information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for
their presence exists" (DOC 2010). Ordinarily, classification of a mineral deposit as MRZ-2 would constitute
adequate evidence that an area contains significant mineral deposit; thus, the Project could result in the loss of
mineral resources of known importance to the state (DOC 2002). However, in recognition of the fact that much of
the MRZ-2 designated lands within the San -Gabriel Valley Production -Consumption Region have become highly
urbanized, and therefore incompatible with mineral extraction enterprises, the zone has been further designated
into discreet Sections (DOC 2014). The Project site is not located in a Section currently identified as being suitable
for mineral extraction (DOC 2014). As the site is not considered suitable for mineral extraction, and as there are no
oil wells or oil extraction activities on the site, Project impacts associated with mineral resources would not occur
(Draft EIR, p. 5-12).
The Derby Mixed_ -Use Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 52
FINDINGS OF FACT
Finding
Appendix B of the Notice of Preparation for the Project found no potential for significant impacts to mineral
resources; therefore, mineral resources were not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation would be required and
no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.13 Noise
Generation of a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Operational Noise
Off -Site Traffic Noise
The predicted change in roadwaytraffic noise would be less than 2-3 dBA which is considered a less -than -significant
impact. Additionally, the added Project traffic contribution would not cause a traffic noise level greater than 65 dBA
CNEL where the existing traffic noise level is already at or exceeds that level. In light of these predicted findings,
Project -attributed traffic would cause increases in roadway volumes or trips on 2nd Avenue, E. Huntington Drive,
Gateway Drive, and Fifth Avenue, but not at levels expected to yield significant impacts. Therefore, noise associated
with traffic would be a less -than -significant impact (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-19 and 4.10-20).
Rooftop Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise
Predicted levels range between 31 to 44 dBA hourly Leq, which is below the City's noise standard of 50 dBA Leq
for commercial properties. Aggregate noise emission from continuously operating outdoor -exposed rooftop HVAC
units is expected to be below the City's exterior noise threshold of 60 dBA Leq for commercial land uses. Therefore,
noise associated with stationary operations related to rooftop HVAC equipment would be considered a less -than -
significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-20).
Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels
The predicted 0.29 ips PPV for the on-site vibration -generating equipment is less than the Caltrans vibration threshold
of 0.5 ips PPV for building damage risk to newer residential structures and would therefore be considered a less -than -
significant impact. With respect to building occupants within these offsite structures, application of a -5 dB coupling
loss adjustment results in a reduced vibration velocity magnitude of 0.16 ips PPV, which would be less than the
Caltrans annoyance standard of 0.2 ips PPV. Therefore, groundborne vibration would be considered a less -than -
significant impact (Draft EIR, pp: 4.10-20 and 4.10-21).
Expose People Residing or Working in Airport Land Use Plan to Excessive Noise Levels
The San Gabriel Valley Airport (a.k.a., EI Monte Airport) is located approximately 3.3 miles south of the Project site.
At this distance, the Project site is well beyond the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour associated with existing aviation
noise from operations at this closest airport (County of Los Angeles 2022). Therefore, there would be no impact to
Project onsite employees or future residents with respect to exposure to aviation noise (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-21).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 53
FINDINGS OF FACT
Cumulative Effects
Temporary/Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
Noise in Excess of Standards
Implementation of the Project as well as unrelated development projects within its vicinity would all be individually
subject to applicable noise standards (descriptions of the standards applicable within the City are described
throughout this section). On this basis, and because noise impacts of the Project with respect to relevant standards
would be less than significant with mitigation, the Project would not contribute to cumulative exceedances of noise
standards, and its incremental effect would be a less -than -significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-22).
Temporary/Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
A few projects are approved and thus may have future construction periods that could potentially overlap that of
the Project. However, even if this schedule overlap were to occur, these other projects within the cities of Arcadia
and Monrovia are over 700 feet away from noise -sensitive receptors studied for the Project. Due to the decrease
in noise levels with distance and the presence of physical barriers (i.e., intervening buildings and topography), noise
due to construction of other cumulative projects would be no more than a barely perceptible difference (i.e., up to
a 3 dBA change). Based on the cumulative project list provided by the City for the Project, there are no construction
projects that would potentially contribute construction noise that would, in combination with the Project, result in
cumulative impacts. Thus, cumulative impacts associated with temporary increases in ambient noise levels would
be considered less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-22).
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Off -Site Traffic
Predicted noise increases attributed to Project -added volumes or trips to the volumes of the existing roadway
network result in less than significant impacts. Future traffic conditions, such as duringthe "horizon" year, are likely
to exhibit greater volumes of traffic along the same roadways adjoining the Project. This means that a future year
traffic noise setting without the Project traffic added, but including cumulative contribution from other projects,
would result in a higher noise level against which a horizon -plus -Project case would be compared. Since the Project
traffic contribution would be the same, its additive effect to the future traffic volumes would be smaller; hence, the
increase in traffic noise level would be less than the allowable dB increase of 3 dB, and would have a less -than -
significant cumulative traffic noise (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-23).
Stationary Sources
Noise from operation of stationary mechanical equipment added to the outdoor ambient sound environment as a
result of Project implementation would include permanent on-site noise sources (e.g., rooftop HVAC equipment), a
cumulative increase in the outdoor ambientsound environment due to such operation of Project onsite noise sources
and comparable sound sources from other unrelated future projects could occur, but only if distances to a common
receptor position were sufficiently short. The nearest unrelated project being at least 700 feet away from a noise -
sensitive receptor studied for the Project, the attenuated noise from the other project would not make a cumulatively
meaningful contribution to the increase in outdoor ambient sound environment attributed to the Project. Hence,
cumulative impacts to outdoor ambient noise levels resulting from Project stationary sources would be less than
significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-23).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 54
FINDINGS OF FACT
Vibration
Ground borne vibration attenuates very rapidly with distance. At a distance of at least 700 feet, the apparent nearest
distance of an unrelated projects, the predicted vibration level would be less than 0.0006 ips PPV. Due to potentially
concurrent construction activities, the frequency of vibration occurrences may increase in quantity at a common
receptor position; but at such a low magnitude, and because such vibrations are frequency -dependent and
therefore unlikely to combine additively, this predicted PPV from construction of an unrelated project will not cause
a cumulatively considerable effect at the studied receptor. For these reasons, such cumulative construction
vibration impact would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-23).
Expose People Residing or Working in Airport Land Use Plan to Excessive Noise Levels
Neither the Project nor any of the cumulative list projects is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within
2 miles of a public airport. The 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour associated with the closest public airport (San Gabriel
Valley Airport, located approximately 3 miles south of the cumulative list projects) does not extend into the vicinity;
therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact
(Draft EIR, p. 4.10-24).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on noise as it relates to operational noise, groundborne vibration, exposing people residing or working within
an airport land use plan to excessive noise levels, and cumulative noise impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required
and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.14 Population and Housing
Induce Substantial Population Growth
Construction
The Project involves fairly common construction requirements that would not require a highly specialized labor force
to permanently relocate from other regions. Different Project construction activities require specific skill sets for a
much shorter duration than the overall construction schedule. Because most construction workers would not be
needed continuously and would only be needed for various components of the Project (e.g., drywall installers,
electricians, plumbers, etc.), it is reasonable to assume that most workers/crews would work at the Project site on
a temporary basis only, and thus, are not likely to relocate their households as a consequence of the construction
job opportunities presented by the Project. Any changes in the City or regional population, housing, or employment
due to short-term construction activities would result in a less -than -significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-11).
Operation
Implementation of the Project would require a General Plan Amendment (No. GPA 22-01) to change the land use
designation from Commercial to Downtown Mixed Use; and a Zone Change (No. ZC 22-01) to rezone the Project
site from General Commercial (GC) to Downtown Mixed Use (DMU). These proposed changes would thereby enable
future residential development. As such, the Project would directly result in the building of new housing where
housing currently does not exist (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-11).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 55
FINDINGS OF FACT
Population Projections
The Project would be considered growth -accommodating rather than growth -inducing in that the Project's 214 new
residential units would accommodate up to 608 residents, which are anticipated to be a mix of current and future
residents to the City. However, even if all 608 residents were new to the City, the Project would still be within the
overall population growth projections included in the General Plan and Connect SoCal. Because the Project would
support the General Plan's and SCAG's goals and strategies for growth in the region and the state's goals for
increasing the housing stock for all income groups and improve the City's job/housing balance, the Project would
not induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp.
4.11-11 and 4.11-12).
lovment Proiectio
With the occupancy of the Project, the number of jobs in the City would increase by approximately 34 positions,
which could be filled by unemployed persons in the City or the County. The estimated 34 new jobs resulting from
the Project would make up a small percentage of the overall expected growth in the City and would not exceed the
SCAG employment projections or induce substantial unplanned population growth to fill these jobs. Therefore, the
impact is less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-12 and 4.11-13).
Housing Projections Analysis
The City's fair share RHNA allocation for the current housing cycle is 3,214 units. This indicates that between the
years 2021 to 2029, the City needs to accommodate at least 3,214 housing units, consisting of a variety of housing
types to accommodate extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate -income households to keep
pace with housing demand (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-13). The City's recently approved Housing Element has various
implementation actions, including rezonings and upzonings of select properties throughout the City to
accommodate the City's anticipated housing need (i.e., the Regional Housing Needs Assessment [RHNA] allocation)
for the current 2021 through 2029 housing cycle. Part of the City's strategy to satisfy the state -mandated RHNA
allocation includes rezoning select properties from C -G to DMU with a Height Overlay of H7 (maximum height of 75
feet). The Project site is identified in the Housing Element as a subject property for rezoning to DMU (Draft EIR, p.
2-4).
The Project would create new housing and would include 205 market rate units and nine (9) very -low-income
affordable units for seniors. The proposed very -low-income units would satisfy a portion of the City's mandated
RHNA allocation. As such, the Project's 214 new residential units would assist the City in meeting the mandated
RHNA allocation and would be consistent with and supportive of the City's Housing Element projections for new
residential units within the City. The Project would not exceed SCAG or the City's housing projections or induce
substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the impact is less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14).
Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing or People
The Project site is developed with two commercial buildings as well as surface parking. No housing units are located
on the Project site. Thus, Project implementation would not require demolition of existing housingor displace people
or housing. The Project would not displace any existing residents or housing units requiring construction of
replacement housing; thus, there would be no impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15).
Cumulative Effect
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 56
FINDINGS OF FACT
Induce Substantial Population Growth
Assuming 2.84 persons per household, the Project's residential units would accommodate up to 608 residents.
Additionally, the Project is estimated to result in a net addition of 34 employees as compared to under existing
conditions. A total of 778 units are proposed within the City limits. In addition to the Project's proposed 214 units,
the cumulative total of housing units would be estimated at 992 new units5. Given that the City's Housing Element
is currently undergoing an update in accordance with state law and at the time of this Draft EIR's production, state
and regional housing and population projections are used for analysis comparison. The California Department of
Finance estimates 20,511 housing units exist within the City in 2020. Moreover, SCAG estimates a total of 22,400
new units would be built by 2045. As such, the addition of 992 units would result in 21,503 new units in the City
once the Project is operational in 2025. Therefore, the estimated household growth is within the state and regional
growth projections. Furthermore, the proposed housing growth generated by the Project would further the goals
and strategies of SCAG and the City's General Plan by providing housing in an urban setting in close proximity to
transit and Downtown, while contributing to a more balanced jobs -housing community. Although, the Project's
residential population would not exceed SCAG's population projections, it can also be assumed that many of the
residential units would accommodate workers within the City which could reduce the total amount of vehicle miles
traveled by providing housing in proximity to employment centers.
Cumulative population growth could be assumed usingthe previously identified 2.84 persons per household. Thus,
the cumulative projects could result in approximately 2,210 persons6. In addition to proposed population growth
generated by the Project (608 residents), a total of 2,818 persons7 is anticipated could be generated by 2025.
Therefore, the expected population growth of that the cumulative projects combined with the Project would be
captured within the overall population growth projections included in the Connect SoCal of 5,519 City residents
between 2020 and 2045. Furthermore, 59,4998 persons are estimated at build out of both the cumulative projects
and the Project, which is within SCAG's projected population growth of 62,200 persons for the City by 2045.
Given the above, it is not anticipated that the Project, in combination with other past, present or future foreseeable
projects, would create a cumulatively considerable impact to population, housing or employment. Therefore,
cumulative impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-16 and 4.11-17).
Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing or People
The Project site is developed with two commercial buildings as well as surface parking. No housing units are located
on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not displace people or housing. Therefore, cumulative impacts would
be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-17).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on population and housing related to inducing growth during construction and displacing a substantial
number of people or housing; therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts
would occur.
5 778 + 214 = 992
6 Total of 778 units x 2.84 persons per household = 2,210 persons
7 608 + 2,210 = 2,818
8 56,681 (latest US Census population) + 2,818 (cumulative added population for Project and relevant projects) = 59,499
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 57
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.15 Public Services and Recreation
Fire Protection
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may temporarily increase demand for fire protection
and emergency medical services. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not be
considered high-risk, and the AFD is equipped and prepared to deal with construction -related incidents, should
they occur. Due to compliance with applicable codes and fire safety standards, Project construction would not
require a new fire station or expansion of Station 105 to accommodate additional firefighters or equipment in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-13).
Operation
The need for new or expanded fire protection facilities/structures/buildings is associated with a substantial
increase in population, new development, and/or fire activity, such as wildfire hazards. The proposed Project would
result in a net gain of approximately 34 employees (as compared to exiting conditions)9 and 608 new residents.lo
The proposed Project would not exceed the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG's) projections
for growth in the region.
The Project site is currently served by three existingfire stations (Stations 105,106, and 107) with Station 105 located
less than a mile from the site. The AFD stated that as the City continues to develop high density projects, call volume
for fire services will continue to increase, which would result in longer response times. With the addition of the
proposed Project, services could be incrementally impacted; however the AFD has indicated that the Project would
not require the construction of new or expansion of existing fire stations to accommodate new firefighters or
equipment, and no mitigation is required (Appendix 1-1 of the. Draft EIR). Further, as a COA the Project applicant would
be required to pay a fair share contribution to the City's traffic mitigation system for affected intersections to make
improvements in reducing response times (Appendix 1-1). The proposed Project would not require the construction
of new or expansion of existing fire stations resulting in substantial adverse physical impacts in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios and response times. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-
13 through 4.12-15).
Police Protection
Construction
During construction, the Project applicant or its construction contractor would implement temporary security
features including security fencing, lighting, and a locked entry. These features would reduce the need for police
9 Under existing conditions, the Project site supports 53 employees, 49 of which are employed at The Derby restaurant and 4 are
employed in on-site valet and parking services. Under the proposed Project, the site would support a total of 87 jobs; The Derby's new
restaurant space would support 67 employees, the cafe space would support four employees, and the complementary restaurant
space would support 10 employees. Additionally, the proposed leasing office would support 2 employees and the on-site valet services
would continue to support 4 employees. A "square feet per employee" generation factor from SCAG was used to estimate projected
employment for the cafe and complementary restaurant space. All other existing and projected employment data was provided by the
Project applicant.
10 This estimated number of new residents conservatively assumes full occupancy of all units (214 new housing units x 2.84 persons
per household = 608 Project residents).
The DerVMixed-Use Project _ _ 11663.0_5
October 2023 58
FINDINGS OF FACT
protection services during the Project's construction phase. Potential short-term construction impacts to police
services would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project site is currently served by the APD headquarters located at 250 West Huntington Drive. In recent
correspondence with APD regarding the Project, APD did not indicate that new facilities and/or physically altered
facilities would be required to continue to provide acceptable service to the City under Project conditions (Appendix
1-2 of the Draft EIR). Payment of development fees by the Project applicant would be used to offset the costs of
increased personnel or equipment that could be required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
and other performance objectives. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities and potential
impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-15).
Schools
The Project's 214 dwelling units would generate approximately 92 new students as calculated using ASD student
generation rates. This breaks down to approximately 39 elementary age students, 23 middle school, and 30 high
school students. As previously discussed, the three schools that would primarily serve the Project are Camino Grove
Elementary School, Dana Middle School, and Arcadia High School. According to AUSD, Camino Grove Elementary
School has a current enrollment of 666 students and a capacity of 775, Dana Middle School has a current
enrollment of 622 with a capacity of 918, and Arcadia High School has a current enrollment of 3,022 with a capacity
of 3,672. As such, the proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of the existing school facilities, and AUSD
would continue to provide an adequate level of service to accommodate the Project. Pursuant to SB 50, the Project
applicant would be required to pay development fees to AUSD prior to issuance of the Project's building permit.
Therefore, with the payment of the applicable school fees, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered
schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service
ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. As such, impacts on schools would be less than significant (Draft
EIR, p. 4.12-16).
Parks
In order to address the additional demand on recreational facilities within the City, the proposed Project would be
subject to the City's Council Resolution 6602, Park Facilities Impact Fee (Section 9105.15.040 of the City's
Development Code), which requires new development projects to pay impact fees, which would support park
improvements as well as fund capital costs for new and existing recreational infrastructure. Pursuant to the Park
Facilities Impact Fee, the Project applicant would be required to pay its fair share of impact fees based on the fee
category and adopted impact fee rates. While the ARCSD indicates that new park facilities would be required to
meet the City's performance standards, the Project's mitigation fees paid to the City would fairly compensate for
the Project's associated increase in demand or use of park facilities. Further, the Project site includes on-site
recreational amenities that would provide an alternative to off-site public parks and recreational facilities, allowing
Project residents to recreate on the Project site which would help reduce demand on for off-site public parks and
recreational facilities. Therefore, with payment of required impact fees as mandated by the City's Development
Code, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded park facilities would be less than significant (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.12-16 and 4.12-17).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 59
FINDINGS OF FACT
Other Public Facilities (Libraries)
The proposed Project is a mixed-use development project that would contribute to the tax revenues for the City,
thereby contributing to potential funding sources for library services. The APL indicated that the Project would not
result in the need to provide any new library facilities and/or physically altered facilities to maintain performance
objectives of the Arcadia Public Library (Appendix 1-5). Therefore, impacts to libraries and other public facilities
associated with the need for new or expanded facilities would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-17).
Increase in the Use of an Existing Neighborhood, Regional Park, or Recreational Facility
Pursuant to Section 9105.15.040 of the City's Development Code, the Project applicant would be required to pay
its fair share of park impact fees based on the fee category and adopted fee rates, currently set at $3.73 per square
foot for multifamily developments. While the ARCSD indicates that new park facilities would be required to meet
the City's performance standards, the Project's mitigation fees paid to the City would fairly compensate for the
Project's increase in demand or use of park facilities (Appendix 1-4). With payment of the required development impact
fees related to parks and recreation in combination with provision of on-site recreational facilities, the Project would meet
the City's anticipated demand for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Impacts to
neighborhood and regional parks would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-18).
Inclusion of or Requirement for Construction/Expansion of Recreational Facilities
The Project would be subject to the City's Park Facilities Impact Fee, which requires new development projects pay
impact fees to support park improvements as well as fund capital costs for other new and existing infrastructures.
Pursuant to the City's Impact Fee, the project applicant would pay its fair share based on the fee category and
adopted fee rates, currentlysetat $3.73 persquare foot. Project implementation would not requirethe construction
or expansion of new recreational facilities in the City to accommodate Project demand, and impacts would be less
than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-18).
Cumulative Effects
Fire Protection
Both the Project and cumulative projects would also be subject to the requirements of the fire code standards. This
would be ensured through the plan check process and fire review prior to the issuance of building permits for the
Project and cumulative projects. Furthermore, the Project and cumulative projects would coordinate with the
Arcadia Fire Department Fire Prevention Division to ensure fire flow requirements are met and any required
upgrades to the existing water distribution system are addressed for each individual project. As determined by AFD,
existing fire protection facilities are sufficient to meet the proposed Project (Appendix 1-1). Based on the above
considerations, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to fire protection services would be less than
significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-19).
Police Protection
As with the proposed Project, the applicants of the cumulative projects would be required to incorporate appropriate
safety features into the design and construction of their respective projects to minimize the potential for crime and
to maximize safety, ultimately minimizing the need for police protection services. In addition, the cumulative
projects would contribute to funding police protection services or new facilities through development impact fees.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 60
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the above considerations, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to police protection services
would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-20).
Schools
The proposed Project itself, as determined byAUSD would not result in significant impacts on services, necessitating
the construction of new or physically altered school facilities (Appendix 1-3). While most cumulative projects require
discretionary actions, they would incrementally increase the need for school facilities. However, Education Code
Section 17620 allows school districts to assess fees on new residential and commercial construction within their
respective boundaries. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a
developer serves to fully mitigate all potential project impacts on school facilities from implementation of a project
to less -than -significant levels. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide
full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the Project's increase in the demand for school
facilities and services would not be considerable resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact due to the
payment of development impact fees (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-20).
Parks
As previously discussed, while the Project would increase the demand for local and regional parks, this increase
would be modest, and would not result in a significant impact. The Project applicant would be required to pay its
fair share of impact fees to ensure the City would be able to maintain an acceptable level of service. Additionally,
cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval, and existing
federal, state, and local regulations related to parks and recreational facilities. Cumulative projects would also be
required to pay a Park Facilities Impact Feeto mitigate their contribution tothe demand for local and regional parks.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact
to park facilities and the impact is less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-20 and 4.12-21).
Other Public Facilities (Libraries)
Future cumulative development would generate new tax revenues and would be subject to the City's development
impact fees, which act as funding sources for City libraries. The proposed Project itself, as determined by the APL,
would not result in new physical facilities (Appendix 1-5). The Project and cumulative projects would be required to
fund their fair share of an established fee program designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These revenues
would help offset the increase in demand for library services as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project's
contribution to cumulative impacts to library services would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-21).
Increase in the Use of an Existing Neighborhood, Regional Park, or Recreational Facility
Cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to Project approval and would
also be subject to Park Facilities Impact Fees to offset their contribution to the demand for park facilities. Therefore,
cumulative impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, would be less than significant and
would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-21).
Inclusion of or Requirement for Construction/Expansion of Recreational Facilities
The Project includes the construction of on-site recreational facilities, which would decrease the Project's impacts
on existing local and regional parks. The Project applicant would also be required to pay a Park Facilities Impact
The Derby Mixed -Use Proiect 11663.05
October 2023 61
FINDINGS OF FACT
Fee to ensure existing recreational facilities would be able to continue to provide an acceptable level of service.
Cumulative projects may have a similar impact, including increasing the demand for existing recreational facilities
and the construction of on-site recreational amenities. These cumulative projects, however, would be required to
demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval, and existing federal, state, and local regulations
related to parks and recreational facilities. Cumulative projects would also be subject to similar park impact fees,
which would allow existing park facilities to continue to provide adequate service. Therefore, cumulative impacts
regarding the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant and the Project's
contribution would not be considerable resulting in a less than significant impact (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-21 and 4.12-
22).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on police and fire protection services, parks, schools, and other public facilities as well as impacts related
to recreation; therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.16 Transportation
Conflict with Circulation System Plan, Ordinance, or Policy
RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
The Project would facilitate a more balanced jobs -housing profile and once constructed, would continue to support
regional economic development. In addition, the Project site's vicinity is served by existing public transit including
Metro Routes 179 and 287 and the Metro A Line; Foothill Transit Line 187; and Arcadia Transit's Green and Red
Lines. Project development would increase transit accessibility of jobs and services within the Project site's vicinity
and would bring residential development to the City's Downtown, which contains a mix of office and commercial
development uses, thereby reducing travel demands for people and the resulting VMT. For these reasons, the
proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9).
City of Arcadia General Plan Consistency
The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project would
not hinderthe City's abilityto provide an efficient roadwaysystem thatserves all transportation modes and balances
the roadway system with planned land uses. The Project would support City's goals CI -1 through CI -4, and their
related policies, to provide an efficient roadway system that supports all transportation modes and balances the
roadway system with planned land uses, maximize operational efficiency of the street system, enhances local and
regional transit service, and provide connected, balanced, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian networks that
provide viable alternatives to use of the car. The Project would provide a connected, balanced, and integrated
bicycle and pedestrian network by developinga mixed-use projectthat promotes pedestrian connectivity and safety
with the City's Downtown and includes on-site improvements to facilitate circulation and community cohesion within
the existing environment. Specific site improvements are discussed below (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9).
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed Project would support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation throughout the Project site and the
surrounding environment and would not conflict with any City plans or policies regarding existing or proposed transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the study area. The Project would include on-site bicycle parking and enclosed
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 62
FINDINGS OF FACT
bicycle storage areas for residents as well as on-site improvements to support pedestrian connectivity with the
City's Downtown and nearby Arcadia Metro A Line Station. All pedestrian areas within the Project site would meet
American Disability Act (ADA) requirements and adhere to City design guidelines. Bicyclist and pedestrian safety
would be maintained at existing levels in the area. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with or result in the
change of bus routes in the study area; therefore, the Project would not severely delay, impact, or reduce the service
level of transit in the area. Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect, in a manner that conflicts with, an
applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy, addressing the performance of the circulation system, including
public transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9).
Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) focuses on VMT for determining the significance of transportation impacts.
The following VMT analysis is based on the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled
and Level of Service Assessment (City of Arcadia 2020) and OPR's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018). As shown in the analysis below, the Project would be screened from a project -level
analysis and no impacts due to conflicts or inconsistencies with Section 15064.3(b) are presumed, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Screening Criteria
The City's Guidelines provide three types of VMT screening that can be applied to the proposed Project to screen
from a project -level VMT assessment. As shown in Appendix J, the proposed Project is located within a TPA and
therefore meets this screening this criterium (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-10). The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
(SGVCOG) screening tool was used to determine whether or not the proposed Project would be located in a low
VMT-generating area. The TAZ would be 28.52% below the subarea threshold for VMT per Capita, which would meet
the required baseline screening criteria established in the City's guidelines. As such, the proposed Project can be
screened out using this criterion (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-10 and 4.13-11). Therefore, a VMT analysis is not required
and impacts to VMT would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-11).
Cumulative Effects
Plan, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing Circulation
The proposed Project is consistent with the following plans addressingthe circulation system and would not conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities under cumulative
conditions:
• SCAG 2020-20405 RTP/SCS - the proposed Project's proximity to existing public transit such as various
bus routes and the Metro A Line would increase transit accessibility of jobs and services, support use of
transit, and encourage sustainable land use patterns by redeveloping areas near accessible transit.
• City of Arcadia General Plan - approval of the proposed Project would ensure the proposed uses for the
Project site are consistent with the General Plan.
• Metro Long Range Transportation Plan - Los Angeles Countyvoters approved Measure M, a half -cent sales
tax increase for transportation, which has allowed Metro to develop projects to improve the existing
transportation system. Metro developed the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which provides
the funding plan and policies to provide a balanced comprehensive approach that considers the mobility
needs of everyone in LA County and matches those access needs with Metro's expected resources to
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 63
FINDINGS OF FACT
transform the County's transportation future (Metro 2020). Additionally, the 2014 Short Range
Transportation Plan (SRTP) identifies projects and programs that will be implemented in accordance with
the Project priorities and funding schedules through 2025 (Metro 2014). Metro is in the process of updating
the SUP to advance the 2020 LRTP. It is recognized that with these plans in place, Metro will continue to
maintain and expand regional transit service to accommodate cumulative demand in the region. Although
the Project (and other related projects) would cumulatively add transit ridership, Metro would continue to
maintain and expand regional transit service to accommodate cumulative demand in the region; therefore,
cumulative impacts on public transit would be less than significant.
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to addressing the circulation
system would be less than significant.
Impacts related to conflicts with transit, bicycle or pedestrian transportation would be identical to the impacts
described in the Project -specific impacts section; therefore, they are not repeated in the cumulative impacts
evaluation. The Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to transit, bicycle or pedestrian
access; therefore, all impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-14 and 4.13-15).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)
The Project is located within a low VMT generating area and would be screened from a project -level VMT analysis.
Therefore, a cumulative analysis is also not required (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-15).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on transportation as it relates to conflict with circulation system plan, ordinance, or policy; conflict with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b); and cumulative impacts. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant,
unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Change in a State listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resource
Two Native American tribes (the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation [Kizh Nation] and the Gabrielino
Tongva Tribe) requested to be notified of AB -52 -eligible projects under the City's jurisdiction. Consultation with the
Kizh Nation occurred on January 31, 2023 and has been concluded. Visual observation of the current conditions
within the proposed Project site indicate that all areas have been disturbed as a result of urban development.
Neitherthe CHRIS records search northe pedestrian survey was able to identify any archaeological resources within
the Project site. However, the Kizh Nation provided tribal archival documentation to the City that demonstrates the
cultural sensitivity of the area to the Tribe. Consultation under SB 18 did not identify any specific, known TCRs
within the Project site. MM -CUL -1 has been provided to ensure that potential impacts related to inadvertent
discovery of archaeological resources would be less than significant. In the event of a discovery of human remains
on the Project site during construction activities, the MLD would be assigned by the NAHC through the mandated
process under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and other regulatory conditions. Additional mitigation
measures have been incorporated to ensure anticipatory measures are taken in the event that unknown TCRs are
inadvertently encountered during Project construction -related earthwork activities. These mitigation measures are
outlined in MM-TCR-lthrough MM -TCR -3 intended to be implemented in concert with MM -CUL -1 from Section 4.3,
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 64
FINDINGS OF FACT
Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. Therefore, with implementation of MM -TCR -1 through MM -TCR -3, the impact
regarding a potential substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR would be less than significant with
mitigation (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-11 and 4.14-12).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on tribal cultural resources as it relates to impacts to any listed resource or a resource eligible for listing.
Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
2.3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities
Water Conveyance
The Project's proposed water infrastructure would include new water meters at the Project site building and new
lateral pipeline connections from the proposed buildingto the existing 12 -inch water main pipeline in Gateway Drive
to provide domestic water, fire water and irrigation water to the Project site.. Possible connections may be required
to water mains in Huntington Dr. for additional fire hydrants as required for the project. The construction of new
lateral pipeline connections beneath Gateway Drive would be accommodated within the construction assumptions
included in the construction -related impact analyses throughout this Draft EIR and no new or more significant
impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-20
and 4.15-21).
Stormwater Drainage
The Project would incorporate low impact development features, including drywells and a settling chamber, which
would contribute a reduction in stormwater runoff under Project conditions. As the Project would not substantially
modify the existing on-site drainage patterns, would incorporate low impact development features, and would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the Project would not contribute a substantial amount
of new stormwater runoff relative to existing conditions. Thus, the Project would not require the construction or
expansion of off-site stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21 and 4.15-22).
Dry Utilities
SoCalGas currently provides natural gas to the Project site via local distribution lines and laterals on and adjacent
to the Project site. These lines would be adequate to provide gas service to the Project. No off-site improvements
for natural gas infrastructure are anticipated with the implementation Project.
SCE currently provides electricity to the existing uses on the Project site and vicinity. Both underground and
overhead electrical distribution lines are present within the City streets and yard easements, and high-voltage
transmission lines exist along the 1-605 freeway (City of Arcadia 2010). In compliance with the City's General Plan,
all utilities in the Downtown area must be placed underground. There are existing telephone, telecommunication,
and cable television lines and facilities throughout the City. Cable and telecommunication services for the Project
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 65
FINDINGS OF FACT
site are available from private providers such as AT&T, Spectrum, EarthLink, and Frontier (HSI 2022). No off-site
improvements for electric power or telecommunications infrastructure are anticipated with the implementation of
the Project.
If unanticipated upgrades wereto be required for electrical, natural gas, ortelecommunications services, theywould
be limited the lateral connections to the Project site and not any centralized facilities. Any unforeseen upgrades
would be coordinated with appropriate service providersto minimize disruptions on service and would be completed
by either trench less technology or open trenching to the depth of the underground utilities. Additionally, the Project
would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements outlined within this Draft EIR for the purposes of
mitigating impacts associated with construction activities. No adverse physical effects beyond those already
disclosed in this Draft EIR would occur as a result of implementation of the Project's proposed utility system
connections. Therefore, impacts to dry utilities would be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-22).
Sufficient Water Supplies
The Project's anticipated water demand of 57.6 AFY can be accommodated within the UWMP's anticipated water
supply between 2020 and 2025 for Multi -family land uses of 85 AF as well as the combined Multi -family and
Commercial land uses of 184 AF. When considering that the Project's 57.6 AFY of water demand was not
necessarily anticipated within the UWMP's projections of 184 AF, the 57.6 AFY must be accommodated within the
growth projections for other projects that were not developed. The Project's potable water demand can still be
accounted for within the City's demand projections due to the planned growth in residential units that has not been
realized or approved between 2017 and 2022. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the Project, as demonstrated through the City's UWMP water demand projections. The proposed Project
would adhere to the water conservation methods established in Title 24 of the California Building Code. The Project
would also adhere to the City's Water Conservation Plan and Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, per Article VII,
Chapter 5, Part 5, Division 3 and 4 of the City's Municipal Code. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject
to a development impact/connection fee, which would serve as the Project's fair share contribution to water
infrastructure improvements in the City. Forthe reasons detailed above, the proposed Project would have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dryyears. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-22
through 4.15-25).
Adequate Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
According to the Districts, the wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP) located adjacent to the City of Industry, which has a capacity of 100 MGD
and currently processes an average flow of 62.7 MGD (Districts 2022). The remaining capacity at SJCWRP is
approximately 37.3 MGD, or approximately 37 percent of its total capacity. The existing uses on the Project site
generate an average flow of 9,012 GPD (Appendix L-1). Implementation of the Project would increase the
wastewater flows from the Project site by 50,938 GPD, and increase in wastewater generation represents
approximately 0.14 percent of the remaining capacity of the SJCWRP.
Based on the capacity of the SJWRP, the wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be nominal of
capacity. As such, the proposed Project would not exceed current capacities of the wastewater treatment system
and would not significantly impact existing wastewater treatment systems such that new facilities would be
required. Finally, water conservation measures as established at the local and state level would be implemented
and would help reduce the amount of wastewater generated by the Project.
The Derby Mixed -Use Pro'_ect _ _ 11663.05
October 2023 66
FINDINGS OF FACT
All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the
SCAG regional growth forecast as set forth in the applicable RTP/SCS. The available capacity of the Districts'
treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As
such, the Districts would provide service and wastewater treatment up to the levels that within the legally permitted
capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities (Districts 2022). The Project is within the growth
assumptions set forth in the applicable RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be
less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-25 and 4.15-26).
Generation of Solid Waste
Construction
Per Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling, of CALGreen, 65 percent of construction
and demolition waste generated by the project must be diverted from landfills. CALGreen requirements for 65
percent waste diversion, which would require the Project applicant/developer to either submit a construction waste
management plan to the City that identifies the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from
the landfills or use a waste management company that can provide verifiable documentation that the percentage
of construction and demolition waste material diverted from the landfill meets CALGreen's 65 percent diversion
requirement. The remaining 35 percent of construction and demolition material that is not required to be recycled
would either be disposed of in a regional landfill or voluntarily recycled at a solid waste facility with available
capacity. Inert landfills and debris facilities in the County have available capacity to receive construction and
demolition debris generated by the Project. The Azusa Land Reclamation Co. landfill has an estimated total
remaining capacity of 64.64 million tons (County of Los Angeles 2021). Other available inert debris facilities
together an estimated remaining daily disposal capacity of approximately 16,157 tons per day (County of Los
Angeles 2021). Dueto (1) required compliance with CALGreen and the City's Municipal Code regulations applicable
to garbage, refuse and recycling (i.e., Article V, Chapter 1) and (2) the available capacity of local inert landfills and
debris facilities, Project construction and demolition would not generate waste in excess of standards or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure and would not otherwise impairthe attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Thus, Project related construction impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.15-26 and 4.15-27).
Operation
Based on the CaIEEMod solid waste generation rates, the Project would generate approximately 218.3 tons of solid
waste per year or approximately 0.60 tons per day, after consideration of net reduction from existing land uses (i.e.,
The Derby Restaurant) (Appendix C-1 of the Draft EIR). The remaining daily capacity of local solid waste disposal
facilities is 17,107 tons per day (County of Los Angeles 2021). Therefore, the Project's operational solid waste
generation would account for 0.003 percent of the total remaining available daily disposal capacity, which is not a
substantial share of the existing remaining daily capacity and would not be in excess of capacity of local
infrastructure capacity (i.e., existing solid waste disposal facilities listed in Table 4.15-2) (County of Los Angeles
2021; Appendix C-1).11 Existing facilities in Kern, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties are also
currently accepting waste from County municipalities, such as the City (County of Los Angeles 2021). As such, other
landfills in the region would also be able to accommodate solid waste from the proposed Project, and regional
11 To calculate the percent of available capacity, the daily estimated tonnage of operational solid waste generated by the Project
(approximately 0.47 tons per day, calculated using CaIEEMod default rates provided in Appendix C-1 of this Draft EIR) was divided by
the existing daily remain capacity of the in-Countysolid waste disposal facilities available to the Project (17,107 tons per day, as shown
in Table 4.14-1i in Section 4.15.1.2, utility Infrastructure, above) to arrive at approximately .0003 percent of existing daily disposal
capacity.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 67
FINDINGS OF FACT
planning efforts would ensure continued landfill capacity into the foreseeable future. For the reasons described
above, Project operations would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore,
operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-27).
Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste The
state has set a goal of 75 percent recycling, composting, and source reduction of solid waste. To help reach this
goal, the state has adopted AB 341 and AB 1826. AB 341 is a mandatory commercial recycling bill, and AB 1826
is mandatory organics recycling. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws is required for issuance
of a solid waste facility permit, which is subject to review everyfive years. Additionally, the City is required to comply
with the solid waste reduction and diversion requirements set forth by the state, including AB 939, AB 341, AB
1327, and AB 1826. Any hazardous wastes that are generated during construction activities would be managed
and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. For the reasons discussed above,
the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related
to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-27 and
4.15-28).
Cumulative Effects
Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities
The Project would generate additional demands for water, electricity, natural gas, and communications services,
which would incrementally increase demands for the facilities that provide these services. However, the Project
would not significantly affect existing services such that new facilities would be required to provide these services
to the Project site. Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts related to water, electricity, natural
gas, and communications services infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-28).
Sufficient Water Supplies
The City (through the current UWMP) anticipates its projected water supplies will meet demand through the year
2045. In terms of the City's overall water supply condition, any cumulative project that is consistent with the City's
General Plan has been taken into account in the planned growth of the water system. Further, the proposed
Project's increase in water demand, which is anticipated to be more than what was anticipated through the UWMP,
can be accounted for in the City's supplies due to the fact that previous multi -family residential development has
not been developed or approved at the rate that was assumed within the UWMP projections. There are adequate
watersupplies to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple
dryyears. For projects that meet the requirements established pursuant to SB 610, SB 221, and Sections 10910-
10915 of the State Water Code, a Water Supply Assessment demonstrating sufficient water availability is required
on a project -by -project basis. Similar to the Project, each cumulative project would be required to comply with City
and State Water Code and conservation programs for water supply to account for the cumulative demand for water.
As a result, no significant cumulative water supply impacts are anticipated from development of the Project and
cumulative projects, and the Project's incremental contribution to water demands would not be cumulatively
considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-29).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 68
FINDINGS OF FACT
Adequate Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
The Project area and each cumulative project would incrementally increase the amount of wastewater that is being
generated in the area. Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP) Implementation of the Project would increase the wastewater flows from the Project
site by 50,938 GPD, and increase in wastewater generation represents approximately 0.13 percent of the
remaining capacity of the SJCWRP. Based on the capacity of the SJWRP, the wastewater generated by the proposed
Project would be nominal of capacity. As cumulative increases in wastewater treatment demand within the service
area require facility upgrades, the City would continue to regulate public sewer facilities in as outlined in the 2014
City of Arcadia Sewer System Management Plan, and any affected treatment plants would continue to assess
potential expansions to their treatment facilities in accordance with regulatory permit requirements. As such, the
Project's incremental contribution to impacts to wastewater services would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-29).
Generation of Solid Waste
Development of the Project in combination with cumulative projects would increase land -use intensities in the area,
resulting in increased solid waste generation in the service area for Azusa landfill. However, due to the built -out
nature of the City, the Project and cumulative projects are considered urban infill and/or redevelopment projects.
As such, solid waste is already being generated at the Project site and the majority, if not all, of the cumulative
project sites within the City. Further, AB 939, or the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, mandates that
cities divert from landfills 50 percent of the total solid waste generated to recycling facilities. In order to satisfy
CALGreen requirements of diverting 65 percent of solid waste and to offset impacts associated with solid waste,
the proposed Project and all cumulative projects would be required to implement waste reduction, diversion, and
recycling during both demolition/ construction and operation. Through compliance with City and state solid waste
diversion requirements, togetherwith the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and applicable regulations
outlined in Article V, Chapter 1, of the City's Municipal Code, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts to
solid waste services would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-29 and 4.15-30).
Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations
The Project and all cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable local and state regulations
related to solid waste, including the mandatory recycling set forth in AB 341 and AB 1826. Compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local laws is required for issuance of a solid waste facility permit, which is subject to
review every five years. Additionally, the City is required to comply with the solid waste reduction and diversion
requirements set forth by the state, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1327, and AB 1826. All businesses and residents
at the Project site would be subject to recycling and diversion requirements. In addition, waste diversion and
reduction during Project construction and operations would be completed in accordance with CALGreen standards.
The private waste haulers contracted by the City, including Republic Services, Waste Management Inc., and Valley
Vista Services, are all required to adhere to AB 341 as well as City Municipal Code waste management reporting
requirements to help track compliance with applicable solid waste diversion targets (Arcadia Municipal Code
Section 5130.2). Therefore, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts to compliance with solid waste
regulations would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-30).
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Project would have a less than significant
impact on utility and service systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 1166_3.05
October 2023 `^ 69
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.3.19 Wildfire
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps and the
City General Plan Safety Element, the Project site is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CAL FIRE 2021; City of
Arcadia 2010a). Due to the urban settingof the Projectsite, the potential for wildland fire hazards in the immediate
Project vicinity are extremely limited, however, portions of the City approximately 0.85 miles north of the Project
Site are within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The proposed Project would result in an increase in
permanent residents in the Downtown Core, which could potentially have an impact on City wide evacuation routes.
The proposed Project is located along Huntington Drive, which is a designated disaster route by the Los Angeles
Department of Public Works (LADPW 2012). Additionally, the nearby 1-210 (running east -west through the City) and
1-605 (running along the City's southeastern corner) are other designated disaster routes in the City (LADPW 2012).
The Project, however, would not result in any short- or long-term alterations to Huntington Drive, nor would it
introduce a substantial number of new permanent residents that would significantly impact Huntington Drive's
ability to serve as a disaster evacuation route. Further, as identified by CAL FIRE, all of the incorporated Fire Hazard
Severity Zones within and adjacent to the City are north of the 1-210, as are the main arterial roadways that would
likely be utilized by residents of these zones in the event of a wildfire evacuation (CAL FIRE 2022). The Proposed
project area is located to the south of the 1-210 and to the far west of 1-650. As such, potential residents of the
proposed Project would likely not access the designated area -wide evacuation routes via the same arterial roadways
as the northern residents living in and around the VHFHZs and/or other Low, Moderate/High/Fire Hazard Severity
Zones. As such, the Project would not exacerbate or expose people or structures to wildfire risks or substantially
impair an adopted emergency response plan (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 and 5-13).
Finding
Appendix A of the Notice of Preparation for the Project found no potential for significant impacts to wildfire;
therefore, wildfire was not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation would be required and no significant,
unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 70
3 Findings on Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The CEQA Guidelines direct that the selection of alternatives be governed by "a
rule of reason" (14 CCR 15126.6[a], [f]). As defined by the CEQA Guidelines, "The range of alternatives required in
an EIR is governed by a 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth onlythose alternatives necessary to permit
a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR needs to examine in detail only the ones that the
Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project" (14 CCR 15126.6[f]).
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(x)(3) requires findings to be made as to why project alternatives were
rejected. While an alternative may be potentially feasible under Guidelines section 15126.6 for inclusion in an EIR,
the ultimate determination of feasibility is to be made by the decision-making body under section 15091(a)(3). As
stated above, alternatives may be rejected when specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations make the Project infeasible. In making these findings, the City Council finds that there are seven
objectives for the Project, which are primarily dependent upon developing an under-utilized site within Downtown
Arcadia. However, the primary objectives of the Project are (1) addressing the regional housing shortage by
providing additional housing opportunities that support the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
requirements; and (2) developing an under-utilized property within a Transit Priority Area.
3.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Consideration
This section discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, including a no project alternative, in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). These alternatives include the following:
• Alternative A: No Project/Existing Development
• Alternative B: Reduced Commercial
• Alternative C: Reduced Commercial (The Derby)/No H7 Special Height Overlay
These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid orsubstantially lessen the impacts of the Project identified
in the EIR, as well as consideration of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the proposed Project as described
in the Final EIR.
3.1.1 Alternative A - No Project/No Development
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of a no project
alternative. The "purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to
compare the impacts of approving the proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project"
(14 CCR 15126.6[e][1]). When defining the no project alternative, the analysis shall be informed by "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" (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 71
FINDINGS OF FACT
Description
As stated in Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan or
policy or an ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation
into the future. Accordingly, Alternative A assumes the proposed Project would not proceed, no new permanent
development or land uses would be introduced within the Project site, and the existing environment would be
maintained. The existing uses would operate with the existing infrastructure in place. The existing commercial uses
(i.e., The Derby restaurant), would remain in place and be operational, the existing surface parking lots would be
retained, and no new buildings or subterranean parking would be constructed. It can also be assumed that the
existing commercial buildingthat was previously occupied by the Souplantation restaurant would be re -occupied by
a similar type use, as the facility is currently vacant but could be leased to a new tenant. It cannot be known at this
time whether the existing restaurant buildings would be reoccupied in their current form or would be redeveloped
based on economic circumstances; however, for the purposes of this Alternative A, no site improvements are
assumed (Draft EIR, p. 6-6).
Analysis
Under this alternative, impacts would generally be reduced. However, impacts related to land use and planning
would be slightly greater than under the proposed Project. Further, the No Project/No Development Alternative
would not provide additional housing units that could help meet the City's RHNA goals and growth projections.
Also, due to the underutilization of the site, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not contribute
to a reduction in citywide VMT and associated GHG emissions attributed to increased development in a Transit
Priority Area (Draft EIR, pp. 6-8 through 6-13).
Finding
For the reasons stated below, and each of them independently of the others, the City finds that Alternative A - No
Project Alternative is not feasible, and rejects this alternative. The No Project/No Development fails to satisfy most
the Project's objectives, and because specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
the alternative infeasible.
Rationale
No Project/No Development would have fewer impacts compared to the Project in terms of aesthetics, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality (short-term impacts), noise, public services, recreation,
transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. The No Project/No Development
Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives, with the exception of partially satisfying Objective No. 4, , which
assumes existing land uses and surface parking would remain and the views of the surface parking lots from
Huntington Drive is not expansive or overbearing; and Objective No. 6, which assumes existing land uses associated
with The Derby restaurant would remain and new commercial (i.e. restaurant) uses would be provided within
Souplantation building. No new housing would be proposed, thus, the Project would not help meet the City's RHNA
requirements.
The Derby Mixed -Use Pr2ject 11663.05
October 2023 72
FINDINGS OF FACT
3.1.2 Alternative B - Reduced Commercial
Description
As presented in prior sections of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts after
implementation of all mitigation measures. Therefore, Alternative B considers an alternative design that would
incrementally reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed Project for which mitigation is required by reducingthe
amount of commercial space and replacing the level one commercial area with 4,700 square feet of amenity space for
the residential uses. Under Alternative B, the 3,300 square -foot restaurant space and 1,400 square -foot cafe space
would be replaced by additional residential amenity space. Under Alternative B, The Derby restaurant would be the only
commercial use on the Project site.
Alternative B would generate residents associated with 214 units and employment associated with the modernized The
Derby restaurant. Under Alternative B, no change would occur to the number of units and total residents (i.e., 608);
however, this alternative would result in fewer anticipated employees as a result of the conversion of the 3,300 square -
foot restaurant and 1,400 square -foot cafe to amenity spaces. As such, Alternative B is estimated to result in
approximately 73 employees (20 net new employees), as opposed to the Project's 87 employees (34 net new
employees), representing a reduction of 14 employees. This reduction represents an approximately 16.1 percent
decrease in anticipated total employees and an approximately 41.2 percent decrease in net new employees when
compared to the proposed Project (Draft EIR, p. 6-13).12
Analysis
Most impacts under Alternative B would be the same as the Project and would require all of the mitigation measures
identified for the Project. However, the following impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative: long-term
air quality impacts; long-term energy impacts; long-term greenhouse gas emissions impacts; long-term noise
impacts; public services and recreation impacts; and long-term transportation impacts. Additionally, under
Alternative B, impacts related to utilities and service systems would be reduced (Draft EIR, pp. 6-15 through 6-19).
Finding
For the reasons stated below, and each of them independently of the others, the City finds that Alternative B is not
feasible, and rejects that alternative. Alternative B satisfies a majority of the Project Objectives. However, this
alternative partially satisfies Objective No. 6 under a reduced project alternative. Alternative B is rejected because
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the alternative infeasible.
Rationale
While the Alternative B would achieve a majority of the Project objectives, Objective No. 6 would be partially
satisfied. Alternative B would result in a mixed-use, high-density, urban development that would be supported by
temporary employment opportunities during construction. Due to the reduced commercial space, Alternative B
would generate 14 fewer employees compared to the project. However, long-term employment would still be
generated under Alternative B through operation of The Derby restaurant, the residential leasing office, and
12 (87 - 73)/87 =0.161 x 100 = 16.1 percent; (34 - 20)/34=0.412 x 100 =41.2 percent
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 73
FINDINGS OF FACT
valet/parking areas.. Further, Alternative B would not result in a reduction of a significant environmental impact.
Neither the Project nor Alternative B would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact.
3.1.2 Alternative C - Reduced Commercial (The Derby)/No H7 Specia
Height Overlay
Description
As presented in prior sections of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts after
implementation of all mitigation measures. Therefore, Alternative C considers an alternative design that would
incrementally reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed Project for which mitigation is required and would
potentially improve the Project's consistency with the City's zoning designation. Alternative C would eliminate
approximately 8,850 square feet of commercial space. Due to the overall reduction in commercial space, Alternative
C would no longer provide a larger, modernized space for The Derby restaurant, which would be demolished to
accommodate a new five -story mixed-use building. Additionally, Alternative C would not include an H7 Special Height
Overlay, thereby reducingthe Project's maximum height from 71 feet to 60 feet.
As stated in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the Project site's current C -G zoning designation sets a
maximum allowable building height of 40 feet and does not allow for residential use. The Project would include a Zone
Change to DMU and an H7 Special Height Overlay. An overlay zone, such as a height overlay, supplements the base
zoning provisions for the purpose of establishing specific development regulations for a particular site or area. Under the
DMU zone, the maximum allowable building height is 60 feet. The H7 Special Height Overlay would increase the
maximum allowable building height on the Project site to 75 feet, thus allowing for the Project's six -story mixed-use
building to be proposed with a maximum height of 71 feet. Alternative C would not include the H7 Special Height
Overlay and the additional height allowed, thereby reducing the Project's maximum height from 71 feet to 60 feet,
which would be consistent with limits set forth under the DMU zone change request.13 Alternative C would not result
in reduced dwelling units due to an alternative building design that eliminates the setback on Levels Two through
Five, thus allowingfor "replacement" units to be constructed.
Under Alternative C, the 9,177 square -foot commercial space associated with The Derby restaurant on Level One would
be reduced and divided into two 2,000 square -foot commercial spaces. The remaining square footage associated with
The Derby restaurant would be converted to additional commercial parking (approximately 5,177 square feet). On Level
Two, there would be no building setback, and the 2,950 square -foot exterior space for The Derby along with an
approximately 723 square -foot interior space would be converted into 10 dwelling units. The vertical exterior space on
Levels Three through Five would also be enclosed and built out, allowing for construction of eight additional units per
level, for a total of 34 additional units.14 The five two-story dwelling units on Level Five would also be reduced to one
story. Therefore, although Level Six would be eliminated (resulting in the elimination of 34 units) the total unit count for
the building would remain 214.
The elimination of 8,850 square feet of commercial space under Alternative C (initially intended to support an expanded
The Derby restaurant) would result in an approximately 50 percent reduction in overall commercial space compared to
the Project. Although The Derby restaurant would no longer be operational, commercial uses on the Project site would
generate employment associated with two 2,000 foot commercial spaces, the 1,400 square foot cafe space, the 3,300
13 According to Table 2-11 within Section 9102.05.030, Development Standards in Downtown Zones, the DMU zone has a base
density of 80 dwelling units per acre and a maximum height of 60 feet.
14 Level 2 (10 units) + Level 3 (8 units) + Level 4 (8 units) + Level 5 (8 units) = 34 units
The Derby Mixed -Use Project _ 11663.05
October 2023 74
FINDINGS OF FACT
square foot restaurant space, valet operations, and leasing office for a total of 30 employees. This represents a net
reduction of 57 employees (or approximately 66 percent) underthis alternative compared to the proposed Project (Draft
EIR, p. 6-20).
Analysis
For the reasons stated below, and each of them independently of the others, the City finds that Alternative C is not
feasible, and rejects that alternative. Alternative C would result in similar or reduced impacts. Under this alternative,
the following would result in reduced impacts: aesthetics, long-term air quality, long-term energy, long-term
greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, long-term population and housing, public services and
recreation, long-term transportation, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, Alternative C would result in
slightly reduced impacts related to long-term noise. Alternative C is rejected because specific economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations make the alternative infeasible (Draft EIR, pp. 6-22 through 6-27).
Finding
For the reasons stated below, and each of them independently of the others, the City finds that Alternative C is not
feasible, and rejects that alternative. While Alternative C satisfies a majority of the Project Objectives. However, this
alternative partially satisfies Objective No. 6 and would not satisfy Objective No. 7. Alternative C is rejected because
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the alternative infeasible.
Rationale
While the Alternative C would achieve a majority of the Project objectives, Objective No. 6 would be partially
satisfied. Alternative C would result in a mixed-use, high-density, urban development that would be supported by
temporary employment opportunities during construction. Due to the reduced commercial space, Alternative C
would generate fewer employees compared to the project. However, long-term employment would still be generated
under Alternative C through operation of the commercial spaces, the residential leasing office, and valet/parking
areas. Additionally, this alternative would not satisfy Objective No. 7. Alternative C would result in a mixed-use, high-
density, urban development that would be supported by temporary employment opportunities during construction.
Due to the reduced commercial space, Alternative C would generate fewer employees compared to the project.
However, longterm employment would still be generated under Alternative C through operation of the commercial
spaces, the residential leasing office, and valet/parking areas. Neither the Project nor Alternative C would result in
a significant and unavoidable environmental impact.
3.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative; and, where the no project alternative is
environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify an alternative from among the others evaluated as
environmentally superior (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).
Alternative A would result in reduced impacts to all environmental topics in the short-term because construction
activity would not occur. Alternative A would therefore eliminate all mitigation requirements for short-term
construction activity. Similarly, Alternative A would result in reduced environmental impacts to most environmental
topics in the long-term because no operational changes would occur. However, increased environmental impacts
would occur for the following topics: (1) Hydrology/water quality, due to the continued operation of the site that
does not currently contain low -impact development features; (2) Population and Housing, due to the lack of
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 75
FINDINGS OF FACT
additional housing units that could help meet the City's RHNA goals and growth projections; and (3) Land Use and
Planning, as neither Alternative A would facilitate the City's stated goals, policies, and objectives related to zoning
and land -use in Downtown Arcadia. The proposed Project would redevelop existing commercial uses and surface
parking lot to construct a mix of land uses including residential and commercial, within a TPA and the established
Downtown Arcadia focus area, which would help the City to achieve its goals and policies related to land use,
circulation, economic development, and housing, which would not occur under Alternative A. Nevertheless, the
elimination of all construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would result in an
environmentally superior alternative when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B, and/or Alternative C.
As required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no
project" alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative amongthe other alternatives.
The proposed Project has no significant unavoidable impacts that could be addressed by the adoption of any
alternative. Both Alternatives B and C would have similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed
Project for almost all environmental topics and would not eliminate the need for any proposed mitigation measures.
However, Alternative C would result in reduced impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, energy, GHG
emissions, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service
systems. Therefore, Alternative C would reduce more overall impacts when compared to the Project and Alternative
B; therefore, Alternative C would be considered the environmentally superior alternative (Draft EIR, pp. 6-29 and 6-
30).
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 76
4 General CEQA Findings
Based on the information contained in the administrative record and based on the facts stated below, the City
makes the Findings set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
1. The plans for the proposed Project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement
in the planning and the CEQA processes.
2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Draft EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the
environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant
effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in
the Draft and Final EIR.
3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately
addressed in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments Received, in the Final EIR. Any significant effects
described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described
in the Draft and Final EIR.
4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation
The Cityfinds thatthe Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior to certification of the
Final EIR when "significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the
draft EIR for public review." As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5:
New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives
the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of
the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative)
that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring
recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it;
4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that "recirculation is not required where the new
information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate
EIR." Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR — indeed, new
information is oftentimes added given CEQA's public/agency comment and response process and CEQA's post -
Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies. In short,
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 77
FINDINGS OF FACT
recirculation is "intended to be an exception rather than the general rule." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1132.)
As such, the City makes the following Findings:
1. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the Draft EIR present any significant
new information that would require the Draft EIR to be recirculated for public review.
2. No new or modified mitigation measures are proposed that would have the potential to create new
significant environmental impacts.
3. The Draft EIR adequately analyzed project alternatives and there are no feasible project alternatives or
mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the project.
4. The Draft EIR was not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature and did not
preclude meaningful public review and comment.
In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR prior to certification is not required. In addition
to providing responses to comments, the Final EIR includes revisions to expand upon information presented in the
Draft EIR (Chapter 3, Changes to the EIR); explain or enhance the evidentiary basis for the Draft EIR's findings;
update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful revisions to the Draft EIR. These
revisions, clarifications and/or updates do not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact. These changes are notsubstantial, do not deprive the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an
effect or a feasible project alternative.
In summary, the Final EIR demonstrates that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts
or increase the severity of a significant impact, as compared to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The changes
reflected in the Final EIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the Draft EIR was precluded in the
first instance. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required as revisions to the EIR are not significant as
defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
4.2 Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined herein are feasible and
have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures.
These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that
will come into effect when the City approves the proposed Project.
The mitigation measures that are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be effectuated
through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed Project.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project 11663.05
October 2023 78
5 Conclusion
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as implemented through
the MMRP, will eliminate or reduce to a less -than -significant level most of the adverse environmental impacts of
the Project.
Taken together, the EIR which consists of the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the MMRP provide an adequate basis for
approval of the Project.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11663.05
September 2023 79
FINDINGS OF FACT
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11663.05
September 2023 80
6 References Cited
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Services). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed
November 3, 2022. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
CaIGEM (Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division). 2022. Well Finder Map. Accessed
November 3, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/-118.03011/34.14030/17.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic
Highways (XLSX). Accessed October 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-
architecture-and-community-I iva bi I ity/I a p -I iv -i -scenic -highways.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Bios Essential Connectivity Map. Accessed November 3,
2022. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.
CDFW. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 5 web -viewer. Accessed July 2020.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
City of Arcadia. 2010. City of Arcadia General Plan. Updated 2013. Accessed October 2022
https://www.a rcad iaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning`zon i ng/genera I_pla n. ph p.
City of Arcadia. 2010b. City of Arcadia General Plan Final EIR. SCH No. 2009081034. September 2010. Accessed
June 2023. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/
planning_zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708.
City of Arcadia. 2019a. Commercial and Mixed Use Design Guidelines. October 2019. Accessed November 11,
2022. https://cros9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/
des ign%20gu ide I i ne%20u pdate/CM U_10-21-19. pdf.
City of Arcadia. 2020. City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of
Service Assessment. August.
City of Arcadia. 2021.2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed November 21, 2022.
https://cros9files.revize.com/a rcad ia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/
Water%20&%20Sewer%20Seryices/ Fina 1%202020%20 UWMP. pdf.
City of Arcadia 2022. Municipal Code. Accessed at https://[ibrary.municode.com/ca/arcadia/
cod es/cod e_of_ord i na n ces?node I d=ARCAM UCO.
City of Arcadia. 2022b. Trash and Recycling. City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department. Accessed
November 21, 2022. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/public-works-services/
trash -and -recycling.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, web -viewer. Accessed
June 25, 2021. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.htmi.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11663.05
September 2023 81
FINDINGS OF FACT
County of Los Angeles. 2021. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 202 Annual Report. Los Angeles
County Public Works. Accessed November 21, 2022.
County of Los Angeles. 2022. A NET. LA. County's Airport Land Use Commission Site.
https://Iacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba ppviewer/index. htm I?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bfO7547f240a.
Districts. 2022. Communication with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts on November 8, 2022. Per M.
Huffman, Environmental Planner, Facilities Planning Department. Included in Appendix A-2.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2002. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral
Lands. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/
Documents/ClassDesig. pdf.
DOC. 2014. Updated Designation of Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources in the San Gabriel Valley
Production -Consumption Region, Los Angeles County. Accessed November 3, 2022.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/reports/Documents/Designation_Reports/Designation-Report-
12-San-Gabriel.pdf.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022. California Tsunami Maps and Data. Accesses November 16,
2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
DOC. 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed November 3, 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
DOC. 2022b. The Williamson Act Status Report 2020-2021. Released 2022. Accessed November 3, 2022.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/d lrp/wa/Docu mentslstats_reportsl2018%20WA%2OStatus%2OReport. pdf.
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State, January 2021-2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing
Estimates, 1/1/2022. Accessed October 12, 2022. https.//dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/
esti mates/e-5-popu lation-and-housi ng -estimates -for -cities -counties -and -the -state -2020-2022/.
DWR (California Department of Water Resource). 2022. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Map Publisher.
Accessed December 15, 2022. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.
EDD (Employment Development Department). 2022. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census
Designated Places. August 2022. Accessed October 14, 2022. https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Force-and-
Unem ployment-Rates/Labor-Force-and-Unem ployment-Rate-for-California-S/8z4h-2ak6/data#revert.
Graham F. 2022. Communication with City Planning Services Manager, Email Entitled "Housing". Email from F.
Graham to K. Starbird on December 19, 2022.
Graham, F. 2023. Email to K. Starbird (Project Manager, Dudek) from F. Graham (Planning Services Manager, City
of Arcadia). Subject: HE Rezone summary. June 29, 2023.
HSI (High Speed Internet). 2022. Internet providers in 91006, Arcadia, CA. Accessed November 11, 2022.
https*//www.highspeedinternet.com/ca/arcadia?zip=91006.
The Derby Mixed -Use Pro.;ect Final EIR 11663.05
October 2023 82
FINDINGS OF FACT
LACDPW. 2022. Santa Anita Stormwater Engineering Projects. Accessed November 16, 2022.
http,//www.dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/projects/SantaAnita/.
LA DPW (Los Angeles Department of Public Works). 2012. Disaster Routes, Los Angeles County Operational Area.
Accessed October 19, 2022. https://Iadpw.org/dsg/DisasterRoutes/
LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2014. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Accessed November 15, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
loss ngeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_pla n_docu mentation.htm I.
OPR (California Governor's Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. Accessed June 2020. http://opr.ca.gov/
docs/20190122-743_Techn ical_Advisory.pdf.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecasts, Connect
SoCal. Accessed October 2022. https.//scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/
0903fcon nectsoca I_demogra ph ics-and-growth-forecast. pdf?1606001579.
SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern
California Association Of Governments. Adopted May 7, 2020. https://www.connectsocal.org/
Documents/Adopted/fCon n ectSoCa I -Plan. pdf.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
SCAQMD. 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.
August 2003. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/
cum u lative-i m pa cts-worki n g-grou p/cu m u lative-i m pacts-wh ite-pa per. pdf?sfvrs n=2.
SCAQMD. 2022. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adopted December 2, 2022. Accessed April 2023.
https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-ai r-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
SGMA (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act). 2022. Groundwater Basin Prioritizations, SGMA Data Viewer.
Accessed November 16, 2022. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer
#boundaries.
Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A.
Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected
California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and
Game, and Federal Highways Administration. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?
DocumentlD=18366.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse
impacts to paleontological resources. Available: https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf.
The Climate Registry. 2020. Default Emission Factors. April 2020. Accessed November 2022.
https://docslib.org,/doc/5505795/the-climate-registry-2020-default-emission factor- document.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11663.05
October 2023 83
FINDINGS OF FACT
U.S. Census. 2021. U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Arcadia City. Accessed October 12, 2022.
https://www.census.gov/q u ickfacts/fact/table/arcad iacityca lifornia/PST045221
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Database; results
for the Project site. Accessed June 25, 2021. https.//ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
USFWS. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory, online Wetland Mapper. Accessed November 3, 2022.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.htm1.
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR _ 11663.05
October 2023 84
FINDINGS OF FACT
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
The Derby Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11663.05
October 2023 85
EXHIBIT "B"
[MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
4 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an environmental impact
report (EIR), "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project
or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The
reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation."
This chapter contains the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that has been developed for The
Derby Mixed -Use Project (Project). This MMRP has been developed in compliance with Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The mitigation measures in the table are coded
by alphanumeric identification consistent with the EIR. The following items are identified for each mitigation
measure (MM):
Mitigation Monitoring. This section of the MMRP lists the stage of the proposed Project during which the
mitigation measure would be implemented and the stage during which proper implementation would be
monitored and verified. It also lists the agency that is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure
is implemented and that it is implemented properly.
■ Verification of Compliance. This section of the MMRP provides a location forthe implementing party and/or
enforcing agency to make notes and to record their initials and the compliance date for each mitigation
measure.
The City of Arcadia (City) must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed Project
with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of Project approval.
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-1
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Cultural Resources
MM -CUL -1. Prior to commencement of construction activities, an
inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall be
added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing
activities and the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be
submitted to the City of Arcadia Development Services Department
(City) for review and approval. All construction personnel and
monitors shall be presented the WEAP training prior to the start of
construction activities. The WEAP shall be prepared to inform all
personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity
of the area, to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological
materials that may be identified during construction, to explain the
importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant
archaeological resources, and to outline the actions to be taken in
the event of a discovery of cultural resources. Each worker shall also
learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural
resources or human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing
activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection,
and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological
monitor.
The WEAP shall require that a qualified archaeologist be retained and
on-call to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries
identified during initial excavation in native soils, which underly the 2-
4 feet below ground surface of artificial fill soils. As it pertains to
archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of
sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by
project -related construction.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities;
During construction
activities
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Project
Applicant/Developer;
Project qualified
archaeologist for
preparation of a Worker
Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP)
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
City of Arcadia Planning
and Building Divisions
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-2
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
If potential archaeological resources (i.e., sites, features, or artifacts)
are exposed during construction activities for the Project, the City
shall be notified and all construction work occurring within 50 feet of
the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not
additional study is warranted. The archaeologist shall be empowered
to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of
abundant or large artifacts. Depending upon the significance of the
find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR
15064.5[fj; PRC, Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply
record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an
archaeological treatment plan and data recovery, may be warranted.
The archaeologist shall also be required to curate any discovered
specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and
submit a written report to the City of Arcadia for review and approval
prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Once approved, the
final report shall be filed with the South -Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC).
Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils)
are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all
construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall
immediately stop until a Qualified Paleontologist meeting Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) standards can evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study
is warranted. If the discovery is clearly not significant, the
paleontologist may document the find and allow work to continue. If
significant paleontological resources are discovered during
earthmoving activities, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare and
submit a Paleontological Resources Recovery Plan (PRRP) to the City
Agency Responsible for
Party Responsible for Monitoring
Implementation Timing Implementation Implementation
Prior to any grading activity;
During grading activities
Project City of Arcadia Planning
Applicant/Developer; and Building Divisions
Project paleontologist for
preparation of a
Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) and
preconstruction meeting
FINAL EIR FORTHE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-3
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Fable 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for review and approval. The recovery plan shall include, but is not
limited to, sampling and fossil recovery procedures, museum curation
for any scientifically significant specimen recovered, and a report of
findings. Recommendations in the PRRP as approved by the City shall
be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site
where the significant paleontological resources were discovered. Any
reports and plans resulting from implementation of this measure
shall be submitted to City Planning Division and filed with the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ :L. Hazardous Building Materials Survey. Prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit for any existing on-site structures, a
qualified environmental specialist shall conduct a survey for
asbestos -containing materials, lead-based paint, polychlorinated
biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous building materials, such as
universal wastes and refrigerants, to document the presence of any
potentially hazardous materials within the structures. If survey results
are positive, all potentially hazardous materials identified as part of
this survey shall be handled and disposed in accordance with the
federal and state hazardous waste and universal waste regulations.
Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any
necessary abatement measures in compliance with the findings of
the hazardous building materials survey and federal, state, and local
regulations, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (which regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (which regulates employee exposure), the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, and the Metallic Discards Act of
1991 (Public Resources Code, Section 42160 et seq.), particularly
Public Resources Code, Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special
Handling. for the removal of mercury switches. PCB -containing
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT
OCTOBER 2023
Implementation Timing
Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Project
Applicant/Developer
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
City of Arcadia Planning
and Building Divisions
11663.05
4-4
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
ballasts, and refrigerants. Upon completion of construction activities,
proof of proper handling and disposal shall be provided to the City's
Public Works Services Department.
MM-HAZ 2. Contaminated Soil Management. Prior to the issuance of
Prior to the issuance of a
Project
City
a grading permit, the Project Applicant/Developer shall retain a
grading permit; During
Applicant/Developer;
and
qualified environmental professional to prepare a soil management
construction activities
Project Contractor for
plan (SMP) that outlines the proper screening, handling,
preparation of a Soil
characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for
Management Plan (SMP)
contaminated soils on site based on the findings of the site-specific
conditions, geophysical surveys, and Phase I and II Environmental
Site Assessments, and shall identify any areas of known or suspected
soil contamination. The SMP shall be provided to the City
Development Services Department for review prior to any site
grading. The Project's contractor shall ensure implementation of the
SMP through the contract specifications for all confirmed and
suspected contaminated soils which require excavation and offsite
disposal. The SMP shall include health and safety and training
procedures for construction workers who may come into contact with
contaminated soils. The health and safety procedures shall include
periodic breathing zone monitoring for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) using handheld organic vapor analyzer and include required
actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable
screening levels for health and safety of onsite workers and the
public. The SMP shall also include instructions for the identification of
potentially -impacted soils, procedures for temporary cessation of
construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental
concern if potentially -impacted soils or underground storage tanks
are encountered, procedures for characterizing and managing
potentially -impacted soils, and follow-up procedures such as disposal
and reporting, as necessary. Contaminated soil shall be managed
and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and
of Arcadia Planning
Building Divisions
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023
4-5
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
local regulations. upon completion of construction activities, proof of
compliance with the SMP shall be provided to the City's Development
Services Department.
Noise
MM -N01-1. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Project
Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the following measures are
included in the construction contractor's contract specifications and
that the following measures are implemented and monitored for
compliance throughout construction:
■ All construction equipment must have supplier -approved sound
muffling devices (e.g., engine air intake or exhaust treatment)
installed and used in compliance with relevant industry
standards and Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to construction
noise, which shall be properly maintained and used at all times
such equipment is in operation.
• The construction contractor shall place stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors nearest the Project site, including the hotels located
adjacent to the northern and northwestern boundaries of the
Project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment
staging areas so as to maximize the distance between
construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors
nearest the Project site during the construction period.
• All noise producing construction activities, including warming -up
or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction,
shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on weekdays.
An eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected or
installed along an extent of the northern Project site property line
Implementation Timing
Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit; During
demolition and
construction activities
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Project
Applicant/Developer
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
City of Arcadia Planning
and Building Divisions
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-6
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
where it is adjacentto the nearest noise -sensitive receptor. The
barrier can comprise one or more materials of construction and/or
assembly, so long as the net sound transmission class (STC) is 15 or
better, and thus expected to yield a minimum of 5 dB noise reduction
when blocking direct sound paths between onsite Project
construction noise -producing activities or equipment and the offsite
receptor of concern. The horizontal extent of the installed barrier
should be compatible with Caltrans or other industry guidance with
respect to minimizing flanking effects around the ends of the barrier,
based on both the offsite receptor position and the onsite position or
zone of construction activity.
Transportation
MM -TRA -1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with the City Engineer to
prepare engineering plans that remove and reconfigure the raised
median on E. Huntington Drive to extend the eastbound left -turn
pocket to at least 75 feet. Plans shall be prepared and implemented
to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director. The
reconfigured median on E. Huntington Drive shall be completed and
operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for The
Derby restaurant.
Implementation Timing
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
MM TRA 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Prior to issuance of a
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a Parking Signage Plan to clearly building permit
identify ingress/egress and circulation for residents and commercial
visitors. The Parking Signage Plan shall require that adequate
signage be installed within the commercial section of the parking
structure directing personal vehicles to use the Gateway Drive egress
to exit the Project site, and to prohibit egress through the courtyard to
E. Huntington Drive, in order to avoid conflicts with valet operations
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Project
Applicant/Developer
Project Applicant/
Developer
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
City of Arcadia Planning,
Building, and Engineering
Divisions; City of Arcadia
Public Works Services
Department
City of Arcadia Planning,
Building, and Engineering
Divisions
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-7
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM -TRA 3. Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the
Project Applicant/Developer shall develop and implement a City -
approved Construction Traffic Control Plan. The Plan shall be
prepared in accordance with applicable City guidelines and shall
address the potential for construction -related vehicular traffic, as well
as pedestrian and bicycle circulation disruption in the public right-of-
way. The Plan shall describe safe detours and shall include protocols
for implementing the following: temporary traffic controls (e.g., a flag
person during heavy truck traffic for soil export) to maintain smooth
pedestrian and traffic flow; dedicated on-site turn lanes for
construction trucks and equipment leaving the site; scheduling of
peak construction truck traffic that affects traffic flow on the arterial
system to off-peak hours; consolidation of truck deliveries; and/or
rerouting of construction trucks away from congested streets or
sensitive receptors.
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM -TCR -1. Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground -Disturbing Activities. The Project
Applicant/Lead Agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or
approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.
The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any
"ground -disturbing activity" for the subject Project at all Project
locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included
in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection
with the Project, such as public improvement work). "Ground -
disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition,
pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal,
boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to
the lead agencyyfor to the earlier of the commencement of any
Agency Responsible for
Party Responsible for Monitoring
Implementation Timing Implementation Implementation
Prior to issuance of
demolition or grading
permits
Prior to the
commencement of any
"ground -disturbing activity"
for the subject Project at all
Project locations, or prior to
issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a
ground -disturbing activity;
During ground -disturbing
activities
Project
Applicant/Developer
Project
Applicant/Developer or City
of Arcadia; Native American
Monitor from or approved
by the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
City of Arcadia Planning,
and Engineering Divisions
City of Arcadia Planning
Division; Native American
Monitor from or approved
by the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-8
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Party Responsible for
Implementation
ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to
commence a ground -disturbing activity.
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of
construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including
but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American
(ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs
will be provided to the Project Applicant/lead agency upon written
request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the
following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point
of contact for the Project Applicant/Lead Agency that all ground -
disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing
activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are
complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh
to the Project Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the
Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR
has been fully assessed bythe Kizh monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in
the form and/or manner the Tribe deems awroviate. in the Tribe's
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-9
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
MM -TCR -2. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
During ground -disturbing
Project
County of Los Angeles
Associated Funerary Object. Native American human remains are
activities
Applicant/Developer
Department of Medical
defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in
Examiner -Coroner;
any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary
California Native American
objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code
Heritage Commission; City
Section 5097.98, are also to be treated accordingto this statute.
of Arcadia Development
If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or
Services Department
recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall
immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates
that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately
reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities
shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has
determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to
believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage
Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be
followed.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per
California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site
ata minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains
and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that
resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and
provides the Project manager express consent of that determination
(along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-10
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
archaeologist deems necessary). fCFQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f).)
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin
(non -TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept
confidential to prevent further disturbance.
MM -TCR -3. Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. If it is
During ground -disturbing
Project
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
determined, through compliance with Public Resources Code section
activities
Applicant/Developer
Indians - Kizh Nation; City
5097.98 and other applicable regulatory requirements that the
of Arcadia Development
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation is the Most Likely
Services Department
Descendant (MLD), the following shall be implemented:
• As the MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented.
To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than
human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal
Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of
the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the
deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
• If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials,
the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a
separate treatment plan shall be created.
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-11
4.0- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Agency Responsible for
Party Responsible for Monitoring
Implementation Timing Implementation Implementation
■ The prepared soil and cremation soils are to
same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated
funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or
ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the time of death
or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to
contain human remains can also be considered as associated
funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by
means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred
materials.
• In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be
covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by
heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect
the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour
guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will
make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and
keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot
be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
■ In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good
faith efforts by the Project Applicant/Developer and/or
Landowner, before ground -disturbing activities may resume on
the Project site, the Landowner shall arrange a designated site
location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful
reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4.12
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
■ Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary
objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural
patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if
possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six
months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on
the Project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe
and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There
shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
The Tribe will work closely with the Project's qualified archaeologist to
ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and
respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation
shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed
descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery -
related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the
Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report
shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does not
authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains
Utilities and Service Systems
MM-UTL-1. Sewer Upgrade Fair Share Payment. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy permit for the Project, the
Applicant/Property Owner shall make a fair share contribution of 9
percent of the Fifth Avenue sewer upgrade project cost, not to exceed
$108,000, to the City to help fund upgrading of the sewer line in Fifth
Avenue. The Fifth Avenue Sewer Upgrade Project will be included in
the City's 2024-25 Capital Improvement Plan budget and the work
will be completed by the City's Public Works Services Department by
Implementation Timing
Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
permit
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Implementation
Project
Applicant/Developer
City of Arcadia Planning,
Building, and Engineering
Divisions; City of Arcadia
Public Works Services
Department
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-13
4.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Agency Responsible for
Party Responsible for Monitoring
Implementation Timing Implementation Implementation
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the City
Public Works Services Department as appropriate
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-15
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..................................................................................................1
FIGURES
NO TABLE OF FIGURES EN'T'RIES FOUND.
FABLES
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...............................................................................................2
THIS TABLE OF CONTENTS IS FOR CONS -1 RUCTON ONLY AND
WILL. NOT BE INCLUDED IN THOS SECTION PDF.
�,NS1 FAD THE CUMULATIVE TOC WILL APPF�R AS ITS OWN SECTION.
FINAL EIR FOR THE DERBY MIXED-USE PROJECT 11663.05
OCTOBER 2023 4-16