HomeMy WebLinkAbout6715 RESOLUTION NO. 6715
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH #2009081034), ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ARCADIA
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia (the "City ") desires to comprehensively revise the
Arcadia General Plan to respond to changing conditions in the City and the region, as
well as to revisit the vision of the City for its future (hereinafter referred to as either the
"Project" or the "General Plan Update "); and
WHEREAS, the City formed a General Plan Advisory Committee that articulated
the vision for the City; reviewed the existing land uses in the City; identified areas that
should be preserved and areas that could transition over time; discussed needed
citywide improvements; proposed various programs and measures to implement
citywide goals; and recommended overall changes to the goals, approaches, and
strategies in the 1996 General Plan, including the development of a new Land Use
Policy Map; and
WHEREAS, a draft Arcadia General Plan was developed that included the
following ten chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) Land Use and Community Design Element;
(3) Economic Development Element; (4) Circulation and Infrastructure Element; (5)
Housing Element; (6) Resource Sustainability Element; (7) Parks, Recreation, and
Community Resources Element; (8) Safety Element; (9) Noise Element; and (10)
Implementation Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and
section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.),
the City of Arcadia is the lead agency for the proposed General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Public Resources Code, the City prepared a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR ") to analyze the potential
environmental effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City solicited comments, including details about the scope and
content of the environmental information, as well as potential feasible mitigation
measures, from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public, in a Notice of
Preparation ( "NOP ") the EIR for the Project, which was filed on August 10, 2009 and
circulated for a period of 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082,
subdivision (a) and 15375; and
WHEREAS, approximately 11 written comment letters were received by the City
in response to the NOP, which assisted the City in expanding the issues and
alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State
CEQA Guidelines 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a public scoping meeting on
August 27, 2009, to solicit public comments on the EIR for the General Plan Update;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on July
19, 2010 and the City initiated a 45 -day public comment period by filing a Notice of
Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Los
Angeles County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also
provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who
had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Completion and
Availability on July 19, 2010, in the Pasadena Star News, a newspaper of general
circulation in the Project area; and
WHEREAS, during the 45 -day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and other interested parties pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15086; and
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed General Plan Update were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City
received fourteen (14) written comment letters; and
WHEREAS, on September 28,2010 the City released the Final EIR, which
consists of written responses to all comment letters received by the City during the
official public review period and errata to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of the written responses to all commenting public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and the Draft EIR (as modified by
the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were
sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City is not revising the proposed General Plan Update based on
comments received; and
2
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, all requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA
Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation
measures, have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the
Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of
eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with the Public Resources Code and
the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon oral and written evidence presented to it as
a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds will
either have no impact or are less than significant and do not require mitigation are
described in Section II below; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the implementation of standard conditions of approval ( "Standard Conditions "),
goals, policies and implementation actions in the proposed General Plan Update
( "Project Design Features "), and /or Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program are described in Section III below; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant
but which the City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite
the imposition of all feasible Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, and
Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR, are described in Section IV below; and
WHEREAS, the significant and less than significant cumulative environmental
impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section V below; and
WHEREAS, significant irreversible environmental changes identified in the EIR
are described in Section VI below; and
WHEREAS, growth- inducing impacts identified in the EIR are described in
Section VII below; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section VIII below; and
3
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the benefits of the General
Plan Update outweigh its potential significant effects, and the basis for that
determination is set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in
Section IX below; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth the
mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is
adopted in Section XI below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all
meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed
General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information
that produced substantial new information requiring recirculation Public Resources
Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010 the Arcadia Planning Commission conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to
testify were heard and the General Plan Update was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010 the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were
heard, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation, and
the General Plan Update was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The proposed General Plan Update is a comprehensive revision of the City's
current General Plan document and is intended to respond to changing conditions in the
City and the region, as well as to revisit the vision of the City for its future. The General
Plan Update was guided by the following principles:
4
• Balanced Growth and Development
• Connectivity
• Neighborhood Character
• Schools
• Cultural Diversity
• Environmental Sustainability
• City Services
• Changing Housing Needs
• Economic Health
• Preservation of Special Assets
The proposed Arcadia General Plan would establish the planned development
patterns and maximum densities and intensities of land uses within the City and its
Sphere of Influence. In addition, the General Plan would serve as a policy guide for
determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City. The
proposed General Plan is organized into the following ten chapters: (1) Introduction; (2)
Land Use and Community Design Element; (3) Economic Development Element; (4)
Circulation and Infrastructure Element; (5) Housing Element; (6) Resource Sustainability
Element; (7) Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element; (8) Safety
Element; (9) Noise Element; and (10) Implementation Plan.
Each Element contains goals and policies that City government would follow to
achieve the vision of its residents, business owners, stakeholders, City staff, and
leaders. In addition, the General Plan Update contains a number of plans to implement
the General Plan's goals and policies: Land Use Policy Map, Circulation Plan, and
Implementation Plan.
The Arcadia General Plan is a policy document that regulates land use and
development within the City. The update and revision of this policy document would not
lead to direct physical changes in the City or the existing environment, nor would it be
accompanied by specific development proposals or projects.
Implementation of the General Plan Land Use Policy Map over the entire
planning area (including the City and its Sphere of Influence [SOU) is projected to
potentially result in a net increase of 3,387 dwelling units, approximately 3.5 million
square feet of non - residential development, and 9,256 people at the evaluated
maximum buildout. Public and infrastructure projects would also be constructed
throughout the City.
B. Legal Requirements
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
5
significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."
Pursuant to section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City may only
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects if the City makes one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact
as identified in the EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a
public agency other than the City, and such changes have been adopted by
such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Notably, Public Resources Code section 21002 requires an agency to
"substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus,
mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even
if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ( "CEQA does not mandate
the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of
feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced
environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level "); Las Virgenes
Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300,
309 ( "[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely
or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible ").)
The Public Resources Code requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental
impacts. An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or
alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Public Resources Code
section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section
15091 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565.) Project objectives
also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego
(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) "[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses
'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the
relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
6
Environmental impacts that are Tess than significant do not require the imposition
of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any
development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who
are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires
that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or
a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that
sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far
as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not
to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of
discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
C. Summary of Environmental Findings
As more fully explained below, the City Council has determined that based on all
of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to: the EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of comments from the
public, organizations and regulatory agencies, and the responses prepared to the public
comments, the following environmental impacts associated with the proposed General
Plan Update are:
1. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impacts that Do Not Require Mitigation
• Scenic Vistas; Scenic Highways; Visual Character and Quality; Light and Glare;
Cumulative Aesthetics
• Important Farmland; Existing Zoning or Williamson Contract; Forest Land and
Timberland; Conversion of Forestland; Conversion of Farmland; Cumulative
Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Operational Stationary Sources; Operational Local CO Impacts; Objectionable
Odors; Cumulative Objectionable Odors
• Riparian Habitat and Wetlands; Wildlife Movement; Tree Preservation Policies;
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
• Human Remains; Cumulative Cultural Resources
• Seismic Hazards; Soil Erosion; Geologic Hazards and Expansive Soils;
Cumulative Geology and Soils
• Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials; Accidental Release of
Hazardous Materials; Hazardous Emissions or Hazardous Materials Near
Schools; Known Hazardous Materials Sites; Airport and Airstrip Hazards;
Emergency Response; Wildland Fires; Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
7
• Water Quality and Waste Discharge Standards; Groundwater; Drainage and
Erosion; Flood Hazards; Dam Inundation and Mudflows; Cumulative Hydrology
and Water Quality
• Division of Established Communities; Plan Consistency; Conflict with Habitat
Conservation Plan; Cumulative Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources; Cumulative Mineral Resources
• Airport and Airstrip Noise
• Population Growth; Displacement of Housing and People; Cumulative Population
and Housing
• Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services; Police Protection and Law
Enforcement Services; School Services; Library Services; Other Public Facilities;
Cumulative Public Services
• Increased Use of Parks; New Recreational Facilities; Park Services; Cumulative
Parks and Recreation
• Consistency with the Congestion Management Plan; Air Traffic Patterns; Traffic
Hazards; Emergency Access; Alternative Transportation; Cumulative
Consistency with the Congestion Management Plan; Cumulative Air Traffic
Patterns; Cumulative Traffic Hazards; Cumulative Emergency Access;
Cumulative Alternative Transportation
• Water Supply; Wastewater Treatment and Infrastructure; Solid Waste Disposal;
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Communications Infrastructure; Cumulative Utility
and Service Systems
• Consistency with GHG Reduction Plan, Policy or Regulation
2. Potentially Significant Impacts That Can be Avoided or Reduced to a Less
Than Significant Level Through Implementation of Mitigation Measures
• Sensitive Receptors and Construction Related- Emissions
• Sensitive Species; Cumulative Biological Resources
• Historical Resources; Archaeological Resources; Paleontological Resources
• Septic Tank Limitations
• Surface Runoff and Storm Drain Facilities
• Construction (Short-Term) Noise; Groundborne Vibration; Operational Railroad
Noise and Impacts to Noise Sensitive Uses
• Water and Wastewater Distribution Infrastructure
3. Potentially Significant and Cannot be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than
Significant Level:
• Air Quality Management Plan Consistency; Violate Air Quality Standards;
Impacts of Operational Emissions on Sensitive Receptors; Cumulative Air Quality
Management Plan Consistency; Cumulative Construction - related (Short-Term)
Emissions; Cumulative Operational (Long -Term) Emissions; Cumulative Impacts
on Sensitive Receptors from TACs
• Operational (Long -Term) Traffic Noise; Cumulative Off -Site Traffic Noise
• Circulation System Performance; Cumulative Circulation System Performance
8
• Conflict with GHG Reduction Plan, Policy or Regulation; Cumulative GHG
Emissions
This document contains the findings required under the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines. (California Code of Regulations, title 14, § §15000 et seq.)
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The City adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
proposed General Plan Update in Section XI of this Resolution.
No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Planning
Commission or City Council or any additional information submitted to the City has
produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional
environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA because no new significant
environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any
environmental impacts would occur, and no feasible mitigation measures or Project
alternatives as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected.
SECTION II
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to
address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as have "no impact" or a "less than
significant" impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all resource areas,
including resource areas that were identified in the EIR to have either no impact or a
less than significant impact on the environment. The City Council hereby finds that the
proposed General Plan Update would either have no impact or a less than significant
impact in the following resource areas:
A. Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vistas (Threshold 4.1a): The proposed General Plan Update would
have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. Impacts on scenic views of the
hillsides and the San Gabriel Mountains would be less than significant with adherence
to the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan Update, as well as other City
regulations related to hillside land development. (EIR pp. 4.1 -11 to 12.)
2. Scenic Highways (Threshold 4.1b): The proposed General Plan Update
would have no impact on scenic highways. There are no scenic highways in and near
the City, which may be impacted by future development. (EIR p. 4.1 -12.)
9
3. Visual Character and Quality (Threshold 4.1c): The proposed General Plan
Update would have a less than significant impact on the visual character and quality of
the site and its surroundings. Changes in the City's visual character would be less than
significant with adherence to the proposed goals, policies, and implementation actions
set forth in the General Plan Update and with compliance with the City's Architectural
Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations and development standards, and Municipal
Code requirements. (EIR pp. 4.1 -12 to 14.)
4. Light and Glare (Threshold 4.1d): The proposed General Plan Update
would have a less than significant impact regarding the creation of new sources of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The introduction of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant with
compliance with the City's Municipal Code standards for exterior lighting. (EIR pp. 4.1-
14 to 15.)
B. Agriculture and Forest Resources
1. Important Farmland (Threshold 4.2a): The proposed General Plan Update
would have no impact on this resource and would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non - agricultural use. Future development under the General Plan Update
would have no impact on designated Farmlands. (EIR p. 4.2 -3.)
2. Existing Zoning or Williamson Contract (Threshold 4.2b): The proposed
General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract. The City does not have an agricultural zone and there are no
Williamson Act contracts within the City of Arcadia or its SOI. (EIR p. 4.2 -3.)
3. Forest Land and Timberland (Threshold 4.2c): The proposed General Plan
Update would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The General Plan Update does
not propose future development or redevelopment on forest lands within the Angeles
National Forest. (EIR p. 4.2 -3.)
4. Conversion of Forest Land (Threshold 4.2d): The proposed General Plan
Update would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -
forest land. Future residential development near the Angeles National Forest would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Forest Plan or lead to the loss of forest
land or the conversion of forest land. (EIR p. 4.2 -4.)
5. Conversion of Farmland (Threshold 4.2e): The proposed General Plan
Update would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their
location or nature, would result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non - forest use. Future development pursuant to the
General Plan Update would have no impact on agricultural use or forests, nor would it
lead to the conversion of agricultural land or forest land to other uses. (EIR p. 4.2 -4.)
10
C. Air Quality
1. Operational Stationary Sources (Threshold 4.3d): The proposed General
Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard to operational
emissions from stationary sources. Stationary sources of TAC emissions in the City
would have to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations regarding new stationary
sources. As part of SCAQMD's new stationary source review, SCAQMD would
determine if TACs would be emitted. If SCAQMD determines that TACs would be
emitted, SCAQMD would determine the MACT (maximum achievable control
technology) or BACT (best available control technology) to impose on the project to
reduce emissions. If the SCAQMD determines that even after imposing the MACT or
BACT emissions would be significant, SCAQMD would deny the permit to the stationary
source. Consequently, the current regulatory scheme would sufficiently mitigate any
potentially significant operational emissions impacts from stationary sources and no
additional mitigation is necessary. Therefore, operational stationary source emissions
would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.3 -24.)
2. Operational Local CO Impacts (Threshold 4.3d): The proposed General
Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard to operation local
CO hotspot impacts. Future peak hour traffic volumes at intersections within the City of
Arcadia would be less than those included in the AQMP modeling analysis. Thus, CO
concentrations at major intersections in the City due to future development would also
be lower. No CO hotspots would occur. (EIR pp. 4.3 -26 to 4.3 -27.)
3. Objectionable Odors (Threshold 4.3e): The proposed General Plan Update
would have a less than significant impact with regard to the creation of objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed General Plan Update
does not propose the development of agricultural or industrial land uses that are major
odor sources. Therefore, land use conflicts between major odor sources and sensitive
receptors are not expected to occur in the City. (EIR p. 4.3 -27.)
Moreover, exhaust odors from diesel engines, as well as emissions associated
with asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings may be considered
offensive to some individuals. Similarly, diesel - fueled locomotives traveling along the rail
lines in the City and diesel - fueled trucks traveling on local roadways would produce
associated diesel exhaust fumes. However, because odors associated with diesel
fumes and other minor sources would be temporary and would disperse rapidly with
distance from the source, construction generated and mobile- source odors would not
result in the frequent exposure of receptors to objectionable odor emissions. The City
has adopted performance standards for odors to prevent exposure of adjacent land
uses to objectionable odors. Implementation of existing solid waste regulations would
also reduce odors from on -site wastes and trash. Compliance with these Standard
Conditions would prevent existing and future stationary sources from adversely affecting
nearby developments. (EIR pp. 4.3 -27 to 28.)
11
D. Biological Resources
1. Riparian Habitat and Wetlands (Thresholds 4.4b and 4.4c): The proposed
General Plan Update would have a Tess than significant impact on riparian habitat and
Federally protected wetlands. Future infrastructure projects or flood control
maintenance could impact drainages, resulting in potential disturbance of jurisdictional
features subject to CDFG or USFWS regulations and permits that may be present in
these drainage channels. In accordance with existing regulations, prior to any impacts
to biological resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFG, or the RWQCB,
appropriate permits would have to be obtained from these resource agencies. These
permits would identify necessary mitigation to reduce disturbance impacts and require
appropriate replacement habitat in order to ensure no net loss in biological resource
values. Compliance with the permit requirements would prevent any significant adverse
impacts to wetlands and riparian communities. Implementation Action 6 -14 also requires
compliance with the FESA, the CESA, and the CWA to avoid impacts to water quality
and riparian resources. Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional resources to be less than
significant. (EIR p. 4.4 -20.)
2. Wildlife Movement (Thresholds 4.4d): The proposed General Plan Update
would have a less than significant impact on the movement of any native or migratory
fish or wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and
native wildlife nursery sites. The General Plan Update would permit Residential Estate
development in the foothills on existing vacant land, adjacent to the Angeles National
Forest, and in the vacant areas of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, which are
used for wildlife movement. However, development is restricted in this area and the
majority of the steep hillsides would be preserved as open space, allowing continued
wildlife movement. Compliance with Goals LU -5 and RS -8 and supporting policies in the
General Plan Update would assist in the preservation of the natural environment in the
City's northern end, reducing potential impacts to wildlife movement. Impacts would be
less than significant. (EIR p. 4.4 -20 to 21.)
3. Tree Preservation Policies (Threshold 4.4e): The proposed General Plan
Update would have a less than significant impact on the City's Tree Preservation
Policies. While future development pursuant to the General Plan Update may lead to
the removal of trees, the City's Oak Tree Regulations protect Engelmann oaks, coast
live oaks, and other oak trees. Also, the City has a Comprehensive Tree Management
Program for the protection of street trees and the implementation of the Street Tree
Master Plan. Goal PR -3 and supporting policies and Implementation Action 7 -8 call for
the protection of trees and the urban forest in the City. Compliance with these goals,
policies, implementation action, and Standard Conditions would minimize the removal,
cutting, or damage to a City -owned tree or shrub on any public property and protect oak
trees in the City, with individual development projects complying with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, including trees. Impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR p. 4.4 -21.)
12
4. Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
(Threshold 4.4f): The proposed General Plan Update would have no impact on an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation Plan. There are no adopted,
approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation
Plans; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that cover
habitats located within the City of Arcadia. There would, therefore, be no conflict with
any such provisions with adoption of the General Plan Update or with future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update. (EIR p. 4.4 -21.)
E. Cultural Resources
1. Human Remains (Threshold 4.6d): The proposed General Plan Update
would result in less than significant impacts to human remains. The potential to
encounter unknown burials and disturbance or destruction of burial remains would be
less than significant with compliance with Implementation Action 6 -12 and existing
regulations that mandate the process in the event human remains are discovered. (EIR
p. 4.5 -19.)
F. Geology and Soils
1. Seismic Hazards (Threshold 4.6a):
Surface Rupture: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update
would result in less than significant surface rupture hazards in the City. The Raymond,
Sierra Madre, and Puente Hills faults pose the most substantial threat related to surface
rupture for the City. However, existing regulations prevent development over a fault
trace or protect structures and infrastructure from surface rupture hazards.
Implementation of policies in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update
would further reduce surface rupture hazards in the City. (EIR pp. 4.6 -15 to 16.)
Seismic Ground Shaking: Implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update would result in less than significant seismic ground shaking hazards in the City.
Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be subject to ground
shaking hazard during earthquake events. Compliance with seismic design criteria in
the California Building Code (CBC) would allow these structures to withstand seismic
ground shaking to an acceptable degree and prevent hazards to persons and property.
Future developments at the northern end of the City where there are sites with steep
terrain or where ridgetops or fill slopes are present may be exposed to ridgetop
spreading and deformation of fill slopes from strong seismic shaking. Site - specific
geologic investigations would identify these hazards and provide appropriate
construction recommendations. Goal and policies in the Safety Element and
implementation actions would further reduce ground shaking hazards in the City to less
than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.6 -16 to 19.)
13
Ground Failure and Liquefaction: Implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would result in less than significant ground failure and liquefaction hazards
in the City. Areas susceptible to liquefaction have been identified north of the Raymond
fault, along Santa Anita Wash, and in the southern section of the City. Future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update in these areas would be exposed to
liquefaction hazards. However, the CBC and the City's Building Regulations provide the
appropriate building design criteria needed to protect the structural integrity of structures
and infrastructure against liquefaction. The City requires the preparation of a
geotechnical investigation and compliance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act to
identify geologic and seismic hazards and to develop appropriate mitigation measures
prior to permitting by local jurisdictions. Liquefaction hazards would be less than
significant. (EIR pp. 4.6 -19 to 20.)
Landslides: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would
result in less than significant landslide hazards in the City. New residential development
on vacant Tots at the northern end of the City would be exposed to landslide hazards.
Compliance with the CBC and the City's Building Regulations would provide for the
structural integrity of homes that may be built in this area. Site - specific geologic
investigations would identify these hazards and provide appropriate construction
recommendations. Goals and policies in the Safety Element of the General Plan Update
call for minimizing the potential for loss of life, physical injury, and property damage
resulting from earthquakes and geologic hazards. Thus, impacts associated with
landslide hazards would be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.6 -20 to 21.)
2. Soil Erosion (Threshold 4.6b): The proposed General Plan Update would
have a less than significant impact on soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Future
development would lead to ground disturbance, including grading and excavations,
which may be subject to wind or water erosion. Erosion control measures are required
by the City's Zoning Regulations and Building Regulations, especially for cut and fill
slopes in the Residential Mountainous Single - Family Zone. In addition, future
development projects are required to implement erosion control Best Management
Practices (BMPs), in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. Impacts relating to erosion would be
temporary and less than significant. (EIR p. 4.6 -21.)
3. Geologic Hazards and Expansive Soils (Thresholds 4.6c and 4.6d): The
proposed General Plan Update would result in less than significant geologic hazards
and would result in less than significant impacts to soil properties in the City. Future
development would be exposed to geologic hazards, which include slope instability
(landslides, mudslides, and debris flows), poor geotechnical /soils engineering properties
(expansive, collapsible, and corrosive soils), shallow groundwater, flooding from
tsunami and seiche, and subsidence. The CBC and the City's Building Regulations
provide the appropriate building design criteria needed to protect the structural integrity
of structures and infrastructure against subsidence and soil settlement. The City
requires the preparation of a geotechnical investigation for individual developments to
identify and mitigate geologic hazards. General Plan goals and policies would also
reduce hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.6 -21 to 24.)
14
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7a):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant
impacts related to the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in
the City would be less than significant with compliance with existing hazardous material
regulations and the goals, policies, and implementation actions in the proposed General
Plan Update. (EIR pp. 4.7 -18 to 19.)
2. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7b):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant
impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials. Future development
may include industrial and commercial uses that would utilize large quantities of
hazardous materials. However, these users would be subject to various State and
federal regulations on storage, use, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. Compliance with pertinent regulations would avoid the
creation of a significant hazard to the public and would reduce the potential for the
release of hazardous materials into the environment. (EIR p. 4.7 -19 to 20.)
3. Hazardous Emissions or Hazardous Materials Near Schools (Threshold
4.7c): Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than
significant impacts related to siting hazardous emissions or hazardous materials near
schools. With implementation of the standard conditions and implementation actions in
the proposed General Plan Update, impacts related to exposure of school -aged children
to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or wastes would be less than
significant. (EIR p. 4.7 -20.)
4. Known Hazardous Materials Sites (Threshold 4.7d): The proposed
General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact with regard to known
hazardous materials sites. With implementation of the standard conditions and
implementation actions in the proposed General Plan Update, impacts related to the
presence and /or potential redevelopment of known hazardous materials sites would be
Tess than significant. (EIR p. 4.7 -21.)
5. Airport and Airstrip Hazards (Thresholds 4.7e and 4.7f): The proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts with regard to airport and
airstrip hazards. Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations
would avoid hazards to people residing or working near the El Monte Airport. Impacts
related to aircraft operations at the El Monte Airport would be less than significant. (EIR
p. 4.7 -21.) There are no private airstrips in the City. Therefore, no hazards from
airstrips would occur. (EIR p. 4.7 -22.)
6. Emergency Response (Threshold 4.7g): The proposed General Plan
Update would have less than significant impacts with regard to emergency response.
Future development would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. With implementation of standard conditions and
15
the goals and policies in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update,
impacts related to emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant.
(EIR p. 4.7 -22.)
7. Wildland Fires (Threshold 4.7h): The proposed General Plan Update would
have less than significant impacts with regard to exposure of people or structures to
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts related to
wildland fires would be less than significant with implementation of the California Fire
Plan, City building regulations, and Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. (EIR p. 4.7 -23.)
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Water Quality and Waste Discharge Standards (Thresholds 4.8a and
4.8f): Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than
significant impacts on water quality and waste discharge standards.
Construction Impacts: Impacts related to the generation of storm water
pollutants during construction would be reduced to less than significant levels with the
implementation of erosion control measures required under the City's Municipal Code
and compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit through implementation
of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (EIR pp. 4.8 -17 to 18.)
Operational Impacts: Storm water pollutants that could be generated by the
operation of future development pursuant to the General Plan Update and public and
infrastructure projects in the City would be reduced to less than significant levels with
the implementation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) required
under the NPDES. Goals and supporting policies in the Safety Element of the General
Plan Update, as well as supporting implementation actions, would further reduce water
quality impacts. (EIR pp. 4.8 -18 to 19.)
2. Groundwater (Threshold 4.8b): Implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on groundwater recharge and
groundwater supplies.
Groundwater Recharge: Future development pursuant to the General Plan
Update would not significantly interfere with or prevent groundwater recharge, since the
Peck Road Recharge Basin would be retained as open space under the proposed Land
Use Policy Map. (EIR p. 4.8 -19.)
Groundwater Supplies: Groundwater supplies are expected to be available
to meet the water demands in the City to the year 2035. Impacts on groundwater would
be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.8 -20 to 21.)
3. Drainage and Erosion (Thresholds 4.8c and 4.9d): Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on drainage
and erosion. Impacts related to the alteration of drainage patterns or the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation, would
16
be less than significant with the implementation of erosion control measures required
under the City's Municipal Code and the NPDES. (EIR pp. 4.8 -21 to 22.)
4. Flood Hazards (Thresholds 4.8g and 4.8h): Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on flood
hazards. The City of Arcadia is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard area, as
mapped by FEMA. Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update, including
housing or other structures, would not be exposed to flood hazards. Structures that would
be built as part of future development would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts
would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.8 -23.)
5. Dam Inundation and Mudflows (Thresholds 4.8i and 4.8j): Implementation
of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on dam
inundation and mudflows. The City is located outside tsunami inundation areas. While
the City is located within the inundation area of several dams and there are reservoirs in
the City that pose inundation and seiche hazards, compliance with the City's Floodplain
Management Regulations, seismic design regulations, and emergency action plans for
dams would reduce these hazards. The mudflow hazards at the hillside areas of the
City would be less than significant with the implementation of erosion control measures,
erosion control planting or other protective devices required in the City's Zoning and
Building Regulations. Coupled with the continued operation and maintenance of
upstream dams and debris basins, mudflow hazards in the City would be reduced to
less than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.8 -24 to 26.)
I. Land Use and Planning
1. Division of Established Communities (Threshold 4.9a): Implementation of
the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts with regard
to the division of established communities. The proposed Land Use Policy Map reflects
the majority of existing residential land uses in the City. Thus, no division of existing,
established residential communities is expected with implementation of the General
Plan Update. Also, future development would be confined to scattered vacant lands
throughout the City. The individual development of these small, infill lots would reflect
the surrounding land uses and would not lead to the division of established
neighborhoods. (EIR p. 4.9 -18)
2. Plan Consistency (Threshold 4.9b): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts with regard to plan
consistency.
Arcadia General Plan: Approval and implementation of the General Plan
Update would result in a comprehensive update of the current Arcadia General Plan,
with a significant majority of the existing goals and policy direction remaining in place.
Since the General Plan Update would restate the City's vision for its future, conflict with
the current General Plan is not of issue and no impact would result. (EIR p. 4.9 -19.)
17
Other Local Plans and Zoning Regulations: The proposed General Plan
would not conflict with the Downtown Arcadia Central Redevelopment Plan, the
Regional Transportation Plan, or the Compass Growth Vision. While the proposed
General plan is not consistent with the City's Zoning Regulations; however,
Implementation Action 2 -1 calls for focused updates of the Zoning Regulations to make
them consistent with the General Plan Update. This would prevent conflicts and impacts
would be Tess than significant. (EIR pp. 4.9 -19 to 25.)
Land Use Compatibility: Future development would be located near
different land uses at the City's boundaries. The provision of setbacks, maximum lot
coverage, floor area ratio, walls and other development standards that would prevent
land use incompatibility with abutting developments would prevent any significant
adverse impacts. (EIR pp. 4.9 -25 to 26.)
3. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan (Threshold 4.9c): The proposed
General Plan Update would have no impacts on a Habitat Conservation Plan. Since no
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adopted for
the undeveloped areas of the City, no impact related to these plans would occur. (EIR p.
4.9-27.)
J. Mineral Resources
1. Mineral Resources (Thresholds 4.10a and 4.10b): Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on the
availability and loss of mineral resources. Mining operations at the Rodeffer Quarry site
have been completed and reclamation of the site is being conducted in accordance with
existing regulations under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the
City's Municipal Code. No mining operations are expected in other areas of the City
identified to contain aggregate resources due to the existing flood control and
groundwater recharge functions of the Santa Anita Wash and the Peck Road Spreading
Basin. Compliance with goals and policies in the Resource Sustainability Element of
the proposed General Plan Update would facilitate the reclamation of mined lands;
support aggregate production; minimize impacts of mining operations on land uses in
the City; and prevent the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant aggregate
resources. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.10 -4 to 5.)
K. Noise
1. Airport and Airstrip Noise (Thresholds 4.12e and 4.12f): Implementation
of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant airport and
airstrip noise impacts. The noise contours for the El Monte Airport show that the 65-
dBA CNEL noise contour is located entirely in the City of El Monte. While aircraft noise
may be audible intermittently throughout the City of Arcadia, aircraft noise would not
result in a significant adverse impact. (EIR p. 4.11 -30.)
18
L. Population, Housing, and Employment
1. Population Growth (Threshold 4.12a): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard to
population growth.
Population and Growth Projections: The evaluated maximum buildout of
the General Update would result in a total population of approximately 67,597 residents,
with a net increase of 3,387 units in the City and its SOI. Non - residential development
within the City and SOI at buildout could generate as many as 29,753 total jobs, with an
increase of 8,559 jobs over existing conditions. The increase in the employment base of
the City and SOI is expected to have beneficial impacts on local residents who want to
be employed near their places of residence and on the City's tax base. Also, these
estimates do not exceed SCAG's 2035 projections for the City. Thus, impacts related to
growth projections would be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.12 -13 to 17.)
Housing Stock: The indirect impacts related to the demand for goods and
services created by the increase in residents in the City would be considered less than
significant due to the availability of existing and future commercial developments in the
area. Demand for housing would be met by of existing and future residential
developments. Housing Element goals and policies address the provision of adequate
housing for existing and future residents in the City. Implementation of the City's
housing programs would provide capacity to meet future housing needs of the local
population. Impacts associated with increases in housing stock would be less than
significant. (EIR pp. 4.12 -16 to 17.)
Infrastructure: The proposed General Plan Update calls for the construction
and improvement of roadways and utility infrastructure systems in the City. The City is
almost entirely serviced by existing infrastructure; therefore, the vast majority of planned
improvements would be improvements to existing infrastructure systems, rather than
the extension of new systems into vacant areas. No inducement in population growth
due to roadway or infrastructure improvements is expected from the General Plan
Update. (EIR p. 4.12 -17.)
Jobs - Housing Balance: The City is working toward providing more job
opportunities in Arcadia, as proposed in the Economic Development Element. Buildout
of the City pursuant to the proposed Land Use Policy Map would lead to a housing
stock of 22,535 units and an employment base of 29,753 jobs. This translates to a jobs -
housing ratio of 1.32, which is consistent with SCAG projections. Potential impacts
related to the jobs- housing balance would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.12 -17.)
2. Displacement of Housing and People (Thresholds 4.12b and 4.12c): The
proposed General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard
to the displacement of housing and people. The General Plan Update calls for the
preservation of the City's residential neighborhoods. Thus, the majority of residential
developments in the City are expected to remain in place, with limited recycling. Public
and private redevelopment actions could result in the temporary removal of housing
19
units, particularly where the revised Land Use Policy Map allows for higher densities.
However, higher intensity residential uses built at the same sites would create
opportunities for additional housing. Compliance with existing State housing regulations
(California Relocation Assistance Act and California Community Redevelopment Law)
would reduce displacement impacts. Impacts related to the displacement of housing or
people would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.12 -18.)
M. Public Services
1. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (Threshold 4.12a):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant
impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services. Future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update would increase the demand for fire protection
services. Increases in Arcadia Fire Department staffing and resources would be
needed to serve the City at buildout. As part of the plan check process and inspections,
development in the City must comply with the California Fire Code and Fire Department
regulations to reduce fire hazards and facilitate emergency response. Implementation
of the goals, policies, and implementation actions in the proposed General Plan Update
would prevent significant impacts to fire protection services. (EIR pp. 4.13 -17 to 19.)
2. Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services (Threshold 4.12a):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have less than significant
impacts on police protection and law enforcement services. Future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update would increase the demand for the police
protection services. The Arcadia Police Department has indicated that increases in the
current staffing and equipment levels would be needed at buildout of the City.
Development projects in the City are reviewed by a police captain or police lieutenant
during the site and building plan check process to determine the needs for crime
prevention, such as installation of lighting systems, emergency notification systems, or
crime prevention through environmental design. This review would prevent or deter
crime and the demand for police protection services. Impacts on police protection
services from future development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be less
than significant. (EIR pp. 4.13 -19 to 20.)
3. School Services (Threshold 4.12a): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on school services.
Approximately 1,575 school -age children requiring school services would be generated
by new housing development in the City and SOI or a total of 11,426 students residing
in the City at buildout of the General Plan Update. As allowed under the School
Facilities Act, school districts serving the City and its SOI assess school impact fees
based on the floor area of new dwelling units and non - residential developments. These
fees are used to fund school services and facilities needed to provide the necessary
school services. Payment of statutory school fees by individual developments would
mitigate impacts on schools to less than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.13 -20 to 22.)
20
4. Library Services (Threshold 4.12a): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on library services. Area
residents would generate a demand for library services and increase utilization of the
Arcadia Public Library and the Live Oak Branch of the County Library System.
Implementation of General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation actions
would improve library services in the City. Impacts to library services would be less than
significant. (EIR pp. 4.13 -22 to 23.)
5. Other Public Facilities (Threshold 4.12a): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on the provision of other
public facilities. Governmental and City services provided by the City of Arcadia within
its jurisdictional boundaries would be available to existing and future uses, and include
local governance; implementation of City regulations and ordinances (issuance of
permits and code enforcement actions); and maintenance of public improvements, such
as streets, water systems, sewer systems, and storm drain systems. Existing service
programs would provide these facilities and services to future development and impacts
would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.13 -23.)
N. Parks and Recreation
1. Increased Use of Parks (Threshold 4.14a): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard to the
increased use of parks. Future residents are expected to create a demand for parks
and recreational facilities and are likely to use both existing and planned parks and
recreational facilities in the City, as well as parks in the surrounding area. Improvement
and expansion of existing parks and facilities in the City would be made through
implementation of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, payment of Park
Facilities Impact Fees by new residential development, and the provision of on -site
open space and recreational facilities by multi - family residential developments. These
improvements would reduce the use and accompanying deterioration that may occur on
existing park facilities due to the increase in the City's resident population. Parks,
Recreation, and Community Resources Element goals, policies, and implementation
actions would also improve parks and recreational facilities in the City. Impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.14 -10.)
2. New Recreational Facilities (Threshold 4.14b): Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regard
to new recreational facilities. New parks that would be developed in conjunction with
future residential developments would meet the demand for recreational facilities by
future residents of the City. Using the City's parkland standard of 2.43 acres per 1,000
residents, approximately 22.5 acres of new parkland would be needed by the estimated
9,256 future residents of the City. Payment of park impact fees by new residential
developments and expansion and provision of on -site common open space and
recreational areas /amenities by multi - family developments would provide new parks and
recreational facilities in the City to meet standards. Implementation Action 7 -5,
Recreation Facility Development in Underserved Areas, would lead to the development
21
of new recreation facilities in underserved areas of the City. Impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR pp. 4.14 -11 to 12.)
3. Park Services (Threshold 4.13a): Implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on the provision of park services.
Goals and policies in the Land Use and Community Design Element and the Parks,
Recreation, and Community Resources Element are intended to improve access to and
the availability of parks and recreational facilities to existing and future developments in
the City. The construction and operational impacts associated with the provision of new
or expanded park facilities would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.14 -12.)
O. Transportation
1. Consistency with the Congestion Management Plan (Threshold 4.15b):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in less than
significant impacts with regard to the consistency between the General Plan Update and
the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan. The Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Program (CMP) includes the 1 -210 and 1 -605 Freeways and
Rosemead Boulevard (State Route 19) in its Highway and Roadway System. The 1 -605
Freeway is located outside the City and Rosemead Boulevard defines the western
boundary of the City's SOI. Freeways are outside the jurisdiction of the City and
forecasting for the freeway system is outside the scope of a City's General Plan. The
traffic forecasts for the Arcadia General Plan are based on the SCAG 2008 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasts; thus, they are consistent with the SCAG process
and included within it. The projected buildout of the City in the proposed General Plan
Update would be less than SCAG's 2035 projections for the City's population, which
were used in the development of the RTP. Future developments in the City pursuant to
the proposed General Plan Update and other public projects would need to comply with
the CMP requirements for TIAs, including mitigation of impacts to achieve roadway and
intersection operations at LOS D or better (the City's more stringent standard versus the
CMP's LOS E standard). Thus, impacts on the CMP would be less than significant. (EIR
pp. 4.15 -29 to 30.)
2. Air Traffic Patterns (Threshold 4.15c): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on air traffic patterns.
Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update and public and
infrastructure projects in the City would not be directly served by air transportation and
would not affect air traffic volumes at the El Monte Airport. Impacts on air traffic patterns
would be Tess than significant. (EIR p. 4.15 -30.)
3. Traffic Hazards (Threshold 4.15d): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts with regard to traffic
hazards. Construction activities and increases in vehicle trips on local roadways due to
future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update and public and
infrastructure projects would increase the potential for traffic accidents. However,
roadway improvements would have to be made in accordance with the City's Master
Plan of Roadways and the Transportation Master Plan, the City's roadway standards,
22
the Greenbook, and the California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). Compliance with these guidelines would allow City roadways to (1)
accommodate vehicles and traffic volumes; (2) separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic;
and (3) provide clear zones to prevent traffic accidents. City implementation of the ADA
Sidewalk Transition Plan and Pavement Management Plan would also improve
pedestrian amenities and reduce the potential for conflicts with vehicular traffic. Thus,
impacts related to traffic hazards would be Tess than significant. (EIR pp. 4.15 -30 to 31.)
4. Emergency Access (Threshold 4.15e): Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on emergency access.
No major change to the existing roadway system serving the City is proposed, aside
from restriping segments of Colorado Boulevard, Santa Anita Avenue, and Santa Clara
Avenue. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to emergency access would occur.
Access to individual development sites would be made available through existing or
planned roadways, as required under the City's Subdivision Code. Compliance with
existing regulations (City's roadway standards, Fire Code, Greenbook, and MUTCD)
would reduce impacts related to emergency response or evacuation to less than
significant levels. (EIR p. 4.15 -31.)
5. Alternative Transportation (Threshold 4.150: Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on alternative
transportation. Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update and public
and infrastructure projects could increase the use of alternative transportation systems
in the City. The proposed General Plan Update promotes the use of alternative
transportation systems through a Transit Corridors Plan, Bicycle Plan, mixed -use
developments, and pedestrian accommodations. The goals and policies in the
Circulation and Infrastructure Element are intended to implement the overarching
principle of Connectivity that would both directly and indirectly influence circulation and
transportation in the City as future development occurs and demand for bus transit, rail
transit, bike lanes, and sidewalks increase. Beneficial impacts on alternative
transportation systems would occur with the General Plan Update. Thus, impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.15 -31 to 33.)
P. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Water Supply (Threshold 4.16d): Implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update would have less than significant impacts on the water supply. Future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update would generate a demand for water
that would require increased pumping of groundwater resources or imported water use.
Total water demands in the City are projected to increase from approximately 18,720
acre -feet per year (afy) (current) to approximately 19,428 afy at buildout. The Water
Supply Assessment prepared for the General Plan Update indicates that there are
adequate groundwater supplies to meet future demand during a normal, single -dry or
multiple -dry years. In addition to groundwater supplies, the City may utilize imported
water from the Upper District. The other water companies serving the outlying areas of
the City have also indicated their abilities to provide continuous and reliable water
service to those portions of the City Arcadia within their respective service areas.
23
Compliance with the goals, policies and implementation actions in the proposed
General Plan and existing water conservation regulations would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.16 -26 to 29.)
2. Wastewater Treatment and Infrastructure (Thresholds 4.16a and 4.16e):
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in less than
significant impacts to wastewater treatment and infrastructure.
Wastewater Treatment Requirements: Residential wastewater does not
require levels of treatment that would exceed LARWQCB NPDES treatment
requirements; however, some industrial, manufacturing, and /or commercial uses may
generate wastewater requiring additional treatment. Compliance with LACSD
requirements for service connections would prevent any significant adverse impacts on
wastewater treatment requirements. (EIR p. 4.16 -30.)
Wastewater Treatment Capacity: Approximately 1.94 million gallons per
day (mgd) of additional wastewater would be generated by the increase in development
in the City and its SOI at buildout. There are approximately 46.9 mgd of remaining
capacity at the 3 water reclamation plants serving the City. The incremental increase of
1.94 mgd from the City would represent approximately 4.1 percent of the current
available capacity. With payment of LACSD connection fees, impacts would be less
than significant. (EIR pp. 4.16 -30 to 31.)
3. Solid Waste Disposal (Thresholds 4.17f and 4.16g): Implementation of the
General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts to solid waste
disposal. The evaluated maximum buildout of the General Plan Update would result in
a net increase in solid waste generation by approximately 73 tons per day (tpd). The
Puente Hills Landfill has a daily remaining capacity of approximately 3,850 tpd. The net
daily increase in solid waste disposal with buildout of the General Plan Update of 73 tpd
would represent approximately 1.9 percent of the Puente Hills Landfill's remaining daily
permitted capacity. Compliance with the City's solid waste reduction and recycling
measures and goals, policies and implementation actions in the proposed General Plan
would further reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.16 -31 to 33.)
4. Electricity, Natural Gas, and Communications Infrastructure (Thresholds
4.16h and 4.16i): Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in
less than significant impacts to electricity, natural gas, and communications
infrastructure.
Electricity and Natural Gas: Future development pursuant to the General
Plan Update and public projects in the City would generate a demand for electricity and
natural gas, which would be provided by SCE and Sempra Utilities, respectively.
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an additional demands
estimated at 83.4 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh /yr) of electricity and 29.2 million
cubic feet of natural gas. Compliance with the existing energy conservation regulations
and goals, policies and implementation actions in the proposed General Plan Update
would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.16 -33 to 35.)
24
Telecommunications Systems and Services: Future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update and public projects in the City would generate a
demand for telecommunication systems and services, which would be provided by
AT &T or its competitors (for telephone services) and by Time Warner and Champion
Broadband (for cable services). Compliance with existing regulations would allow for the
construction of communications infrastructure according to set standards and would
prevent the creation of significant environmental impacts. (EIR p. 4.16 -35.)
Q. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Conflict with GHG Reduction Plan, Policy, or Regulation (Threshold
4.17b): Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in less than
significant impacts with regard to conflicts with applicable a GHG Reduction Plan,
Policy, or Regulation. With the City largely built out, the proposed General Plan Update
focuses future development along major transportation /transit corridors, promotes
mixed use development in the City, intensifies the development intensity allowed in the
downtown area, and calls for high density residential and commercial uses near the
proposed Gold Line transit station. Thus, the proposed General Plan Update is
consistent with GHG reduction programs that would reduce automobile use; locate high
density development near transit stations; and promote the use of alternative
transportation systems. With the transition of existing land uses into mixed use projects
and into high density and intensity uses, GHG emissions Citywide would decrease over
existing levels. Thus, the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with a GHG
reduction plan, policy or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.17 -
23 to 24.)
SECTION III
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the
EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The
potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures which would reduce them to
a less than significant level are set out in the EIR and are summarized as follows:
A. Air Quality
1. Sensitive Receptors and Construction Related- Emissions (Threshold
4.3d): The proposed Project would result in construction activities in the City that would
generate pollutants that may impact sensitive receptors.
Finding: The Standard Condition and Mitigation Measure outlined below would
reduce to a Tess than significant level the Project's generation of pollutants during
construction that may impact sensitive receptors. The Standard Conditions and
Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the City has required, or
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
25
significant impact of generating pollutants during construction that may impact sensitive
receptors as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Condition: Compliance with Standard Condition 4.3 -1 would reduce
the amount of fugitive dust re- entrained into the atmosphere and therefore decreases
the amount of particular matter that may impact sensitive receptors. Standard Condition
4.3 -1 requires that construction activities implement measures to reduce the amount of
fugitive dust that is re- entrained into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots,
and construction sites, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 403. (EIR p. 4.3 -17.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 states that the City shall require construction projects
that are subject to discretionary approval to implement the following measures to reduce
exhaust emissions from construction equipment:
1. Commercial electric power shall be provided to the project site in adequate
capacity to avoid or minimize the use of portable gas /diesel - powered electric
generators and equipment.
2. Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel) shall
be replaced or substituted with electrically driven equivalents (provided that
they are not run via a portable generator set).
3. To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall be used to
further reduce exhaust emissions.
4. On -site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
5. Staging areas for heavy -duty construction equipment shall be located as far
as possible from sensitive receptors.
Rationale: Construction - related activities would result in short-term emissions of
diesel particulate matter (PM) from the exhaust of off -road, heavy -duty diesel equipment
for site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing); paving; application of
architectural coatings; and other miscellaneous activities. The potential cancer risk from
the inhalation of diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other health impacts.
Because (1) the use of off -road heavy -duty diesel equipment would be temporary
during construction activities and would combine with the highly dispersive properties of
diesel PM; (2) further reductions in exhaust emissions would occur through regulations;
and (3) construction - related activities would be short-term, incremental through time,
and would occur at scattered locations throughout the City, construction - related toxic air
contaminant (TAC) emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
concentrations of TACs. It is also important to note that compliance with Standard
Condition 4.3 -1, which requires compliance with the construction dust mitigation
requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and
26
equipment exhaust mitigation (MM 4.3 -1) would reduce particulate matter emissions
and diesel PM exposure of nearby land uses. (EIR p. 4.3 -24.) Impacts would be less
than significant after mitigation.
B. Biological Resources
1. Sensitive Species (Threshold 4.4a): Future development and
implementation of the General Plan Update would lead to the disturbance of sensitive
plant and animal species found in the City.
Finding: The Standard Condition, Project Design Features, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's
impacts to sensitive species. The Standard Condition, Project Design Features, and
Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that the City has required, or
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant impacts to sensitive species identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines §
15091(a)(1).)
Standard Condition: Standard Condition 4.4 -1 requires that a qualified biologist
conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site
preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native
birds. Compliance with this Standard Condition would reduce potential impacts to
sensitive bird species found in the City.
Project Design Features: Goals LU -5 and RS -8 of the General Plan Update
require that detailed biological studies for foothill properties be prepared prior to any
development. Those same goals also require that appropriate mitigation for significant
impacts to natural resources. By providing for additional detailed site - specific study for
foothill properties, the City would ensure that development of areas of the City marked
by potentially sensitive habitats is fully evaluated.
For all new development proposed adjacent to sensitive habitats the City would
require adequate buffers, setbacks and other protections to avoid direct and indirect
impacts to these sensitive areas. (Implementation Action 6 -13.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 requires that prior to the development of vacant and
undeveloped areas, a qualified biologist, under the direction from the City, shall
determine whether a habitat assessment is required to assess site potential to support
any special status plant or wildlife species. If potentially suitable habitat is present for
any special status species, then the City shall direct appropriate focused surveys to be
performed to determine the presence or absence of special status species. If any
special status species is identified on the site, then appropriate avoidance and /or
mitigation measures shall be implemented, as approved by the resource agencies, and
subject to the necessary permits under the FESA, the CESA, the California Fish and
Game Code, and other applicable regulations.
27
Rationale: The proposed Land Use Policy Map in the General Plan Update
would designate the Peck Road County Park and the Santa Anita Wash open space
areas (along with linear segments of Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Santa Anita Washes)
as Open Space- Resource Protection areas, and would designate other City parks as
Open Space- Outdoor Recreation areas. This change in land use designation from
Public to Open Space would allow for the indefinite retention of these open space areas
and for the protection of any biological resources occurring there. There is limited
vacant land in the City, and the majority of these vacant lands are infill lots that have
been previously developed or are highly disturbed. Thus, they are unlikely to contain
sensitive species. However, they would still be subject to a biological assessment if
existing plant and animal habitats would be disturbed or removed as part of future
development or public and infrastructure projects in the City (MM- 4.4 -1). (EIR pp. 4.4 -18
to 19.)
Several large, vacant parcels at the northern end of the City contain scrub
vegetation and may serve as habitat for sensitive species. Future development on these
parcels may result in the Toss of existing natural habitat areas and may impact special
status plant and /or wildlife species potentially occurring on these properties. (EIR p. 4.4-
19.)
Adverse impacts to sensitive species that may occur in areas proposed for
development, construction, or other ground disturbance would be reduced to a less than
significant level with the implementation of MM 4.4 -1, which calls for a biological survey
for sensitive species and appropriate avoidance and /or mitigation measures.
Furthermore, General Plan Update Goals LU -5 and RS -8 and supporting policies also
require detailed biological studies for foothill properties prior to any development, in
addition to appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to natural resources.
Implementation Action 6 -13 calls for habitat protection and Implementation Action 6 -14
requires compliance with the FESA, the CESA, and the CWA. Conduct of nesting bird
surveys would reduce adverse impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by
minimizing disturbance to nesting birds during construction through seasonal avoidance
or pre- construction surveys and avoidance of designated active nesting areas. Impacts
to sensitive species and nesting birds would need to be addressed in detailed biological
studies if development or other habitat alteration is proposed. Compliance with the
conditions or mitigation measures identified in individual permits from resource agencies
would prevent any significant adverse impacts. (EIR pp. 4.4 -18 to 20.)
C. Cultural Resources
1. Historical Resources (Threshold 4.6a): Redevelopment of parcels to
enable a different or more intensive use of a site could result in the demolition or
alteration of historic resources in the City.
Finding: The Standard Condition, Project Design Features, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's
impacts to historical resources. The Standard Condition, Project Design Features, and
Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the City has required, or
28
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant impacts to historical resources identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines
§ 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Condition: Standard Condition 4.5 -1 requires that all development
projects in the City comply with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as they relate to
historical resources. The State CEQA Guidelines provide specific guidance regarding
the types of resources that qualify as historical resources and what types of impacts to
historical resources are considered significant. If a development project is determined
to have a significant impact on an historical resource, that impact must be mitigated, to
the extent feasible, according to the Public Resources Code. Implementation of this
Standard Condition 4.5 -1 would ensure that impacts to historical resources are fully
evaluated and mitigated prior to undertaking development projects. (EIR p. 4.5 -17.)
Project Design Features: The General Plan Update contains three policies to
retain and demonstrate proper stewardship to historical resources in the City. Policy
PR -9.4 encourages the preservation of the Santa Anita Park and its grandstand. Policy
PR -9.5 requires the identification of historic sites, structures, and neighborhoods, and
other resources through a Historic Resource Inventory. Policy PR -9.6 states that the
City will explore the establishment of a Cultural Heritage Ordinance. Each of these
policies demonstrates the City's commitment to inventory and protect historical
resources in the City. (EIR pp. 4.5 -15 to 17.)
Implementation Action 6 -11 requires cultural resource assessments for any
proposed development that may impact a known historical site that is 50 years or older.
The assessment shall identify the significance of the resource, based on guidance
provided in the California Register of Historical Resources and other applicable sources.
Assessment reports will direct avoidance of impacts and preservation of significant
resources in place, where feasible. Implementation Action 7 -14 requires that the City
maintain an up -to -date inventory of historically significant structures. Implementation
Action 6 -11 and 7 -14 would ensure that historical resources in the City are inventoried
and that any impacts to such resources are evaluated and mitigated. (EIR pp. 4.5 -15 to
17.)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measures 4.5 -1 requires that prior to the issuance of
demolition permits that may affect structures 50 years of age or older, a qualified
architectural historian shall conduct an assessment to determine the significance of the
structure(s) and /or site(s). Project applicants /developers shall ensure that, to the
maximum extent possible, direct or indirect impacts to any known properties that are
deemed eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, the CRHR, or a local designation be avoided
and /or preserved consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. Should avoidance and /or preservation not be a
feasible option, a qualified architectural historian shall develop a mitigation program that
may include, but not be limited to, formal documentation of the structure using historical
narrative and photographic documentation, facade preservation, and /or monumentation.
29
Properties are not equally significant, and some retain more significance than others.
Therefore, prior to development decisions, a qualified architectural historian shall be
retained to evaluate the circumstance regarding the property and planned development
and to make management decisions regarding documentation of the property. (EIR pp.
4.5 -15 to 17.)
Rationale: Six properties in the City are included or are eligible for inclusion into
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), California Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
In addition, the majority of residential buildings in the City were built between 1920 and
1960. As such, many of the homes and buildings constructed in Arcadia are already or
will soon be 50 years old. Alteration, rehabilitation, or redevelopment of older structures
could potentially result in significant adverse impacts on historic resources. (EIR pp. 4.5-
15 to 16.)
General Plan Update goals and policies would serve to encourage the evaluation
and preservation of historically significant structures and resources. In addition,
Implementation Action 6 -11 requires cultural resources assessments for any proposed
development that may impact a known or potential archaeological or paleontological
site, or a historical site that is 50 years old or older. Specifically, the assessments shall
identify the significance of the resource, based on the guidance provided in the CRHR
and other applicable sources. Assessment reports will direct avoidance of impacts and
preservation of significant resources in place, where feasible. Implementation of these
goals, policies, and implementation action would promote the preservation of important
cultural resources in the City. (EIR p. 4.5 -16.)
For resources determined to be culturally significant through Policy PR -9.5 and
Implementation Action 7 -14, adherence to the Secretary of Interior's Standards would
protect the historical significance of a structure and prevent adverse impacts. In
addition, the environmental review of individual projects would lead to the mitigation of
their impacts on cultural resources. Policy PR -9.6 directs the City to explore the
establishment of a Cultural Heritage Ordinance. Prior to the adoption of this ordinance,
redevelopment and public and infrastructure projects in the City would have had the
potential to involve the demolition, rehabilitation, expansion, and /or alteration of
structures that are historically significant. However, actions that do not trigger CEQA
review such as non - discretionary permits for demolition, rehabilitation, expansion,
and /or alteration would not be afforded the same protection. With implementation of
MM 4.5 -1, impacts to historic resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.
(EIR p. 4.5 -17.) Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. (EIR
p. 4.5-20.)
2. Archaeological Resources (Threshold 4.6b): Future development could
affect archaeological resources in the City.
Finding: The Standard Condition, Project Design Features, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's
impacts to archaeological resources. The Standard Condition, Project Design Features,
30
and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the City has required, or
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant impacts to archaeological resources identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Condition: Standard Condition 4.5 -1 requires that all development
projects in the City comply with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as they relate to
historical resources. The State CEQA Guidelines provide specific guidance regarding
the types of resources that qualify as historical resources and what types of impacts to
historical resources are considered significant. If a development project is determined
to have a significant impact on an historical resource, that impact must be mitigated, to
the extent feasible, according to the Public Resources Code. Implementation of this
Standard Condition 4.5 -1 would ensure that impacts to historical resources are fully
evaluated and mitigated prior to undertaking development projects. (EIR p. 4.5 -18.)
Project Design Features: Implementation Action 6 -11 requires archeological
resource assessments for any proposed development that may impact a known
archaeological site that is 50 years or older. The assessment shall identify the
significance of the resource, based on guidance provided in the California Register of
Historical Resources and other applicable sources. Assessment reports will direct
avoidance of impacts and preservation of significant resources in place, where feasible.
Implementation Action 6 -12 requires an archaeological monitor on -site during any
construction activities on properties containing potential archaeological resources.
Implementation Action 6 -11 and 6 -12 would ensure that any impacts to archaeological
resources in the City are evaluated and mitigated.
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measures 4.5 -2 requires that projects that would be located on
undeveloped parcels or near known cultural resources shall implement the following:
1. A Phase 1 study shall be undertaken to evaluate the current conditions of a
project site. The study shall consist of (1) an initial records search including
records, maps, and literature housed at the Archaeological Information Center
located at California State University, Fullerton; (2) a Sacred Lands check with
the NAHC and initial scoping with interested Indian Tribes and individuals
identified by the NAHC; (3) a pedestrian field survey by a qualified Archaeologist
to determine the presence or absence of surficial artifactual material and /or the
potential for buried resources; and (4) a technical report describing the study and
offering management recommendations for potential further investigation.
2. If archaeological sites are discovered as a result of the Phase I study, a
Phase II evaluation of the significance of any prehistoric material that is present
shall be undertaken. The evaluation shall include further archival research,
ethnographic research, and subsurface testing /excavation to determine the site's
horizontal and vertical extent, the density and diversity of cultural material, and
the site's overall integrity. The evaluation shall include a technical report
31
describing the findings and offering management recommendations for sites
determined to be significant. Non - significant resources would require no further
study.
3. If the Phase II evaluative study indicates that a significant site is present, the
qualified Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with
the City of Arcadia, for preservation and /or data recovery of the resource.
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation, as provided in CCR
Section 15126.5(b)(3). This could include (1) avoidance of resources; (2)
incorporation of resources into open space; (3) capping the resource with
chemically stable sediments; and /or (4) deeding the resource into a permanent
conservation easement. To the extent that a resource cannot be preserved in
place, a Phase III data recovery excavation shall be completed to recover the
resource's scientifically consequential information. A technical report shall be
completed that adheres to the OHP's Archaeological Resources Management
Report (ARMR) guidelines.
4. Monitoring of ground- disturbing activities shall be undertaken by a qualified
Archaeologist as a final mitigation measure in areas that contain or are sensitive
for the presence of cultural resources.
Rationale: There is one archaeological site that has been recorded in the City.
Excavation and ground- disturbing activities on and near this archaeological site have
the potential to adversely affect the resources at this site and /or to unearth previously
unknown archeological resources. Also, the presence of archaeological resources on
undeveloped sites in the City has not been determined. Thus, future development on
undeveloped sites has the potential to disturb or destroy archaeological resources that
may be present on these sites, which would be a significant impact. (EIR p. 4.5 -18.)
Implementation Action 6 -11 requires cultural resources assessments for any
proposed development that may impact a known or potential archaeological or
paleontological site, or a historical site that is 50 years old or older. Implementation
Action 6 -12 requires monitoring for areas with the potential to contain archaeological
resources. These implementation actions would prevent adverse impacts on the
archaeological site near the 1 -210 Freeway and archaeological sites that may be
discovered during ground- disturbing and excavation activities associated with the
construction of future development pursuant to the General Plan Update. Compliance
with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the CRHR for the protection of cultural
resources would also reduce impacts. (EIR p. 4.5 -18.)
In addition, MM 4.5 -2 requires individual projects to comply with a process that
begins with a Phase I cultural resources study and continues, as applicable for each
project, through in -place preservation or data recovery of any resources encountered,
and requires archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities in areas
determined to be sensitive for archaeological resources. With implementation of
General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation actions related to
archaeological resources, CEQA, CRHR and MM 4.5 -2, there would be less than
32
significant impacts related to the potential disturbance or destruction of archaeological
resources. (EIR p. 4.5 -18.) Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after
mitigation. (EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
.3. Paleontological Resources (Threshold 4.6c): Future development could
affect paleontological resources in the City.
Finding: The Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure outlined below
would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's impacts to paleontological
resources. The Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or
alterations that the City has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources
identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Project Design Feature: Implementation Action 6 -11 requires cultural resource
assessments for any proposed development that may impact a known or potential
archaeological or paleontological site. (EIR pp. 4.5 -18 to 19.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3 states that future development and public and
infrastructure projects that would excavate into Older Quaternary Alluvium deposits
shall implement the following:
1. An archival records search shall be undertaken at the NHMLAC to determine
the depositional environment within the project area and to evaluate the
likelihood of fossils being present.
2. A field survey shall be undertaken prior to ground- disturbing activities in areas
of potential but unknown sensitivity to evaluate the site for the presence of
significant fossil resources and establish the need for paleontological salvage
and /or monitoring.
3. If significant fossils are discovered as a result of a field survey or during
monitoring operations, a qualified Paleontologist shall determine appropriate
actions, in cooperation with the City of Arcadia, for the preservation and /or
salvage of the resource.
4. Any monitoring activities shall be accomplished by a qualified Paleontologist
so that fossils discovered during grading can be scientifically and efficiently
recovered and preserved.
5. A qualified Paleontologist shall prepare collected specimens to a point of
identification and place the prepared fossils in the appropriate institution for
permanent curation.
33
6. Upon completion of recovery and curation, all studies and actions shall be
described in a paleontological technical report prepared by a qualified
Paleontologist.
Rationale: Future development that would be located at the northern section of
the City (in areas underlain by Older Quaternary Alluvium deposits) has the potential to
encounter, disturb, destroy, or adversely impact unknown paleontological resources.
While this area is largely developed with urban land uses and sites may be overlain by
artificial fill, excavation activities that extend into native soils could potentially uncover
paleontological resources. (EIR p. 4.5 -19.)
Implementation Action 6 -11 in the General Plan Update requires cultural
resources assessments for any proposed development that may impact a known or
potential archaeological or paleontological site. MM 4.5 -3 requires monitoring by a
qualified paleontologist where ground- disturbing activities associated with individual
projects would extend into Older Quaternary Alluvium deposits, as well as the recovery
and recordation, if necessary, of any paleontological resources encountered.
Implementation Action 6 -11 and MM 4.5 -3 would reduce potential impacts to
paleontological resources to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.5 -19.) Cumulative
impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. (EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
D. Geology and Soils
1. Septic Tank Limitations: Soils in the City pose septic tank limitations to
future development.
Finding: The Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure outlined below would
reduce to a less than significant level the Project's impacts to septic tank systems. The
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the City
has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen
the potentially significant impacts to septic tank systems identified in the EIR. (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Conditions: Standard Condition 4.6 -7 requires all future development
to connect to the public sewer system where existing sewer lines are available, in
accordance with the California Plumbing Code. Standard Condition 4.6 -8 requires all
future development to comply with the California Plumbing Code standards for design
and construction of water and sewer systems, storm drains and recycled water systems
in buildings. Implementation of Standard Conditions 4.6 -7 and 4.6 -8 would reduce the
number of private septic tank systems in the City and in turn reduce impacts related to
operation or decommissioning of septic systems to less than significant levels. (EIR p.
4.6-24.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6 -1 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measures 4.6 -1 states that future development at the northern edge of
the City (generally north /northwest of Canyon Road) shall provide for the extension of
34
sewer lines to serve the proposed project in order to avoid hazards associated with soils
incapable of supporting septic tank systems.
Rationale: The vast majority of the City is served by the public sewer system.
Future development would be required to connect to the public sewer system where
existing sewer lines are available, as required under the California Plumbing Code (SC
4.6 -7). While the majority of the City is served by the public sewer system, there are
septic tanks that remain. Redevelopment of a site with a septic tank would require
abandonment of the septic tank and connection to the public sewer system under the
California Plumbing Code. (EIR p. 4.6 -24.)
Compliance with Order No. R4- 2004 -0146 of the LARWQCB is required to
regulate the type of discharge; surface overflows; disposal of wastes in geologically
unstable areas; odors; and groundwater pollution, including annual inspections,
connection to public sewer system within six months of availability, and monitoring. The
regulations protect shallow groundwater and adjacent water bodies. (EIR p. 4.6 -24.)
Hanford and Tujunga - Soboba soils that underlie the majority of the City do not
have severe limitations for use of septic tank filter fields. However, Vista - Amargosa soils
have severe limitations for shallow excavation and as septic tank filter fields. Therefore,
future development that would occur at the northern end of the City underlain by Vista
Amargosa soils could not be adequately served by septic systems. Since there are no
sewer lines at the northern edge of the City and on -site soils could not support septic
systems, future development in the area generally north /northwest of Canyon Road
would need to include extension of sewer lines to the development sites (MM 4.6 -1).
Compliance with existing regulations and MM 4.6 -1 would reduce impacts related to the
operation or decommissioning of septic systems to be less than significant after
mitigation. (EIR p. 4.6 -24.)
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Surface Runoff and Storm Drain Facilities (Thresholds 4.8c and 4.16c):
Future development on vacant land would increase runoff volumes and rates and may
require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities.
Finding: The Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure outlined below would
reduce to a less than significant level the Project's impacts to surface runoff and storm
drain facilities. The Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or
alterations that the City has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to surface runoff and storm
drain facilities identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Conditions: Standard Condition 4.8 -2 requires that all new
development comply with the requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the County. The MS4
Permit and Waste Discharge requirements require that all new development and
35
redevelopment prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan ( "SUSMP ") as
part of the development permit process. The SUSMP shall identify post- construction
treatment - control best management practices to implement on -site for long -term storm
water pollutant mitigation. Implementation of this Standard Condition 4.8 -2 would
ensure use of best management practices to control surface runoff from new
construction and redevelopment. Standard Condition 4.16 -1 requires that all future
development applications provide an adequate engineering analysis of project- specific
impacts to utility infrastructure and identify specific improvements that would eliminate
the impacts. (EIR pp. 4.8 -22 to 23.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.16 -1 states that prior to approval of development
applications that could have an impact on existing water, sewer, or storm drain
infrastructure capacities, as determined by the City Engineer, the project
applicant/developer shall be required to determine project impacts on each system. If
water, sewer, and /or storm drain infrastructure improvements are required in order to
serve the proposed project, then appropriate mitigation shall be provided in the analysis
and shall be incorporated into site development plans, subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer. If infrastructure improvements outside the jurisdiction of the City of
Arcadia are required, including improvements to trunk sewer lines owned by the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the needed improvements, or fair share
payments in lieu of infrastructure improvements, shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the appropriate jurisdictions.
Rationale: Because only one percent of the land available for development
within the City is vacant, development pursuant to the General Plan Update would only
slightly increase the amount of impervious surface areas in the City. To guard against
significant impacts related to storm drain infrastructure, MM 4.16 -1 requires the City to
mandate that all future development applications provide an adequate engineering
analysis of project- specific impacts to utility infrastructure and identify specific
improvements that would eliminate the impacts. Safety Element and Circulation and
Infrastructure Element goals, policies and implementation actions, and standard
conditions would also minimize regional and localized flood hazards. Impacts would be
less than significant after mitigation. (EIR pp. 4.8 -22 to 23.)
F. Noise
1. Construction (Short-Term) Noise (Thresholds 4.11a, c, and d): Future
development under the proposed General Plan Update would generate noise from
short-term construction activities.
Finding: The Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's short-
term construction noise impacts. The Standard Conditions, Project Design Features,
and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the City has required, or
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
36
significant short-term construction noise impacts identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Conditions: Standard Condition 4.11 -1 limits construction - related
activities to occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through
Saturday, unless otherwise permitted by the Development Services Department. In
addition, construction is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays. Standard Condition
4.11 -2 requires future development in the City to comply with exterior noise level
standards set forth in the City's Noise Ordinance. Standard Condition 4.11 -3 requires
that residential structures be constructed such that interior CNEL with windows closed
shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. (EIR pp. 4.11 -19 to 21.)
Project Design Features: General Plan Policy N -3.2 encourages industrial and
commercial activities to restrict their receiving operations to daytime periods in order to
limit the intrusion of point- source noise within residential neighborhoods and on noise -
sensitive land uses. In addition, General Plan Policy N -1.2 requires consideration of
noise impacts as part of the development review process in order to effectively
incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions related to residential
and other noise - sensitive land uses. (EIR pp. 4.11 -19 to 21.)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.11 -1 states that prior to issuance of discretionary
permits for construction activities, project applicants /developers shall submit evidence to
the Director of Development Services that the following noise reduction measures are
stated as requirements on the construction plans and specifications:
• During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained
mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor
shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from the noise - sensitive receptors.
• When feasible, the construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise
sources and noise sensitive receptors during all project construction.
• The construction contractor shall limit all construction - related activities that would
result in high noise levels, according to the construction hours set forth in the
Municipal Code.
• The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours
specified for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not
pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
Rationale: The proposed General Plan Update would facilitate the completion of
various construction projects at numerous locations throughout the City. These projects
have the potential to occur in any zoned area, including residential, commercial /office,
37
industrial, and mixed -use areas. Because different construction stages involve different
pieces of equipment and may involve only localized portions of a site, each stage of
construction can result in different noise levels being generated, depending on the
relative distance to sensitive receptors. Future projects have the potential to produce
short-term construction noise levels that violate the City's noise standards. However,
compliance with the Noise Ordinance and City Noise Standards and implementation of
Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.11 -1, construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level after mitigation. (EIR pp. 4.11 -19 to 21.)
2. Groundborne Vibration (Threshold 4.11b): Future development under the
proposed General Plan Update would generate vibration impacts.
Finding: The Standard Condition, Project Design Feature, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level groundborne
vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Standard Condition,
Project Design Feature, and Mitigation Measure reflect changes or alterations that the
City has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially
lessen the potentially significant groundborne vibration impacts identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Condition: Standard Condition 4.11 -4 requires future development in
the City to comply with the City's vibration standards set forth in Arcadia Municipal
Code, Title 3, Section 9266.3.9. (EIR p. 4.11 -21.) Implementation of this Standard
Condition would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Project Design Feature: In order to reduce noise from transportation sources,
General Plan Policy N -2.5 states that the City would enforce truck routes established in
the Circulation and Infrastructure Element and the Municipal Code. (EIR p. 4.11 -21.)
Implementation of this Project Design Feature would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11 -4 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.11 -4 states that prior to the issuance of a grading
permit for projects that have a potential to generate groundborne vibration (e.g., use of
pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers) or be exposed to vibration from off -site
sources, the City shall require applicants for development projects that would be located
adjacent to any developed /occupied sensitive local receptors or for proposed residential
projects to submit a construction - related vibration mitigation plan to the City for review
and approval. The mitigation plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment
and activities and how the vibration from this equipment and activity would be mitigated
during construction of the project.
Rationale: Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually
highest during pile driving, soil compacting, jack- hammering, and demolition - related
activities. The effects of groundborne vibration are generally limited to movement of
building floors, rattling of windows and objects, and rumbling sounds, resulting in
38
annoyance. In general, groundborne vibration associated with transportation and
construction activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source. Vibration may
be noticeable for short periods during construction, but it would be temporary and
periodic and would not be excessive; vibration would not be a significant impact. (EIR p.
4.11 -21.)
Policy N -2.5 would establish truck routes in accordance with the Circulation and
Infrastructure Element and the Arcadia Municipal Code. Compliance with the City's
vibration standards would also reduce vibration impacts on adjacent land uses. In
addition, MM 4.11 -4 would minimize vibration impacts to on -site land uses to the
maximum extent feasible. With mitigation, vibration impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR p. 4.11 -21.)
3. Operational Railroad Noise and Impacts to Noise Sensitive Uses
(Thresholds 4.11a, b, and c): Implementation of the proposed Project would result in
potentially significant railroad noise impacts and impacts to noise sensitive uses.
Finding: The Standard Conditions, Project Design Feature, and Mitigation
Measures outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the operational
railroad noise impacts and impacts to noise sensitive uses. The Standard Conditions,
Project Design Feature, and Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that the
City has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially
lessen the potentially significant operational railroad noise impacts and potentially
significant impacts to noise sensitive uses identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Standard Conditions: Standard Condition 4.11 -2 requires future development in
the City to comply with exterior noise level standards set forth in the City's Noise
Ordinance. Standard Condition 4.11 -3 requires that residential structures be
constructed such that interior CNEL with windows closed shall not exceed 45 dBA in
any habitable room. Implementation of these Standard Conditions would reduce noise
impacts on future developments from train operations. (EIR p. 4.11 -28.)
Project Design Feature: Policy N -2.6 calls for the coordination with the LACMTA
with regard to design and operation of the Gold Line tracks, crossings, and station area
use approaches in order to minimize noise impacts associated with train operations on
the community, particularly construction of the Santa Anita Avenue crossing as a grade -
separated crossing. Implementation of this Project Design Feature would reduce noise
impacts associated with future train operations. (EIR p. 4.11 -28.)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11 -2 and 4.11 -3
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.11 -2 states that prior to the issuance of
discretionary permits for residential development in areas with existing high levels of
ambient noise (i.e., along major roadways and the railroad tracks), a detailed acoustical
study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant
and submitted to the Development Services Department for residential structures. This
39
report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the building(s), the
amount of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction provided in the architectural plans, and any
upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for residences).
The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans
for the buildings and implemented with building construction.
Mitigation Measures 4.11 -3 states that for proposed commercial and industrial
land uses that would generate stationary noise near noise sensitive receptors, a
detailed noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant prior
to the issuance of building permits. The assessment shall utilize noise data provided by
the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized by the project or noise measurements
from substantially similar equipment to project noise levels at the noise - sensitive uses
(on- and off site). Compliance with the City's noise standards for residences shall be
demonstrated and any measures required to meet the noise standards shall be
described and incorporated into the building plans for the project. These measures may
include, but not be limited to, selection of quiet models, construction of barriers,
equipment enclosures, and placement of the equipment. Project applicants /developers
shall submit evidence to the Director of Planning Development that the following noise
reduction measures are stated as requirements on the construction plans and
specifications:
• Require preparation of a noise analysis for all proposed commercial and
industrial projects to be located adjacent to an existing noise - sensitive use,
including but not limited to residential areas, schools, and hospitals.
• Design the construction of new commercial and industrial uses adjacent to noise -
sensitive uses with noise mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts
associated with truck deliveries and stationary equipment, such as pumps,
compressors, and air conditioning units.
• Require that all loading facilities be located and designed to minimize the
potential noise impacts to adjacent noise sensitive uses.
Rationale: The Metro Light Rail Gold Line (Gold Line Phase II) would be
extended from Pasadena to Montclair, into and through Arcadia. Noise associated with
this rail transit system would include general rail activities, a public announcement
system, and bus /locomotive idling. While noise barriers may exist in some locations in
relation to past freight train activities, any future rail activities on the proposed Gold Line
extension are expected to cause a significant noise impact to any existing noise -
sensitive land uses due to the lack of existing freight train or light rail operations. The
Noise Element in the proposed General Plan Update contains goals and policies that
would reduce noise impacts in the City. Implementation actions are also included to
reduce noise impacts on sensitive receptors and comply with City regulations and noise
standards. In addition, implementation of MM 4.11 -2 would reduce the exposure of
future noise sensitive uses to train noise. (EIR pp. 4.11 -28 to 29.)
40
Noise impacts associated with bus stops include peak noise levels generated by
bus brakes, shifting gears, and engine noise during bus acceleration from the bus stop.
Buses are equivalent to heavy trucks in terms of noise generation. Whether conditions
or changes in bus service have a detrimental impact depends on the ambient noise
level at the particular location. In other words, bus stops located near noise - sensitive
uses create greater noise impacts when they occur at minor streets. However, most bus
and truck routes within the City are along major roads. For any future developments in
the vicinity of the bus routes, a detailed noise impact analysis would be required to
accurately assess the potential impacts associated with bus activities (MM 4.11 -2) and
to require compliance with the City's exterior and interior noise standards. This would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.11 -29.)
Noise impacts associated with commercial /industrial areas include, but are not
limited to, noise generated by loading dock operations, trucks entering and leaving
commercial and industrial districts, and mechanical equipment (such as fans, motors,
and compressors) located inside and outside the buildings. The introduction of mixed -
uses along residential and commercial corridors can create potential noise impacts to
noise - sensitive uses. Potential noise conflicts can occur when noise - sensitive areas are
exposed to these noise sources. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance and the City's
Noise Standards and MM 4.11 -3 would reduce impacts from stationary sources. (EIR p.
4.11-29.)
The largest single source of commercial noise in the City is the Santa Anita Race
Track. Noise - sensitive uses that would be developed in the vicinity of the race track
should account for these potential impacts in a project specific noise analysis and
potential mitigation measures to reduce expected noise impacts (MM 4.11 -2). (EIR p.
4.11-29.)
Implementation of MMs 4.11 -2 and 4.11 -3 requiring preparation of project -
specific noise impact analyses and adherence to the required mitigation measures
identified in the analyses would reduce impacts to less than significant levels after
mitigation.
G. Utilities and Utility Systems
1. Water and Wastewater Distribution Infrastructure (Threshold 4.16b):
Future development would place greater demands on the existing water and sewer
system infrastructure of the City.
Finding: The Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, and Mitigation
Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's
impacts to water and wastewater distribution infrastructure. The Standard Conditions,
Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that the
City has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially
lessen the potentially significant impacts to water and wastewater distribution
infrastructure identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
41
Standard Conditions: Compliance with the City's standards for water line and
wastewater line design and construction (Standard Condition 4.16 -1) would allow the
provision of necessary infrastructure improvements to adequately serve future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update. (EIR pp. 4.16 -24 to 25.)
Implementation of Standard Condition 4.16 -1 would reduce potential impacts from
future development to sewer infrastructure improvements to less than significant levels.
(EIR p. 4.16 -25.)
Project Design Features: Implementation Actions 4 -12 (Coordination with Utility
Agencies and City Facilities), 4 -13 (Infrasturcutre Master Plan Updates), 4 -14
(Inspection and Replacement of Sewer Lines), 6 -3 (Conservation Education and
Promotion), and 6 -4 (Green Building Initiatives) would further reduce impacts related to
sewage generation from future development pursuant to the General Plan Update.
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.16 -1: Prior to approval of development
applications that could have an impact on existing water, sewer, or storm drain
infrastructure capacities, as determined by the City Engineer, the project
applicant/developer shall be required to determine project impacts on each system. If
water, sewer, and /or storm drain infrastructure improvements are required in order to
serve the proposed project, then appropriate mitigation shall be provided in the analysis
and shall be incorporated into site development plans, subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer. If infrastructure improvements outside the jurisdiction of the City of
Arcadia are required, including improvements to trunk sewer lines owned by the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the needed improvements, or fair share
payments in lieu of infrastructure improvements, shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the appropriate jurisdictions.
Rationale: Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update
would require connections to the existing water and sewer infrastructure systems.
Implementation of the Water Master Plan and water system improvement projects set
forth in the Plan would resolve existing deficiencies and upgrade the water system to
adequately serve the needs of future development. However, the size and timing of
future development projects could result in the need for water infrastructure
improvements prior to the implementation of Capital Improvement Program projects.
Therefore, future development has the potential to result in deficiencies if water system
upgrades are not completed prior to new development in areas where potential
deficiencies have been identified. (EIR pp. 4.16 -22 to 24.)
To avoid the creation or exacerbation of water infrastructure deficiencies, MM
4.16 -1 requires the City to mandate that all future development applications provide an
adequate engineering analysis of project- specific impacts to utility infrastructure and
identify specific improvements that would eliminate the impacts. In addition, compliance
with the City's standards for water line design and construction would allow the provision
of necessary infrastructure improvements to adequately serve future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update. (EIR p. 4.16 -24.)
42
Also, there are identified deficiencies to the City's sewer infrastructure that are
proposed for improvement under the City's Capital Improvement Program. However, the
timing of future development could result in the need for infrastructure improvements
prior to the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program projects. Additionally,
required improvements may include LACSD -owned lines, for which the City has no
authority to implement. LACSD has no current deficiencies in the sewage system that
services the City. As additional flows are incrementally generated within the City and
LACSD trunk lines approach capacity, construction of relief trunk sewers is scheduled,
depending on the availability of project funding. Therefore, future development has the
potential to result in sewer infrastructure deficiencies if sewer system upgrades are not
completed prior to new development in upstream areas where deficiencies have been
identified. (EIR p. 4.16 -25.)
In order to prevent future development from creating or exacerbating wastewater
infrastructure deficiencies, MM 4.16 -1 requires the City to mandate that all future
development applications provide an adequate engineering analysis of project- specific
impacts to utility infrastructure and identify specific improvements that would eliminate
the impacts. In addition, compliance with the City's standards for wastewater line design
and construction would require that infrastructure improvements are adequate to serve
future development pursuant to the General Plan Update. (EIR p. 4.16 -25.)
While the City's sewer system provides wastewater conveyance throughout the
City, there are existing septic tanks in Arcadia. These are located at the Santa Anita
Park racetrack and other, older developments at the edges of the City. However, septic
systems are no longer permissible for new development in the City of Arcadia in
accordance with the LARWQCB's Order No. R4 2004 -0146 and the Uniform Plumbing
Code. Compliance with existing regulations would prevent septic systems to be
constructed when sewer lines are available and would require proper abandonment of
existing septic systems. (EIR p. 4.16 -25.)
Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of MM 4.16 -1 would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.16 -25.)
SECTION IV
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Notwithstanding the existing regulations, Standard Conditions that the City
imposes on development/construction projects within the City, the specific Project
Design Features discussed in the EIR for the Project, and the Mitigation Measures set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, the impacts
discussed in this Section IV cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. For
each impact that is determined to be significant and unavoidable, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is set forth in Section
IX of this Resolution below.
43
A. Air Quality
1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency (Threshold 4.3a): Future
development under the proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with the
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) due to the potential increase in air pollutants in
the South Coast Air Basin.
Finding: The City Council finds that due to existing exceedances of air quality
standards in the South Coast Air Basin, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level and this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. Consequently, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
necessary should the City Council wish to approve the Project.
Rationale: In preparation of the AQMP, the SCAQMD and SCAG relied on
population growth projections in the region to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional
emissions from land use and development - related sources. According to SCAG
projections used in preparation of the AQMP, the population of Arcadia will increase to
63,718 persons in 2030. According to the most recent SCAG projections for the adopted
2008 RTP, the City of Arcadia will have 65,704 residents by 2035. Under the proposed
General Plan Update, population within the City could increase to 61,994 persons at
buildout. The General Plan Update would not increase population (and thus vehicle
miles traveled) beyond that anticipated by SCAG projections. Thus, it would not conflict
with the regional SCAG projections. Also, Standard Conditions, Project Design
Features, and Mitigation Measures will reduce operational air quality impacts. (EIR pp.
4.3 -18 to 19.)
However, the South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for 03, NO2, PM10, and
PM2.5 standards and Los Angeles County is in nonattainment for Lead standards.
Generation of these pollutants from construction activities and use /occupancies of
future development in the City would contribute to existing air quality violations. Thus,
future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update would result in
criteria air pollutants and precursors for which the region is in nonattainment. Additional
emissions from future development would contribute to existing air quality violations in
the South Coast Air Basin, conflicting with SCAQMD air quality planning efforts. (EIR p.
4.3 -19.)
2. Violate Air Quality Standards (Thresholds 4.3b and 4.3c): Future
development under the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to existing air
quality violations, both from short-term construction and long -term emissions, and
cumulatively result in an increase of criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air
Basin is in non - attainment of air quality standards.
Finding: The City Council finds that, despite the implementation of all feasible
mitigation, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Consequently, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations would be necessary should the City Council wish to
approve the Project.
44
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the significance of this
impact but not to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 provides that
the City shall require construction projects that are subject to discretionary approval to
implement the following measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction
equipment:
1. Commercial electric power shall be provided to the project site in adequate
capacity to avoid or minimize the use of portable gas /diesel - powered electric
generators and equipment.
2. Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel) shall be
replaced or substituted with electrically driven equivalents (provided that they are not
run via a portable generator set).
3. To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall be used to
further reduce exhaust emissions.
4. On -site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
5. Staging areas for heavy -duty construction equipment shall be located as far as
possible from sensitive receptors.
Rationale: Short-term construction emissions and long -term mobile source
emissions and area source emissions from future development in the City would
generate pollutants that would contribute to existing violations of 03, NO2, PM10, and
PM2.5 standards. Compliance with SCAQMD regulations and MM 4.3 -1 would reduce
exhaust emissions from construction equipment. The General Plan Update includes
goals and policies in the Resource Sustainability Element intended to directly and
indirectly reduce the generation of air pollutants from existing and future developments
in the City. These include public education and regional coordination efforts as well as
trip reduction and energy conservation measures. In addition, numerous goals, policies,
and implementation programs intend to reduce per- capita VMT through the
implementation of mixed -use development and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
system improvements. Future development would also need to comply with the City's
Traffic Congestion Management regulations, SCAQMD rules for stationary sources and
motor vehicle mitigation, and energy conservation regulations. (EIR pp. 4.3 -19 to 22.)
However, the City lies in a nonattainment air basin for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5;
and future development associated with General Plan implementation would contribute
to the continued nonattainment status (EIR p. 4.3 -22). Impacts would remain significant
after mitigation of construction emissions. Reduction in vehicle emissions and
stationary sources from City goal, policies, and programs cannot be quantified and
would remain significant and unavoidable.
45
3. Impacts of Operational Emissions on Sensitive Receptors (Threshold
4.3d): Future development under the proposed General Plan Update would generate
toxic air contaminants, including diesel exhaust, that may affect sensitive receptors.
Finding: The City Council finds that, despite the implementation of all feasible
mitigation, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Consequently, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations would be necessary should the City Council wish to
approve the Project.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the significance of this
impact but not to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 provides that
the City shall require future development that is inconsistent with the recommended
buffer distances (siting criteria) in CARB's Land Use Handbook to prepare a site -
specific health risk assessment to determine impacts to sensitive receptors. In light of
the results of the aforementioned analysis, the City shall implement the following
measures to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites to health risks related
to air pollution:
1. Encourage site plan designs to provide appropriate set -back and /or design
features that reduce TACs at the source;
2. Encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses to incorporate design features
(e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation
systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential
impacts to sensitive receptors; and
3. Orient activities involving idling trucks as far away from and downwind of existing
or proposed sensitive receptors as feasible.
Rationale: Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update
could include new or modified sources of TACs that may be located near existing
sensitive receptors, and new sensitive receptors could be developed near existing
sources of TACs. Emissions of TACs during construction of development envisioned
under the General Plan Update (e.g., emissions from heavy -duty diesel equipment) and
from operational sources (e.g., emissions from area, stationary and mobile sources)
could result in TAC exposure of sensitive receptors. (EIR p. 4.3 -23.)
The proposed General Plan Update anticipates construction of light industrial and
commercial land uses in the City, which may include stationary sources of TACs, such
as dry- cleaning establishments, gasoline- dispensing facilities, and diesel - fueled back -up
generators and boilers. These types of stationary sources, in addition to any other
stationary sources that may emit TACs, would be subject to applicable SCAQMD rules
and regulations. Given compliance with applicable rules and regulations, operation of
stationary sources would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs at
levels exceeding SCAQMD's significance thresholds. (EIR p. 4.3 -24.)
46
The Land Use Policy Map in the proposed General Plan Update includes a mix of
land uses, including commercial, light industrial, manufacturing, and residential uses.
While vacant lands and focus areas where future development is anticipated are not
located near freeways, they could be located near major roadways in the City. Sensitive
receptors could be sited within 500 feet of a major roadway, and risk associated with
implementation of the General Plan would exceed CARB's (and subsequently the
SCAQMD's) recommendation. Implementation of the General Plan Update could also
place commercial /industrial land uses near sensitive receptors. Operational activities
that require the use of diesel - fueled vehicles for extended periods, such as commercial
trucking facilities or delivery/distribution areas, may expose sensitive receptors to diesel
PM emissions on a reoccurring basis. Implementation of MM 4.3 -2 would reduce the
exposure of sensitive receptors to on -road mobile source emissions, but not to a less
than significant level. The only measure available to completely mitigate this impact
would be the complete separation of emission sources (i.e., diesel vehicles associated
with commercial trucking activities at commercial and industrial land uses, rail
operations, and stationary sources) by over 1,000 feet from all sensitive receptors in the
City, which is not feasible. Therefore, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. (EIR pp. 4.3 -24 to 26.)
Cumulative increases in pollutant emissions from construction and operation of
future developments under the General Plan Update would contribute to existing air
quality violations and exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. (EIR pp. 4.3 -28 to
29.) Impacts would remain significant after mitigation.
B. Noise
1. Operational (Long -Term) Traffic Noise (Thresholds 4.11a, 4.11b, and
4.11c): Increases in traffic from future development and future rail operations would
expose existing and future developments in the City to high noise levels. Existing noise
levels in the City exceed standards and future development would incrementally
contribute to this exceedance.
Finding: The City Council finds that, despite the implementation of all feasible
Project Design Features, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Consequently, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be necessary should
the City Council wish to approve the Project.
Project Design Features: In order to reduce impacts from transportation sources,
the General Plan Update contains the following policies:
1. Policy N -2.1: Enforce State Motor Vehicle Code noise standards for cars,
trucks, and motorcycles, and coordinate enforcement with the California
Highway Patrol and County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.
2. Policy N -2.2: Continue to work with and lobby Metro to fund gap closure of
the 1 -210 sound walls between Baldwin and Santa Anita Avenues.
47
3. Policy N -2.3: Consider using roadway sound attenuation techniques for
resurfacing projects that use "quiet" pavement or noise - reducing rubberized
asphalt.
4. Policy N -2.4: Consider the noise impacts on adjacent residential uses
associated with establishing stop signs or other traffic control or traffic
calming devices.
5. Policy N -2.5: Enforce truck routes established in the Circulation and
Infrastructure Element and the Municipal Code.
6. Policy N -2.6: Work with Metro to provide that the design and operation of the
Gold Line tracks, crossings, and station area use approaches that would
minimize noise impacts associated with train operations on the community. In
particular, construct the Santa Anita Avenue crossing as a grade- separated
crossing.
Rationale: Mobile sources generate noise impacts in the City and the primary
source of noise is vehicular traffic. The comparison of community noise equivalent level
(CNEL) at 100 feet of the centerlines of major streets and freeways in the City indicates
that the existing baseline noise levels range from 62.0 to 87.3 dBA CNEL at 100 feet
from the street centerline, while the Year 2035 conditions show noise levels would
range from 62.2 to 87.3 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the street centerlines. In Year 2035,
noise levels are projected to increase from baseline conditions by up to 1.5 dBA CNEL.
None of the roadway segments would experience a noise increase that exceeds 3.0 dB
over existing noise levels. These noise increases would also occur incrementally
through time and would not be discernible. However, existing or future sensitive noise
receptors along roadways that would have noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL
would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's exterior standards of 65 to 70
dBA CNEL. Depending on the building construction, interior noise levels at these
sensitive receptors may also exceed standards. (EIR pp. 4.11 -22 to 27.)
A number of goals and policies in the Noise Element address noise control and
would reduce noise impacts on existing and future developments. A number of
implementation actions are also proposed to reduce noise from transportation sources
and impacts on sensitive receptors. However, continued exposure of noise - sensitive
receptors to existing high noise levels along major roadways are expected to remain.
(EIR pp. 4.11 -27 to 28.) Also, traffic noise impacts of future development pursuant to
the proposed General Plan Update on noise - sensitive receptors would be significant
due to the contribution of future development to these noise standard violations. (EIR
pp. 4.11 -27 to 28.) This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Future development in the City and the surrounding area would generate noise
impacts from construction, vehicle trips, and stationary sources. Noise level increases
in the region would contribute to existing high noise levels that would impact existing or
future sensitive noise receptors along major roadways. Thus, while traffic noise
increases would be Tess than the 3 dBA, existing violations of City noise standards
48
would be exacerbated, and the cumulative off -site traffic noise impacts would be
significant. (EIR pp. 4.11 -30 to 31.)
C. Transportation
1. Circulation System Performance (Threshold 4.15a): Future development
would lead to increases in traffic volumes on City roadways that would exceed City
standards along Foothill Boulevard and Santa Anita Avenue.
Finding: The City Council finds that, despite the implementation of all feasible
Standard Conditions and Project Design Features this impact remains significant and
unavoidable. Consequently, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
necessary should the City Council wish to approve the Project.
Standard Conditions: Standard Condition 4.15 -1 requires that future
development pay development impact fees under the City's Transportation Impact Fee
Program to help fund intersection and roadway improvements in the City. Standard
Condition 4.15 -2 requires that future development improve perimeter and on -site
roadways in accordance with the City's roadway standards under Arcadia Municipal
Code, Article IX, Chapter 1, Parts 1 and 2. Standard Condition 4.15 -6 requires that new
non - residential development comply with the City's Traffic Congestion Management
regulations, which require non - residential development to provide transportation
demand management and trip reduction measures, such as display /kiosk for
transportation information, preferential parking space for carpool /vanpool vehicles, bike
racks, loading /unloading zones, bus stop improvements, designated pathways, and
convenient access for bicyclists. Implementation of these Standard Conditions would
contribute to the reduction of impacts to the performance of the circulation system but
not to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.15 -28.)
Project Design Features: Goal CI -1 of the General Plan is to establish an
efficient roadway system that serves all of Arcadia, supports all transportation modes,
and balances the roadway system with planned land uses. Goal CI -2 is to maximize
operational efficiency of the street system. Implementation of these Project Design
Features would contribute to the reduction of impacts to the performance of the
circulation system but not to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.15 -28.)
Implementation Actions 2 -5 (Downtown Planning Efforts), 3 -7 (Redevelopment
Agency's Five -Year Implementation Plan), 4 -1 (Achieve Consistency in Roadway
Rights -of -Way), 4 -2 (Complete Streets), and 4 -13 (Infrastructure Master Plan Updates)
would contribute to the reduction of impacts to the performance of the circulation system
but not to less than significant levels. (EIR p. 4.15 -28.)
Rationale: There are no opportunities to widen Foothill Boulevard and Santa
Anita Avenue without obtaining additional right -of -way, which would involve the
demolition of adjacent buildings or demolition of existing streetscape and landscaping.
Also, these roadways carry regional traffic as well as local Arcadia traffic, so solutions
are not entirely within the control of the City of Arcadia. (EIR p. 4.15 -27.)
49
The City's street system is well established, and no new streets or major street
widening are planned in the future. However, there are some street enhancements and
other circulation system improvements proposed in the General Plan Update. These
include street restriping, enhanced intersections and traffic signal system upgrades.
(EIR pp. 4.15 -21 to 22.)
Future development under the proposed General Plan Update and public and
infrastructure projects in the City would generate new vehicle trips that could add to
existing traffic volumes on roadways, intersections, and freeways in and near the City.
Increases in traffic volumes on City streets were projected to year 2035 at anticipated
buildout of the City under the proposed Arcadia General Plan Update. The LOS
calculations for the AM peak hour show that the majority of roadway segments in the
City are forecasted to continue to operate at LOS D or better in 2035, except for the
following segments that would operate at LOS E:
• Westbound Foothill Boulevard between Fifth Avenue and Second Avenue;
• Westbound Live Oak Avenue between Second Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue;
and
• Northbound Santa Anita Avenue between Camino Real and Duarte Road.
The Foothill Boulevard segment currently operates at LOS E and would continue
to operate at LOS E in the future with implementation of the General Plan Update. The
Live Oak Avenue segment is located in designated commercial district (Live Oak
Avenue), where LOS E is acceptable per Policy CI -1.3. However, the northbound
segment of Santa Anita Avenue between Camino Real and Duarte Road would operate
at LOS E, exceeding the City standard. Impacts on Foothill Boulevard between Fifth and
Second Avenues and Santa Anita Avenue between Camino Real and Duarte Road are
considered significant.
The LOS calculations for the PM peak hour also show that the majority of
roadway segments in the City are forecasted to continue to operate at LOS D or better,
except for three segments:
• Eastbound Santa Clara Street between Huntington Drive and Santa Anita
Avenue;
• Northbound Holly Avenue between Duarte Road and Huntington Drive; and
• Eastbound Foothill Boulevard between Fifth Avenue and Second Avenue.
Santa Clara Street is located in a designated commercial district (Downtown),
and Holly Avenue is located adjacent to the Santa Anita Race Track, where LOS E is
acceptable per Policy CI -1.3. Eastbound Foothill Boulevard between Fifth Avenue and
Second Avenue would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and this is
considered a significant traffic impact. This segment of Foothill Boulevard currently
operates at LOS F and would continue to operate at LOS F in the future. While no
50
change in LOS would occur, existing operations on this segment of Foothill Boulevard
are below City standards, and future development would contribute to future traffic
volumes on this roadway segment.
It is possible in the longer term that the projected traffic volumes and levels of
service may not be reached, in that enhanced intersections may improve the LOS or
traffic level increases may be Tess due to lower increases in regional traffic and /or
greater use of transit, walking, and bicycling. Implementation of an advanced traffic
control (Implementation Actions 4 -6 and 4 -7) could also increase the roadway capacity
and improve the LOS. However, the traffic benefits of these improvements cannot be
quantified and impacts are expected to be significant at the following roadway
segments:
• Northbound Santa Anita Avenue between Camino Real and Duarte Road (LOS E
during AM peak hour);
• Westbound Foothill Boulevard between Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue (LOS
E during AM peak hour); and
• Eastbound Foothill Boulevard between Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue (LOS F
during PM peak hour).
The proposed Circulation and Infrastructure Element in the General Plan Update
addresses the transportation needs of the City. Goals, policies and implementation
actions in the proposed General Plan would accommodate future transportation
demands and provide greater opportunities for the use of alternative transportation.
Trip reduction measures that would be implemented by individual developments;
individual project traffic impact mitigation; and payment of traffic impact fees would allow
for improvements to the City's roadway network. However, traffic impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. (EIR pp. 4.15 -23 to 28.)
Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update, public and
infrastructure projects, and future growth and development in the rest of the region
would increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the City and within the
region. Based on regional traffic forecasts, SCAG has identified regional transportation
improvements to meet the transportation and circulation needs of the region in its RTP
and RTIP. Additional freeway travel lanes, expanded transit services, rapid bus transit
expansion, high -speed rail service, dedicated truck lanes, and other projects are
planned and accounted for in the travel forecasts. Planned local roadway improvements
and implementation of the City's ITS Master Plan has also been incorporated into the
model to project future traffic volumes. Since significant adverse impacts would occur
on roadway segments in the City, buildout of the City and projected growth in the region
would have cumulative adverse impacts on traffic and street system capacity.
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR pp. 4.15 -33 to 34.)
51
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
1. Conflict with GHG Reduction Plan, Policy or Regulation (Threshold
4.17b): Future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update would
generate GHG emissions.
Finding: The City Council finds that, despite the implementation of all feasible
Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures, this impact remains significant and
unavoidable. Consequently, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
necessary should the Agency Board wish to approve the Project.
Project Design Features: Policies RS -2.1 through RS -2.3 are intended to further
the General Plan Update Goal RS -2 of reducing Arcadia's carbon footprint in
compliance with SB 375 and AB 32. Policy RS -2.1 is to cooperate with the state to
implement AB 32. Policy RS -2.2 is to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions to
15% below 2005 levels by 2020, and total municipal greenhouse gas emissions to 15%
below 2005 levels by 2020. Policy RS -2.3 is to participate in regional strategies and
plan to implement SB 375, and in particular, use the legislatively authorized incentives
to encourage infill and transit - oriented development. (EIR pp. 4.17 -23 to 24.)
Policies RS -3.1 through RS -3.3 are intended to further the General Plan Update
goal of promoting and utilizing clean forms of transportation to reduce Arcadia's carbon
footprint. Policy RS -3.1 is to develop a City fleet that, to the extent feasible, uses clean,
alternative fuel and consists of energy- efficient vehicles. Policy RS -3.2 is to incorporate
energy- efficient vehicles into the City's transit system. Policy RS -3.3 is to educate
residents on methods of sustainable driving techniques such as: reducing excessive
speeding, preventing car idling, regular car maintenance for maximizing fuel efficiency,
and carpooling. (Draft General Plan page 4.17 -24.)
Goal RS -5 is to use wise and creative energy that incorporates new technologies
for energy generation and new approaches to energy conservation. To achieve this
Goal, the General Plan Update includes Policy RS -5.16, which is to set an example in
the design and operation of new civic buildings by implementing LEED or similar
building standards. Further, the General Plan Update contains Policy RS -5.17, which is
to investigate providing incentives for LEED or equivalent for new and /or retrofitted
private commercial and industrial buildings. (Draft General Plan page 4.17 -24.)
Goal CI -4 in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element is to provide a connected,
balanced, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian network that provides viable
alternatives to use of the car. Policy CI -4.1 is to develop and maintain the citywide
bicycle network of off - street bike paths, on- street bike lanes, and bike streets. Policy
CI -4.2 is to establish bike hubs at key transit and commercial nodes. Policy CI -4.5 is to
develop and implement a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan. Policy CI -4.13
requires new and major renovations of office, industrial, and institutional developments
to provide secure off - street bicycle parking, and encourage such developments to
provide bicycle facilities, such as showers and changing rooms. (EIR p. 4.17 -24.)
52
Implementation of the foregoing Project Design Features would contribute to the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but not to a Tess than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.17 -1 through
4.17 -3 would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions impacts and the
conflicts with GHG reduction plans but not to a less than significant level.
MM 4.17 -1: The City shall actively encourage the development and
maintenance of mixed uses, particularly in the Mixed Use and Downtown Mixed Use
areas, by maintaining a list of sites available for mixed use and infill development and
making the list available to developers. The City shall establish developer incentives to
encourage well- designed, mixed use and infill development projects in these areas.
MM 4.17 -2: The City shall encourage future development and major renovation
projects to achieve LEED certification, and /or other green certifications. The City shall
investigate the potential to offer density bonus incentives on residential projects that
achieve LEED certification, and other green certifications and ratings.
MM 4.17 -3: The City shall consider and evaluate the applicability of the policies
contained in the California Attorney General's Sustainability and General Plans:
Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change California Attorney General's Office
1/22/10 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA's)
Model Policies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in General Plans June 2009.
Rationale: GHG emissions would result from construction activities associated
with long -term implementation of land use policies in the proposed General Plan
Update. The primary source of GHG emissions generated by construction activities is
from use of diesel - powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e.,
generators, worker vehicles, materials delivery, and other sources). In general, site
preparation including demolition, grading, and excavation represent the construction
activities that would result in the highest levels of GHG emissions. GHGs would not only
be emitted by on -site construction equipment but also from off -site haul trucks and
construction workers traveling to and from the site. (EIR p. 4.17 -21.)
With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, CO2, N2O, and CH4
emissions are expected to increase as a result of future development in the City and a
corresponding increase in the number of daily trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The GHG emission analysis conducted for the General Plan Update compared CO2
equivalent GHG emissions between existing conditions and buildout (year 2035), and
found that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a net
increase of approximately 553,736.21 MTCO2e /yr at buildout of the City. (EIR p. 4.17-
21.)
Since annual GHG emissions under buildout of the City are projected to increase
the existing emissions, the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to global
warming. By generating increased GHG emissions, future development that occurs in
accordance with the proposed General Plan throughout the City of Arcadia would
53
incrementally contribute to the adverse economic, public health, natural resources, and
other environmental impacts that are projected to occur in California and throughout the
world as a result of global warming. (EIR p. 4.17 -22.)
The proposed Land Use Policy Map and goals, policies, and implementation
actions that would reduce VMT through the implementation of mixed -use developments
and increased development intensity around the Gold Line station, and through
Citywide pedestrian and bicycle system improvements would reduce GHG emissions.
Goals and policies in the Resource Sustainability Element call for reductions in GHG
emissions from future development. Implementation actions in the proposed General
Plan Update and existing regulations would also reduce GHG emissions associated
with energy and water generation and waste disposal. (EIR p. 4.17 -22.)
MMs 4.17 -1 to 4.17 -3 would further reduce the GHG emissions from the City.
However, the current state of the science also precludes the quantification of the GHG
emission reduction that could occur with the implementation of these mitigation
measures. Because a majority of the GHG emissions in the City will originate from
mobile sources (i.e., traffic), and most of the measures described are aimed at reducing
emissions from non - mobile sources, it is concluded that implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would still result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Therefore,
this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR p. 4.17 -23.) The assessment of
GHGs is inherently cumulative because global warming is a global phenomenon.
Therefore, GHG impacts would also be cumulatively significant. (EIR p. 4.17 -24.)
SECTION V
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts
of a project shall be discussed when they are "cumulatively considerable," as defined in
section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable "means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).)
Section 4.0 of the EIR assesses cumulative impacts for each applicable
environmental issue, and does so to a degree that reflects each impact's severity and
likelihood of occurrence. The EIR assesses the overall environmental effects of the
proposed Project at a program level of detail and the overall cumulative effects of
development in accordance with the land use designations in the proposed General
Plan Update.
Notwithstanding the Standard Conditions that the City imposes on
development/construction projects within the City, the specific Project Design Features
discussed in the EIR for the Project, the various implementation actions outlined in the
General Plan Update, and the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Project, some of the Project's cumulative impacts
discussed in this Section V cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. For
54
each impact that is determined to be significant and unavoidable, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is set forth in Section
IX below.
A. Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vistas. Regarding hillside viewsheds, the General Plan Update
includes a continuing land use designation of Residential Estate (up to two dwelling
units per acre) in the hillside area encompassing the northernmost extent of the City.
Although a covenant has been recorded that limits the development in this area, future
growth could include construction of homes on a portion of this hillside area. Other
hillside developments in adjacent cities would lead to increasing encroachment into the
undeveloped hillsides. However, the Angeles National Forest is located north of the City
of Arcadia and adjacent cities, which would limit the hillside development that may occur
on the mountainsides. Additionally, most hillside communities have stringent
development standards for projects in hillside areas. Development performed in
compliance with the General Plan Update goals and policies related to hillside
development (Goal LU -5 and associated policies), as well as compliance with all
Municipal Code requirements (SC 4.1 -1) would reduce cumulative impacts to views of
the San Gabriel Mountains to less than significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.1 -15 to 16.)
2. Scenic Highways. No Impact. (EIR p. 4.1 -12.)
3. Visual Character. As such, land use development within the focus areas
would lead to visual changes within the City of Arcadia that could be cumulatively
considerable when assessed in combination with growth and development in adjacent
jurisdictions that would be visible by residents and visitors traveling between Arcadia
and surrounding cities. However, this growth and development may not necessarily be
considered adverse to the visual character of the area, since the project area is largely
developed and limited new development is expected. (EIR p. 4.1 -15.)
4. Light and Glare. Existing sources of light and glare in the City and
surrounding area generate ambient lighting levels that define nighttime light intensities.
With limited development in the City and the surrounding area, coupled with the City's
policies to limit light spillover (SC 4.1 -1), buildout under of the General Plan Update
would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact to light and glare in
the region. There would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to light and
glare, and no mitigation is required. (EIR p. 4.1 -16.)
B. Agriculture and Forest Resources
The San Gabriel Mountains and the San Gabriel Valley do not support
agricultural uses for commercial production. Thus, future development in the City of
Arcadia and in the surrounding cities and unincorporated County areas within the San
Gabriel Valley would not lead to a cumulatively considerable conversion of farmland to
urban uses. No development is expected to occur in the Angeles National Forest
located north of the City and the San Gabriel Valley that is not in compliance with the
55
Forest Plan, since this forest is under the jurisdiction of the USFS and proposed for
preservation. No cumulative impacts on farmlands, forest lands, timberland, agricultural
operations, crop production, or conflicts with agricultural zones or Williamson Act
contracts would occur with the General Plan Update. (EIR pp. 4.2 -4 to 5.)
C. Air Quality
1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency. While the proposed
General Plan Update would not conflict with the assumptions used in the development
of the AQMP, emissions from construction and long -term operations of future
development in the City could increase the frequency or severity of existing regional air
quality violations of ozone, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 levels or cause /contribute to new
violations, resulting in a delay in the timely attainment of air quality standards. Thus, it
would not be consistent with the AQMP. As with other developments in the San Gabriel
Valley, Los Angeles County and the SoCAB, new development projects would generate
emissions that would contribute to existing regional air quality violations. This is a
significant cumulative impact. (EIR p. 4.3 -28.)
2. Construction - related (Short-Term) Emissions. Construction activities
in the City would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in regional and
local emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Also, there could be a direct long -term
impact resulting from emissions of VOC, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 that would exceed the
SCAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds. Implementation of the Standard Conditions
and MMs would reduce emissions future development pursuant to the proposed
General Plan Update but would still contribute to existing clean air standard violations.
Thus, the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable
increase in pollutant levels in the SoCAB when added to other construction emissions in
the San Gabriel Valley and the region. No project specific mitigation is feasible to
reduce these emissions so as to readily meet clean air standards in the SoCAB. Since
impacts from the proposed General Plan Update would be significant and unavoidable,
its contribution to a cumulative impact would also be significant and unavoidable. (EIR
p. 4.3-28.)
3. Operational (Long -Term) Emissions. Future development pursuant to
the proposed General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable long -term
regional air quality impacts. Operational emissions attributable to the proposed General
Plan Update, along with emissions from other reasonably foreseeable future projects
associated with growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley and the SoCAB,
would continue to contribute to long -term increases in pollutant emissions that would
exacerbate existing and projected nonattainment conditions. Thus, the proposed
General Plan Update would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality
impact. (EIR p. 4.3 -28.)
4. Sensitive Receptors. Future development pursuant to the proposed
General Plan Update would not create CO hotspots but may locate TACs near sensitive
receptors. Compliance with Standard Conditions would reduce impacts but exposure to
TACs from on -road mobile sources cannot be mitigated and would remain significant.
56
Thus, the proposed General Plan Update would have significant impacts on sensitive
receptors, which would be cumulative when considered together with the introduction of
new on -road mobile sources from future growth and development throughout the Valley
and SoCAB. Thus, the cumulative impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on
sensitive receptors in the San Gabriel Valley are considered significant. (EIR p. 4.3 -28
to 4.3-29.)
5. Objectionable Odors. Future development pursuant to the proposed
General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors or expose users to
objectionable odors with implementation of Standard Conditions 4.3 -2 and 4.16 -5. Thus,
the proposed General Plan Update would not contribute to cumulative odor impacts.
(EIR p. 4.3 -29.)
D. Biological Resources
The cumulative impacts on biological resources are evaluated based on the
potential impacts of growth and development in the City and in the San Gabriel Valley.
Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update could contribute to the
cumulative changes in plant and animal habitats in the San Gabriel Valley due to
increasing urbanization and population growth in the region. (EIR p. 4.4 -21.)
Development on disturbed lands and developed areas, which are likely to
support non - native species or disturbed habitats, are less likely to have adverse impacts
on sensitive plant and animal species. Development on vacant and undeveloped lands
that contain suitable habitat that may support sensitive species would be required to
conduct biological surveys for sensitive animal species, including nesting birds, and for
sensitive habitat or wildlife corridors. The disturbance or destruction of sensitive or
protected species on a site would require a Section 10 or Section 7 consultation and
coordination with the USFWS, the CDFG, the RWQCB, and other resource agencies,
and would require on -site preservation or off -site mitigation, as stated by existing
regulations. (EIR pp. 4.4 -21 to 22.)
In addition, sensitive habitats such as wetland areas, streams and channels, and
riparian habitats would also need to be preserved through on -site or off -site mitigation.
The biological surveys and requisite mitigation would be made in coordination with the
CDFG, the USFWS, the USACE, and the RWQCB, as necessary (MM 4.4 -1, Standard
Conditions 4.4 -1, and 4.4. -2). Thus, while changes in the biological diversity of the San
Gabriel Valley could occur with future growth and development, programs and
regulations are in place that would reduce cumulative impacts on sensitive biological
resources. (EIR p. 4.3 -22.)
Anticipated future development within the City would have a less than significant
adverse cumulative impact on wildlife movement due to the extent of existing
development and resulting restrictions on wildlife movement opportunities. Compliance
with the City's Oak Tree Regulations in SC 4.4 -3 would result in anticipated future
development within the City to have a Tess than significant adverse cumulative impact
on protected tree resources. (EIR p. 4.3 -22.)
57
There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan for the City or surrounding area. Thus, no conflict with a habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan is expected with the proposed General Plan
Update or with future growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley. (EIR p. 4.3-
22.)
Because potentially significant impacts to biological resources resulting from
future development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be Tess than significant
with implementation of the Standard Conditions and relevant goals, policies, and
implementation actions in the General Plan Update, future development is are not
expected to significantly contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources. (EIR
p. 4.3-22.)
E. Cultural Resources
Although a project, in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current
projects, and probable future projects, could potentially result in the disturbance of
prehistoric archaeological resource sites and paleontological resources throughout the
region, the City requires the mitigation of impacts to these resources (i.e., MMs 4.5 -2
through 4.5 -3). Therefore, despite the site - specific nature of the resources, the
mitigation identified for use in the event that unknown or undocumented resources were
discovered would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. As a result, anticipated
development on a project site would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
(EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
1. Historical Resources. Development pursuant to the General Plan Update
has the potential to disturb or destroy historical resources associated with the City's
history and local culture. Historic structures that may be altered or demolished in and
near the City would affect the cultural significance of an individual site or the structure,
as well as incrementally diminish the City's historical context. Similarly, growth and
development in the San Gabriel Valley may involve demolition of older structures that
may be important to the valley's history. Implementation of historic preservation
ordinances by individual cities would preserve sites and structures of local importance.
Compliance with SC 4.5 -1 would lead to assessment of the historical significance of on-
site structures and the preservation of significant resources. However, demolition or
alterations that do not follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards would lead to the
cumulative loss of historic resources in the Valley. Implementation of MM 4.5 -1 by the
City of Arcadia would prevent significant adverse impacts on historical resources in the
City and avoid a cumulative contribution to the Toss of historical resources. (EIR p. 4.5-
20.)
2. Archaeological Resources. Vacant areas would be subject to grading and
excavation as part of future development. While these vacant parcels are found on
scattered sites and at the northern end of the City, they may contain archaeological
resources that could be damaged by development. Growth and development in the San
Gabriel Valley would also lead to new development on vacant and undeveloped lots.
Compliance with SC 4.5 -1 would require a pedestrian survey that would be conducted
58
prior to development. This would provide early identification of on -site cultural resources
and the preservation of significant resources. However, future development and public
and infrastructure projects not subject to CEQA could adversely affect in -situ
archaeological resources. Cumulative impacts on archaeological resources may occur.
However, implementation of MM 4.5 -2 would prevent significant adverse impacts on
archaeological resources in the City and thus, would avoid a cumulative contribution to
the loss of archaeological resources in the Valley. (EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
3. Paleontological Resources. Developments that would disturb native soils
or where no previous development has occurred have the potential to disturb or destroy
unknown paleontological resources. The extent or significance of these resources
cannot be determined until discovery during surveys and evaluation or excavation of
native soils. Mitigation on a case -by -case basis would reduce impacts. Implementation
of MM 4.5 -3 would prevent significant adverse impacts on paleontological resources in
the City and would avoid its cumulative contribution to the loss of paleontological
resources in the Valley. (EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
4. Human Remains. Compliance with SC 4.5 -2 related to the disposition of
human remains discovered during excavation or grading would prevent significant
adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts on human remains would be less than significant.
(EIR p. 4.5 -20.)
F. Geology and Soils
Geology and soils impacts are generally site specific and there is typically little, if
any, cumulative relationship between the development of individual projects on separate
sites. As such, one development would not alter geologic events or soil
features /characteristics (such as groundshaking, seismic intensity, or soil expansion) at
another site, nor change geologic conditions or hazards at off -site locations. (EIR p.
4.6-24.)
However, geological and seismic conditions are regional in nature and affect
large areas, rather than individual parcels. Therefore, future development pursuant to
the General Plan Update, as well as development within the San Gabriel Valley, would
be subject to geologic hazards including development potentially affected by faults,
ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, subsidence, soil collapse,
expansive soils, and other geologic issues. (EIR p. 4.6 -25.)
Compliance with applicable State and local regulations would be required of all
development within the San Gabriel Valley. Individual projects would be designed and
built in accordance with applicable standards in the CBC and the individual building
regulations of local jurisdictions, including pertinent seismic design criteria. Site - specific
geologic hazards would be addressed by the geotechnical investigation required by
individual cities and the County for each development proposal. Geologic investigations
would identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide guidelines
for engineering design and construction to provide for the structural integrity of
proposed development. Compliance with applicable State and local regulations and
59
standard engineering practices related to seismic and geologic hazard reductions would
prevent significant adverse impacts associated with geologic hazards and impacts
associated with the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR
p. 4.6-25.)
Development projects in the San Gabriel Valley would connect to the public
sewer system where available but may utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems in areas without sewer service. Compliance with the Los Angeles
RWQCB regulations and the California Plumbing Code would prevent hazards
associated with soils incapable of supporting septic systems. Therefore, compliance
with applicable State and local regulations and standard engineering practices related to
septic hazard reductions would prevent significant adverse impacts. Impacts associated
with the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR p. 4.6 -25.)
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are
analyzed within the San Gabriel Valley (Valley). Existing developments in the Valley
pose risks to public health and safety, as they relate to the use, storage, handling,
generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Future development in the
City and in the rest of the San Gabriel Valley would increase these risks as more
facilities or operations utilize hazardous materials; are located near airports; and are
developed in hillside areas with very high fire hazard severity. (EIR p. 4.7 -23.)
Existing regulations for a variety of activities and uses relate to the protection of
public health and safety at all levels of government. Future development projects in the
Valley would also need to be made part of emergency planning efforts for natural or
manmade disasters that may occur in the area. Compliance of individual projects with
pertinent regulations would preserve public health and safety and would prevent
hazards to existing and future developments. Thus, future growth and development in
the Valley are not expected to present significant risks to public health and safety. (EIR
p. 4.7 -23.)
Hazardous material explosions or contamination may potentially occur with future
commercial and industrial developments that would handle these materials in large
quantities. State, federal, regional, and County agencies are responsible for regulating
hazardous materials use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and disposal
throughout the Valley. Monitoring and enforcement by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, as the CUPA, would monitor compliance with existing regulations. (EIR p.
4.7-23.)
Future growth and development would also be subject to review and approval by
the Arcadia Fire Department, other jurisdictional fire departments /agencies, and the
County Fire Department for fire safety and preparedness, as well as the provision of
adequate emergency access and evacuation. Compliance with pertinent requirements
of the fire agencies would prevent the creation of fire hazards and would reduce
wildland fire hazards. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.7 -23.)
60
Compliance with FAR Part 77 (SC 4.7 -10) and review of development by the
ALUC (SC 4.7 -14) would also prevent obstructions to aircraft navigation and would
reduce hazards to future growth and development from aircraft operations in and near
the San Gabriel Valley. (EIR p. 4.7 -24.)
Compliance by individual developments and facilities with existing health and
safety regulations outlined in this section would prevent the creation of health risks and
public safety hazards. Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts are expected. (EIR p.
4.7-24.)
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Water Quality. Cumulative hydrology and water impacts are considered
in the Los Angeles River Watershed, where the City of Arcadia is located. Future
development within the Los Angeles River Watershed, which includes the majority of
Los Angeles County, would generate new sources for urban pollutants, which could
impact water quality. However, construction activities throughout Los Angeles County
are required to conduct all construction activities of one acre or more in compliance with
the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would prevent short-term construction
activities from resulting in significant water quality impacts. (EIR p. 4.8 -26.)
Cities in the County have adopted programs for long -term storm water pollution
mitigation through the requirement for SUSMPs for individual developments. WDRs also
impose guidelines for individual developments that may lead to discharges into the
storm drain system or surface water bodies. These regulations implement the Basin
Plan for the Los Angeles region and help meet the established water quality objectives
for both groundwater and surface water bodies. (EIR p. 4.8 -26.)
Also, the Rio Hondo has a 142 - square -mile watershed and the Los Angeles
River has an 824 - square -mile watershed. Runoff originating within the City and its
Sphere of influence (12.36 square miles) represents a minor proportion (8.7 percent of
the Rio Hondo and 1.5 percent of the Los Angeles River) of the total runoff volume
when compared to the water volumes handled by the Rio Hondo and the Los Angeles
River. Runoff from future development activity would generate a minor amount of the
total runoff from the City. Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts related to water
quality would occur. (EIR p. 4.8 -26.)
2. Groundwater. Increases in the resident population and intensity of
development in the watershed would translate to a greater demand for water and
increased pumping of the groundwater basins, as well as greater use of imported water
sources. Individual developments would coordinate with the water service providers to
allow service providers to provide water service in a timely and adequate manner. The
Water Service Providers' groundwater supplies are controlled by the Main San Gabriel
Basin Watermaster and the Raymond Basin Management Board, who are responsible
for monitoring groundwater levels and water quality, including the operating safe yields
of the basins and extraction limits and amounts. Continued management of the
groundwater basins would prevent overdraft conditions, water quality problems, and
61
other impacts on groundwater resources in the watershed. Therefore, no cumulative
adverse impacts related to groundwater recharge or supplies would occur. (EIR pp.
4.8 -26 to 27.)
3. Hydrology. Future growth and development within the watershed would
increase impermeable surfaces and decrease water percolation areas. Increase in
impervious surfaces would increase storm water volumes and flow rates in local and
regional drainage channels. However, all development within Los Angeles County is
subject to development in compliance with SUSMP and local municipal code standards
for reducing storm drain capacity impacts. Storm drain infrastructure is incrementally
improved with project- specific design plans that are subject to the review and approval
of local jurisdiction. Project- specific design and utility improvements would prevent
negative impacts to regional drainage channel capacity. Therefore, no cumulative
adverse impacts related to flood hazards or inadequate storm drainage would occur.
(EIR p. 4.8 -27.)
4. Dam and Reservoir Facilities. Several dams at the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains pose inundation hazards in the event of dam failure. Failure of any
dam could affect existing and future developments within identified inundation areas
within the watershed. The potential for property damage and personal injury is reduced
by the construction of dams in accordance with State and federal dam safety
regulations and the preparation of emergency action plans for individual dams, which
include warning, evacuation, and post- disaster actions. Cumulative impacts from dam
inundation would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.8 -27.)
The hazards associated with a tsunami are confined to the shoreline and coastal
areas of Los Angeles County and the General Plan Update would not be exposed or
would add to this hazard. Seiche hazards would affect local areas downstream of a
water body or reservoir and would not create cumulative impacts. Future development
on steep hillside areas within the watershed may be exposed to potential mudflow
hazards. The debris basins that have been constructed by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains are expected
to reduce storm water flows and debris volumes, preventing mudflow hazards.
Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts related to water retention facilities would
occur. (EIR p. 4.8 -27.)
I. Land Use and Planning
Growth and development in the City of Arcadia and surrounding jurisdictions
would be accompanied by changes in existing land uses throughout the San Gabriel
Valley and the region. New development on vacant areas and underutilized lots would
lead to an intensification of housing development and commercial and industrial land
uses, as well as public and institutional uses, throughout the area. (EIR p. 4.9 -27.)
SCAG estimates an increase in housing stock of the San Gabriel Valley to
685,034 units and in the County to 4,003,501 units by 2035. In addition, approximately
890,626 jobs in the valley and 5,041,172 jobs countywide would be found within
62
commercial, industrial, public, institutional, and infrastructure development projects by
2035 (SCAG 2008b). (EIR p. 4.9 -27.)
Increasing urbanization and development in the valley and the County are
indicative of the ongoing growth and development in the City and the region, as
urbanization increases and vacant lands are replaced with more urban land uses and as
underutilized lots are redeveloped into uses that are more intensive. (EIR p. 4.9 -27.)
The General Plan Update would not divide established communities or result in
the introduction of incompatible uses in the area, provided compliance with the City's
development standards and applicable regulations. New development is generally
evaluated for consistency with the local jurisdiction's land use policies, including the
General Plan and Zoning Code. (EIR p. 4.9 -27.)
Each proposed development project would be subject to the City's jurisdictional
development review process and, if discretionary actions are needed, would be subject
to evaluation for potential environmental impacts as required by CEQA. This review
process would address potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy
conflicts. Future growth and development in the City of Arcadia and the surrounding
area would proceed in accordance with applicable General Plans and Zoning
Ordinances. As part of permit processing, the development plan review processes for
new development would analyze a project for conformity to applicable land use plans
and policies, and within the context of existing and planned developments relative to the
environmental goals, objectives, and policies of the applicable General Plan. Projects
requiring General Plan Amendments or Zone ChangesNariances would need to show
consistency with the goals of the applicable General Plan and purposes of the Zoning
Code, and thus are not expected to lead to land use incompatibilities or conflicts. (EIR
p. 4.9 -27.)
Planned infrastructure and public facilities would provide the necessary facilities
and services to existing and future developments. Thus, these projects would
complement the private development projects planned for the Valley. The cumulative
land use impacts of growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley would be less
than significant. (EIR p. 4.9 -28.)
The potential conservation areas are located in the areas designated by the
proposed Arcadia Land Use Policy Map as Open Space — Resource Protection or Open
Space — Outdoor Recreation areas, where no development would occur. The City also
has an Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Thus, future development pursuant to the
General Plan Update would not contribute to cumulative impacts within and near the
potential Oak Woodland conservation areas. There is no HCP or NCCP in or near the
City of Arcadia with which future development may conflict and result in cumulative
adverse impacts. (EIR p. 4.9 -28.)
63
J. Mineral Resources
There would be less than significant impacts to existing areas of the City
identified as containing aggregate resources. There are no ongoing mining operations in
the City and there would be no changes to land use, policies or procedures that would
affect the management of the portion of the Livingston- Graham site within the City of
Arcadia. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not
result in cumulative impacts related to the loss of availability of regionally or locally
important mineral resource. (EIR p. 4.10 -5.)
K. Noise
Future development in the City and the surrounding area would add new mobile
and stationary noise sources, resulting in increased noise levels. The analysis of
buildout of the proposed General Plan Update includes cumulative traffic volumes in the
region by 2035. Thus, noise impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update
accounts for cumulative noise impacts, which were determined using the daily 2035
with - project traffic volumes, as calculated in the City of Arcadia General Plan EIR Traffic
Study. (EIR p. 4.11 -30.)
The results of the short-term noise level measurements are presented in Table
4.11 -6. As shown, the existing ambient Leq noise levels ranged from 51.9 dBA Leq to
69.9 dBA Leq. The highest noise levels were measured in areas adjacent to the 1 -210
Freeway and major City roads such as Foothill Boulevard, Campus Avenue, Duarte
Road, Michillinda Avenue, Huntington Drive, Live Oak Avenue, Colorado Street, and
Baldwin Avenue. Noise levels in the City currently are illustrated in Tables 4.11 -6 and
4.11 -7. The existing ambient Leq noise levels ranged from 51.9 dBA Leq to 69.9 dBA
Leq. The highest noise levels were measured in areas adjacent to the 1 -210 Freeway
and major City roads, such as Foothill Boulevard, Campus Avenue, Duarte Road,
Michillinda Avenue, Huntington Drive, Live Oak Avenue, Colorado Street, and Baldwin
Avenue. (EIR p. 4.11 -30.)
Off -site cumulative noise impacts project increases in noise levels over existing
conditions with buildout of the City under the proposed General Plan Update and other
developments in the San Gabriel Valley subregion. Thus, the analysis of traffic - related
noise impacts presented above accounts for cumulative traffic from future growth
assumed in the SCAG traffic model, as well as development projects in the City of
Arcadia. (EIR p. 4.11 -30.)
While none of the roadway segments would experience a noise increase
that exceeds 3.0 dB over existing noise levels, the Year 2035 noise levels would
range from 62.2 to 87.3 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the street centerline. Thus, any
noise level increase would contribute to existing high noise levels that would
impact existing or future sensitive noise receptors along major roadways. Thus,
while traffic noise increases would be less than the 3 dBA, existing violations of
City noise standards would be exacerbated, and the cumulative off -site traffic
noise impact would be significant. (EIR pp. 4.11 -30 to 31.)
64
L. Population, Housing, and Employment
Increases in the population, housing, and employment base of the San Gabriel
Valley are expected over time due to in- migration and birth. Future growth and
development in the City of Arcadia and in the San Gabriel Valley would lead to the
development of new homes, the creation of new jobs, and the increase in the resident
population of the City and the rest of the valley. SCAG estimates there could be as
many as 2,338,062 persons, 685,034 households, and 890,626 jobs throughout the San
Gabriel Valley subregion by 2035 (SCAG 2008). This would include the City's buildout
consisting of 22,535 housing units with 61,995 residents and an employment base of
29,753 jobs. (EIR p. 4.12 -19.)
The increase in population itself is not expected to be a significant cumulative
adverse impact as long as there is housing that can adequately accommodate the
population and there are goods and services available to meet residents' needs. The
cumulative increase in population in the San Gabriel Valley would be accompanied by
an increase in housing stock as projected by SCAG. Thus, housing would be available
for the future population. Whether this housing is adequate will depend on the rate of
housing development and the success of housing programs in the various cities and
communities in the valley. (EIR p. 4.12 -19.)
The RHNA identifies the existing and future housing need for each city and
county in the region, and State law requires each city and county to provide adequate
sites to accommodate future needs and offer programs to meet existing housing needs.
For the 2006 -2014 planning period, the City of Arcadia is expected to provide capacity
for 2,149 units to meet its future needs, with the San Gabriel Valley expected to
accommodate 42,478 new housing units. Implementation of the programs in the
Housing Elements of each city and the County is expected to meet the housing needs
of existing and future residents. Regular updates of the Housing Elements of cities and
counties (SC 4.12 -4) would identify adequate sites for housing development to meet
growth projections. Demand for commercial goods and services are expected to be met
by existing businesses and new business ventures that serve the marketplace. This
may include businesses not just in Arcadia but in adjacent cities and counties as well.
(EIR p. 4.12 -19.)
Public service demand by future residents is expected to be met by various
public service providers in the San Gabriel Valley, including the City of Arcadia. This is
discussed in Section 4.13 of this EIR. Cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR p. 4.12 -19.)
Redevelopment projects that occur on developed or underutilized lots may
involve some displacement of local housing stock or population. However, the City's
vacant housing stock and the Valley's vacant housing stock are expected to provide
sufficient alternative accommodation for displaced households and residents, and
significant displacement is not anticipated in the County. Compliance with State
regulations regarding fair compensation and relocation assistance for the displacement
caused by public and redevelopment projects would reduce cumulative displacement
65
impacts to less than significant levels. No significant cumulative adverse impacts on
population, housing, or employment would occur with the General Plan Update and
future growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley. (EIR p. 4.12 -19.)
M. Public Services
Future growth and development within the San Gabriel Valley would generate
increased demand for public services from various service agencies. While increases in
demand would occur on other public service agencies that do not serve the City, future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update would not add to the service
demands on those agencies that do not serve the City or its SOI. Thus, the cumulative
analysis for public services considers the service area of the respective providers and
adjacent service agencies, as they may be affected by services provided in the City. As
identified in this section, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts related to public services, and no mitigation is
required. (EIR p. 4.13 -23.)
1. Fire Protection and Emergency. For fire protection services, the
Arcadia Fire Department provides automatic aid to the County of Los Angeles and the
Cities of Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, Monrovia,
Monterey Park, San Gabriel, and San Marino (Verdugo Fire Communications 2009).
Mutual aid agreements are in place with the Los Angeles County and Sierra Madre Fire
Departments, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Angeles National Forest for fire
protection of the hillside and brush areas at the northern end of the City. Thus, future
development in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County, and the nearby Cities of
Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, Monrovia, Monterey Park,
San Gabriel, San Marino, and Sierra Madre would increase the population and
introduce structures that would create a demand for fire protection and emergency
services. This cumulative demand for fire protection services would require additional
personnel and resources at individual agencies to provide the same level of service and
maintain existing response times. (EIR p. 4.13 -24.)
Individual developments are required to comply with pertinent provisions of the
California Fire Code to prevent the creation of fire hazards, to promote fire safety, and
to facilitate emergency response. The individual fire agencies also regularly review their
services and the needed increases in staffing, fire stations, and equipment, as
necessary, to keep response times acceptable and to adequately serve their service
areas. Plan reviews of proposed development projects by the individual fire
departments would: (1) prevent the creation of fire safety hazards by development; (2)
require fire prevention measures to be incorporated into individual projects; and (3)
facilitate fire emergency response by providing adequate access and fire alarm
systems. Compliance with these existing regulations would avoid potential significant
cumulative adverse impacts on fire protection service levels. (EIR p. 4.13 -24.)
66
2. Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services. For police
protection and law enforcement services, the City of Arcadia and 15 cities in the San
Gabriel Valley are part of an automatic aid area (Area D) where law enforcement
agencies provide as- needed day -to -day support for service calls. Thus, future
development in the City of Arcadia and in the cities in the San Gabriel Valley would
increase the population and introduce structures that would create a demand for police
protection and law enforcement services in the Valley. This cumulative demand for
police protection services would require additional personnel and resources at individual
agencies to provide the same level of service and maintain existing response times.
(EIR p. 4.13 -24.)
Annual evaluation of police protection services by the City of Arcadia and the
County would determine the adequacy of police protection and law enforcement
services and the resources necessary to meet the public safety needs of the individual
communities. Individual development projects are also subject to review by the police
departments to determine ways to reduce the potential for crime incidence and demand
for police protection and law enforcement services. The citywide evaluations and
project- specific reviews are expected to reduce demand and provide the necessary
police services to the area and prevent any significant cumulative adverse impacts on
police protection and law enforcement service levels. (EIR p. 4.13 -24.)
3. School Services. For school services, the cumulative impacts of future
residential development pursuant to the General Plan Update would occur within the
service boundaries of the school districts that serve the City and its SOI. These include:
• Arcadia Unified School District (K -12);
• El Monte Union High School District (9 -12);
• El Monte City School District (K -8);
• Monrovia Unified School District (K -12);
• Pasadena Unified School District (K -12); and
• Temple City Unified School District (K -12).
The increase in housing development in the service areas of these school
districts would lead to increases in the student population requiring school services.
Future development would have to pay the mandated school impact fees to provide
funds for facility and service improvements at the various school districts. Payment of
these fees would serve as full mitigation of development impacts, and therefore, there
would not be any significant cumulative impacts on school services. (EIR pp. 4.13 -24 to
25.)
4. Library Services. For library services, the cumulative impacts of future
development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update would occur within the
service boundaries of the Arcadia Public Library (City of Arcadia) and the County
67
Library System (County of Los Angeles). The increase in the resident populations of the
City and of the County would lead to increases in the demand for library services.
Additional library materials, space and personnel may be needed at the Arcadia Public
Library and at the libraries of the County Library System to adequately serve future
cumulative demand. (EIR p. 4.13 -25.)
Since the demand for library services that would be generated at buildout of the
City would be met by the Arcadia Public Library, future development in the City is not
expected to have an adverse impact on County library services. Also, the County
charges development fees to fund future library service expansion. Thus, the General
Plan Update would not contribute to the cumulative demand for library services in the
County. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.13 -25.)
5. Other Public Facilities. Other public facilities required by future
development would be confined to City services. Payment of permit processing fees
and utility service fees and implementation of relevant goals, policies, and
implementation actions in the General Plan Update would prevent the creation of
cumulative impacts related to other public facilities. (EIR p. 4.13 -25.)
N. Parks and Recreation
Future residential development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update
and development projects in areas surrounding the City would contribute to the
cumulative need for more recreational open space and park facilities within the City.
The analysis of cumulative impacts to parks and recreation considers buildout of the
City and growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley through year 2035. (EIR p.
4.14 -13.)
Typically, parkland requirements are a function of expected demand and are
typically related to the number of residential dwelling units created by projects. Pursuant
to Section 66477 of the California Government Code (or Quimby Act), the City of
Arcadia requires payment of a Park Facilities Impact Fee for the provision of parks and
recreational facilities to new residential developments. Adjacent cities (e.g., Pasadena,
Sierra Madre, Temple City, and El Monte) and the County of Los Angeles have also
adopted Quimby Act ordinances that require the payment of fees or the dedication of
parkland to meet the demand for parks and recreational facilities generated by each
residential development. (EIR p. 4.14 -13.)
Consistent with these regulations, developers of individual projects would pay
park fees, dedicate open space lands for park and recreation development, and /or
provide on -site recreational facilities to meet the demand for parks and recreational
facilities generated by each development. Thus, residential developments in and around
the City of Arcadia would provide parks and recreational facilities to meet their
demands. (EIR p. 4.14 -13.)
68
As previously discussed, the construction and operation of new parkland facilities
within and adjacent to the City would result in short-term and long -term environmental
impacts. Individual park projects would be subject to separate CEQA review once
development plans are identified. (EIR p. 4.14 -13.)
With implementation of the Standard Conditions discussed in the applicable
sections within Section 4.0 of this EIR, as well as the General Plan Update goals and
policies, less than significant impacts from the development of future parkland are
anticipated. Adjacent jurisdictions have similar requirements and policies. Since
individual development projects would mitigate their incremental demand for parks and
recreational facilities, no significant cumulative impacts would result from future
development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update. (EIR p. 4.14 -13.)
The development of new parks and recreational facilities to meet the demand of
future growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley would not result in cumulative
environmental impacts. Since the Valley is largely built out, these projects are not
expected to represent a significant amount of new development and construction in the
Valley. These projects would be subject to separate CEQA review once specific
development plans are identified. Since new parks developed under the General Plan
Update would have less than significant impacts, the Update's cumulative contribution
to impacts related to parks and recreation is also considered less than significant. (EIR
p. 4.14 -13.)
0. Transportation
Traffic issues are generally regional in nature, with drivers and travelers
commuting throughout the Southern California region to places of employment and
residence. Thus, cumulative traffic impacts are evaluated based on impacts to the
roadway transportation network that serves the region. The SCAG 2008 RTP model
used in assessing traffic impacts accounts for background growth in traffic volumes and
increases in vehicle trips due to growth and development outside the City. (EIR p. 4.15-
33. )
Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update, public and
infrastructure projects, and future growth and development in the rest of the region
would increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the City and within the
region. Traffic congestion is expected to increase on freeways and major roadways if no
changes to the existing transportation network are made. Some vehicle trips would be
confined to the City (short trips), while other trips would travel outside the City to
surrounding cities and urban centers, and would affect the regional transportation
system. (EIR p. 4.15 -33.)
Based on regional traffic forecasts, SCAG has identified regional transportation
improvements to meet the transportation and circulation needs of the region in its RTP
and RTIP. Additional freeway travel lanes, expanded transit services, rapid bus transit
expansion, high -speed rail service, dedicated truck lanes, and other projects are
planned and accounted for in the travel forecasts. Planned local roadway improvements
69
and implementation of the City's ITS Master Plan has also been incorporated into the
model to project future traffic volumes. (EIR p. 4.15 -34.)
Significant adverse impacts would occur on three roadway segments in the City.
Thus, buildout of the City and projected growth in the region would have cumulative
adverse impacts on traffic and street system capacity. (EIR p. 4.15 -34.)
Implementation of the RTP would mitigate significant adverse impacts on major
roadways and freeways in the region. Compliance with pertinent Standard Conditions
would prevent adverse impacts on alternative transportation systems and air traffic
patterns, and would not create traffic hazards or lead to inadequate parking capacity or
emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR p. 4.15 -34.)
P. Utilities and Service Systems
Growth and development within the San Gabriel Valley would generate increased
demand for utility services from various service agencies. While increases in utility
demands would occur on agencies that do not serve the City, future development
pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update and public and infrastructure projects
would not add to the service demands of these outside agencies. At the same time,
cumulative impacts on regional utility providers would account for growth and
development within the larger region, rather than just the San Gabriel Valley. Thus, the
cumulative analysis for impacts on utility services considers the service area of the
respective providers and adjacent service agencies, as they may be affected by
services to be provided within the City and its SOI. (EIR p. 4.16 -35.)
1. Water Supply and Infrastructure. Water services in the City are
provided by the City, Sunny Slope Water Company, East Pasadena Water Company,
the CAWC, the SGVWC, and the GSWC. Future development pursuant to the General
Plan Update and public and infrastructure projects within the service areas of these
companies would lead to an increase in demand for water services. Each water
company is expected to provide service as projected in their individual UWMPs, which
outline the agency's water supplies, projected 20 -year demands, water supplies to meet
demands, and programs to reduce water demands during periods of drought. Regular
updates of these UWMPs would allow each water agency to effectively plan for future
demand and supply availability. (EIR p. 4.16 -36.)
Due to decreasing availability of imported water sources and in compliance with
SBX7_7, it is anticipated that reductions in water use and greater use of recycled water
and alternative sources would occur in the region. Since groundwater pumping in the
project area is regulated by the Main San Gabriel Master Watermaster and the
Raymond Basin Management Board, no significant adverse impacts on groundwater
supplies are expected. This means that alternative water sources would be explored or
aggressive water conservation measures implemented to meet future demands.
Management of the local groundwater basins and compliance with water conservation
measures is expected to prevent any significant cumulative adverse impacts related to
water services. (EIR p. 4.16 -36.)
70
2. Wastewater Treatment and Infrastructure. Cumulative impacts on
sewer services would occur within the service area of the LACSD, which serves the
City. Future growth and development in the region would generate additional sewage
and wastewater that would require treatment at the WRPs of the LACSD. The LACSD
has indicated that the design capacities of their treatment facilities are based on the
regional growth forecasts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG). Expansion of LACSD facilities must be sized and service phased consistent
with the forecasts for the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Ventura, and Imperial. Thus, available capacity in the LACSD facilities will be limited to
levels associated with growth identified by SCAG. The LACSD has indicated they will
provide services to the levels legally permitted and constrained by the SCAG forecasts
(LACSD 2009). Thus, future growth and development in the region, as anticipated by
SCAG projections, can be served by the LACSD. Additionally, as discussed in Section
4.12, Population and Housing, the buildout of the General Plan Update would not
conflict with SCAG growth projections. No significant cumulative adverse impacts on
sewer services are expected. (EIR p. 4.16 -36.)
3. Solid Waste. Solid waste collection services are provided on demand by
private haulers, and cumulative impacts on their services from future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update, public and infrastructure projects in the City, and
growth and development within the San Gabriel Valley are not expected to result in
adverse impacts on solid waste collection services. Available landfill capacity is
expected to decrease over time with future growth and development in the San Gabriel
Valley. Waste reduction and recycling programs and regulations are expected to reduce
this demand and extend the life of existing landfills. (EIR p. 4.16 -36.)
As discussed earlier, the LACSD has indicated that they are pursuing additional
landfill capacity for the County through the use of a waste -by -rail system. This system is
expected to begin operations by 2011/2012, with the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility in
the City of Industry to be used for loading and unloading of rail -ready containers for the
transport of wastes to the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Imperial County (LACSD
2009a). The Mesquite Regional Landfill is estimated to provide approximately 100 years
of disposal capacity (LACSD 2007). Thus, cumulative impacts on solid waste disposal
facilities are expected to be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.16 -36 to 37.)
4. Electricity, Natural Gas, and Communication Infrastructure. SCE,
Sempra Utilities, AT &T, Time Warner, and Champion Broadband are private companies
that provide services on demand. Thus, no significant cumulative adverse impacts on
their services are expected. Service connections to existing facilities would need to be
coordinated with individual utility agencies. Additionally, all projects are required to
comply with State and local regulations related to energy conservation. The General
Plan Update also contains goals and policies that promote energy conservation. Thus,
no significant cumulative adverse impacts related to electrical power, natural gas, or
telecommunications systems would occur. (EIR p. 4.16 -37.)
71
Q. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The assessment of GHGs is inherently cumulative because global warming is a
global phenomenon. Therefore, the analysis of GHG Emissions above in Section IV of
this Resolution describes the cumulative impact of the proposed General Plan Update.
Impacts would be cumulatively significant. (EIR p. 4.17 -24.)
SECTION VI
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Future development that would be allowed by the General Plan Update and
public and infrastructure projects in the City would require the long -term commitment of
natural resources. Implementation of the project would require the long -term
commitment of natural resources and land. Development over time would result in the
commitment of land resources for residential, commercial, mixed -use, office, industrial,
and transportation uses, as well as new and upgraded utilities. (EIR p. 6 -1.)
Over the long term, new development would require the commitment and
reduction of nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels
and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of
structures) and lumber, sand /gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in
building construction, roadways, and infrastructure). Other resources that are slow to
renew and /or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by long-
term implementation of the General Plan (e.g., air quality through the combustion of
fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases, and water supply through the
increased potable water demands for drinking, cooking, cleaning, landscaping, and
general maintenance needs). (EIR p. 6 -2.)
SECTION VII
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this
section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed 2010 General Plan Update
could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional
development, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address
this issue, potential growth- inducing effects are examined through analysis of the
following questions:
1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the
construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not
presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development)?
2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public
services to maintain desired levels of service?
72
3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could
result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent- setting action that
could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect
the environment?
It should be noted that growth- inducing effects are not necessarily beneficial,
detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to
provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to
significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of
implementing the proposed 2010 General Plan Update.
1. Would the project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the
construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do
not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development)?
The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would involve buildout of the City of
Arcadia. Since the City is largely developed with urban and suburban land uses, the
roadway and utility infrastructure systems are largely in place and would not require
extension to serve future development pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update.
Extension of sewer lines would provide sewer service to future development at the
northern end of the City. However, this extension would not serve other nearby areas
that may be induced to develop. No growth- inducing impact related to the extension of
infrastructure is expected with the 2010 General Plan Update. (EIR p. 6 -2.)
The Land Use Policy Map that is proposed as part of the 2010 General Plan
Update includes changes in existing land use designations within several areas of the
City, with the broad goal of promoting investment in these areas. However, the majority
of existing land uses in the City would be preserved, and no new development is
expected in these other areas. Instead, the proposed General Plan Update seeks to
induce growth in the City by encouraging future development within focus areas
deemed appropriate for additional density. As summarized above, significant adverse
impacts would be avoided or reduced through compliance with the existing regulations,
Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures. Significant
unavoidable adverse impacts would remain on Air Quality, Noise, Traffic, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (EIR p. 6 -2 to 6 -3.)
The 2010 General Plan Update does not propose any changes to existing land
use designations within the Sphere of Influence (SOI); however, the existing
designations could eventually lead to the redevelopment of some areas to different land
uses or higher densities. The General Plan Update does not change the development
potential of its SOI. Additionally, no change in development potential is proposed at the
northern end of the City, Santa Anita Park, Westfield Regional Mall, and the majority of
the City's residential neighborhoods. The General Plan Update is not expected to
73
induce development in areas outside the City and its SOI since the City, through the
Arcadia General Plan, has no jurisdiction over these adjacent areas.
For these reasons, the City Council hereby finds that amount and type of future
growth that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update would not be
significant. All future development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be
required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Subsequent
environmental review would further refine the analysis of potential environmental
impacts and mitigation measures needed for individual developments. (EIR p. 6 -5.)
2. Would the project result in the need to expand one or more public
services to maintain desired levels of service?
Increased demand for public services would occur with future development
pursuant to the General Plan Update. The Arcadia Fire Department has indicated that
new personnel are needed to serve demand for fire protection services at buildout of the
City. The Arcadia Police Department has indicated that additional sworn and non -sworn
officers are needed to serve future development. The General Plan Update includes
implementation actions to review fire and police protection services regularly and the
development of a Multi- Department Training Facility for the needs of the Fire, Police,
and Public Works Departments. (EIR p. 6 -3.)
The AUSD has indicated that it will need to prepare a detailed analysis for school
facility needs as development occurs in the City. The Arcadia Library has indicated that
as the City approaches buildout, they expect that a close examination of library space
with regard to service delivery methods would need to be undertaken. Demand for
parks would be met by park development with future residential development and City
projects to meet existing demands. The impacts of public and infrastructure projects that
would be needed to serve the City at buildout are analyzed in this EIR. (EIR p. 6 -3.)
Since no specific development project would accompany the General Plan
Update, and future development would occur according to property owner discretion,
increased demand for public services would not immediately require expansion of
existing service levels. The General Plan Update contains goals and policies that call for
the provision of adequate public services to existing and future developments in the
City. It also includes implementation actions to reduce demand for public services.
Thus, City services would serve demand, rather than induce growth. (EIR p. 6 -3.)
Future needs to expand public services through additional equipment and
personnel would not have a direct environmental impact. No new fire stations, police
stations, schools, libraries, or other public facilities are proposed as part of the General
Plan Update. However, a Multi- Department Training Facility is proposed, which has
been considered as a public project in the City that is analyzed in this EIR. Thus, the
City Council hereby finds that the General Plan Update would not have significant
growth- inducing consequences with respect to public services. (EIR pp. 6 -3 to 4.)
74
3. Would the project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could
result in other activities that could significantly affect the
environment?
The General Plan Update includes an Economic Development Element that
seeks to maintain the economic stability of the City through the retention of existing
businesses; attraction of businesses and economic opportunities; revitalization of
downtown; and recycling of existing uses within specific areas of the City. The goals
and policies of this Element will not directly result in economic effects or lead to
economic activities that may affect the environment. Rather, it is through future
development under the General Plan Update that the goals of the Economic
Development Element for Downtown revitalization, redevelopment, business retention,
and new business development would be realized. The policies would serve as
guidance in the City's decision - making process and daily operations, but would not
include activities that may significantly affect the environment. The implementation
actions related to Economic Development are City- sponsored activities to attract
businesses, explore the creation of a Downtown business improvement district, update
the economic analyses, hold marketing events, coordinate with the development
community, and partner with stakeholders that would not have any direct environmental
impacts. The impacts of redevelopment activities are addressed as part of public and
infrastructure projects in the City. (EIR p. 6 -4.)
The indirect effects associated with future development include the creation of
short-term construction jobs and long -term jobs and the increase in the resident
population of the City. These would generate additional demands for commercial goods
and services in the project area, which would present business opportunities for new
shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, maintenance, and other
non - residential developments. This would, in turn, encourage new businesses and /or
the expansion of existing businesses that address these economic needs. The
proposed Land Use Policy Map in the General Plan Update would accommodate
commercial and industrial developments to meet this demand. The analysis in this EIR
includes the potential environmental impacts of non - residential development that may
occur under the proposed Land Use Policy Map. (EIR p. 6 -4.)
Existing and future commercial and industrial uses near the City are also
expected to meet the demand for goods and services generated by future residents and
employees in the City. These developments would be subject to review and approval by
the city or county with jurisdiction over the site, and would include the necessary
environmental clearance in accordance with the CEQA. Environmental review for
individual projects would avoid or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts that
may occur, in accordance with CEQA. Public utility and service providers would also
need to determine if the additional growth associated with individual projects can be
accommodated by existing or planned infrastructure improvements and public services
and utility agencies' capabilities to provide services. This review and approval of
individual developments by public agencies and service providers would allow the
provision of adequate services and infrastructure to serve future developments and that
no land use conflicts are created. Mitigation measures, Standard Conditions, and
75
conditions of approval imposed on development projects in the area are expected to
avoid or reduce environmental impacts, which may be indirectly attributed to the
General Plan Update or future development pursuant to the General Plan Update and
public and infrastructure projects in the City. Thus, the City Council hereby finds that
growth- inducing impacts of the General Plan Update are not expected to result in
significant adverse effects on the environment. (EIR p. 6 -4.)
4. Would approval of the project involve some precedent- setting action
that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment?
The proposed Land Use Policy Map includes changes in existing land use
designations within focus areas of the City, promoting the transition of these areas to
higher density residential uses and /or mixed -use developments. Thus, the proposed
General Plan Update seeks to induce growth by encouraging new development within
specific areas deemed appropriate for more diverse and /or dense development. (EIR p.
6-5.)
Changes to the City's Zoning Regulations are proposed to accommodate the
development allowed under the proposed Land Use Policy Map through consistent land
use and zoning designations. However, like the General Plan Update, the change would
not be accompanied by a specific development proposal or construction activity that
may result in environmental impacts. (EIR p. 6 -5.)
While a number of policies in the General Plan Update call for revisions or
additional regulations, these regulations are expected to reduce the environmental
impacts of future development or to meet the demands and needs for adequate
housing, infrastructure, and public services at buildout of the City. Mitigation measures
have been identified in Section IV above to provide for the impacts of future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update and public and infrastructure projects
in the City to be reduced or avoided after compliance with the standard conditions. (EIR
p. 6 -5.)
The environmental impacts of future development pursuant to the General Plan
Update have been analyzed in this EIR, but individual projects would be required to
undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, although the General Plan
Update may have growth- inducing impacts, the City Council hereby finds that the
Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures that have been
included in this EIR to reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
Also, subsequent environmental review would further refine the analysis of potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures needed for individual developments
and prevent significant adverse impacts on the environment from future development
and public infrastructure projects. (EIR p. 6 -5.)
76
SECTION VIII
FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Background
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and
discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not
consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will foster informed decision - making and public participation. An EIR
is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead
agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting
those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or
scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of
reason.
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the
significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public
Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects
of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly.
In Subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection
process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall
include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one
or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the
rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR
should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead
agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process
and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's
determination. Additional information explaining the choice of
alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the
77
factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic
Project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires
the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The
EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful
evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited
to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the
lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.
However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation
measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives
with respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the
impact to a greater degree than the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002;
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731;
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California
(1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400 -403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) The City has adopted mitigation measures to avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the
EIR. However, impacts on Air Quality, Noise, Transportation and GHG Emissions
would remain significant.
The proposed General Plan Update seeks to achieve the following key
objectives, which are based on the City's Guiding Principles for future decision - making:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system, which
includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails, that is efficient and safe and
that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and open
space areas. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain a commitment to working with the school district to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To embrace and celebrate the cultural diversity of Arcadia through the
promotion of activities and programs that strengthen the community bonds.
(EIR p. 3 -32.)
78
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To provide high - quality services that generate a source of civic pride and
bring the community together. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a healthy economy with a diversified employment and fiscal base
that is accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, while
providing a balance of regional serving businesses that attract additional
regional income. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain and enhance special places and features that contribute to the
City's character, such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and
nearby mountain views. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
There are two types of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. First are the
alternatives that were considered but were rejected from further consideration.
Reasons for elimination included failure to meet basic project objectives, infeasibility, or
inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines §
15126.6(c).) Those alternatives were:
• Alternative Site
• Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan
• Reduced Residential Density Alternative
(EIR pp. 5 -3 to 4.) Second are the alternatives that were considered in detail. Those
alternatives are:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
• Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan
• Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Alternative
• Alternative 4: Expanded Downtown Focus Area
(EIR p. 5 -3.) A complete discussion for alternatives that were considered in detail is
provided below.
B. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, a
number of possible alternatives were initially considered and rejected. Alternatives
79
were rejected because either they could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of
the Project, would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, or
were considered infeasible. The specific reason for not selecting each of the rejected
alternatives are described below.
1. Alternative Site
Alternative Site. The State CEQA Guidelines require consideration of an
alternative that examines the proposed Project on a different site. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2)(A); EIR p. 5 -3.)
Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, the City
Council rejects the Alternative Site Alternative because (1) it is infeasible and (2)
because the Alternative Site Alternative does not meet most of the Project objectives.
Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Alternative Site Alternative is independently
sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. Consequently, the City Council finds that
it was not required to analyze the Alternative site Alternative in further detail in the EIR.
(EIR pp. 5 -3 to 4.)
Supporting Explanation. In the case of the proposed Project, moving the Project
to an alternative site is not feasible because the General Plan Update is a
comprehensive update of the entire plan for the entire City. Because the goals, policies
and implementation actions, as well as the Land Use Policy Map, Roadway Plan, and
other plans in the proposed General Plan Update, are specific to and encompass the
entirety of the City of Arcadia and its Sphere of Influence, an alternative site where the
City has no jurisdiction is not feasible. Therefore, further analysis of an alternative site in
this EIR is not required. (EIR pp. 5 -3 to 4.)
Siting the Project at an alternative site would be inconsistent with all of the
Project objectives, which seek to enhance the City's planning vision:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system, which
includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails, that is efficient and safe and
that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and open
space areas. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain a commitment to working with the school district to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
80
• To embrace and celebrate the cultural diversity of Arcadia through the
promotion of activities and programs that strengthen the community bonds.
(EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To provide high - quality services that generate a source of civic pride and
bring the community together. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a healthy economy with a diversified employment and fiscal base
that is accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, while
providing a balance of regional serving businesses that attract additional
regional income. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain and enhance special places and features that contribute to the
City's character, such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and
nearby mountain views. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
The basic purpose of the Project is to update the City's General Plan, which
covers the entire City. Consideration of the General Plan Update in a different
jurisdiction or only in some portions of the City would not address the City's desire to
update it's vision for the new planning horizon. Therefore, an the Alternative Site
Alternative was rejected from further consideration. (EIR p. 5 -3 to 5 -4.)
2. Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan
Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan. This alternative included ten focus areas
where future development would be separated into Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public
designations with three designations for each land use; increases in allowable density
for High Density Residential areas; expanded Mixed Use areas; and redesignation of
Commercial /Industrial areas. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, the City
Council rejects the Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan because (1) it is infeasible and
(2) because the Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan does not meet most of the Project
objectives. Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Expanded Mixed Use Land Use
Plan Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Consequently, the City Council finds that it was not required to analyze the Expanded
Mixed Use Land Use Plan Alternative in further detail in the EIR. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
81
Supporting Explanation. Implementation of the Expanded Mixed Use Land Use
Plan would be infeasible because this alternative is too aggressive and results in
greater environmental impacts than the proposed Project. The Planning Commission
and City Council considered this Expanded Mixed Use Land Use Plan Alternative and
found that it would result in greater environmental impacts than the proposed Land Use
Policy Map presented in the proposed General Plan Update. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
The following Project objectives would not be achieved under the Expanded
Mixed Use Land Use Plan:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To provide high - quality services that generate a source of civic pride and
bring the community together. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
Therefore, an the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further
consideration.
3. Reduced Residential Density Alternative
Reduced Residential Density Alternative. This alternative considers a reduction
in the maximum residential density that would be allowed in the Downtown Mixed Use
area and the Mised Use areas along Live Oak Avenue and First Avenue. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
Finding. For the reasons set forth below in the Supporting Explanation, the City
Council rejects the Reduced Residential Density Alternative because (1) it is infeasible
and (2) because the Reduced Residential Density Alternative does not meet most of the
Project objectives. Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Reduced Residential
Density Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Consequently, the City Council finds that it was not required to analyze the Reduced
Residential Density Alternative in further detail in the EIR. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
Supporting Explanation. Implementation of the Reduced Residential Density
Alternative would be infeasible because it would prohibit the City from meeting its future
82
housing needs under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. A General Plan that
could not accommodate the future housing needs of the City would not meet State
requirements, would result in reduced housing opportunities, and would not meet the
housing goals of the City as contained in the proposed Housing Element. In addition,
this alternative would effectively reduce the buildout capacity of the City in terms of
housing stock and residential population. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
Moreover, the following Project objectives would not be achieved under the
Reduced Residential Density Alternative:
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. (EIR p. 5 -4.)
C. Alternatives Considered in Detail in the EIR
The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These
alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below.
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative assumes that no
development would occur in the City and existing land uses and environmental
conditions would remain as is indefinitely. This assumes that the city would not allow
any new development project in the City of Arcadia, except for the replacement of
existing land uses with the same type and size of land uses. Under this alternative,
vacant lands will remain undeveloped. (EIR p. 5 -5.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the City Council rejects
the No Project/No Development Alternative because (1) it would be infeasible and (2)
would not meet any of the Project objectives. (EIR p. 5 -5 to 5 -8.) Each of the stated
grounds for rejecting the No Project/No Development Alternative is independently
sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the No Project/No Development
Alternative would be infeasible because of individual property rights. That is, property
owners on vacant lands have the right to an economic use of their property, which this
alternative would prevent. This alternative could only be implemented if the City bought
out vacant lands and designated them as open space for permanent preservation. (EIR
p. 5-5.)
83
This alternative would not meet any of the following Project objectives for the
comprehensive update of the General Plan:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system, which
includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails, that is efficient and safe and
that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and open
space areas. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain a commitment to working with the school district to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To embrace and celebrate the cultural diversity of Arcadia through the
promotion of activities and programs that strengthen the community bonds.
(EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To provide high - quality services that generate a source of civic pride and
bring the community together. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a healthy economy with a diversified employment and fiscal base
that is accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, while
providing a balance of regional serving businesses that attract additional
regional income. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain and enhance special places and features that contribute to the
City's character, such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and
nearby mountain views. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
84
(EIR p. 5 -8.) Moreover, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not
incorporate new goals and policies to address the needs of the existing resident
population nor address current regional issues on GHG emission reductions and
sustainability. (EIR p. 5 -8.) Therefore, the City Council hereby rejects the No
Project/No Development Alternative. (EIR p. 5 -5 to 5 -8.)
2. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan
No Proiect/Existing General Plan Alternative. The No Project/Existing General
Plan Alternative considers the comparative environmental impacts of the continued
implementation of the current General Plan through the year 2035, the buildout year of
the proposed General Plan Update. This alternative assumes the current General Plan
would remain as the adopted long -range planning policy document for the City of
Arcadia, with future development occurring pursuant to the City's current General Plan
goals and policies and Land Use Map. Buildout under this alternative (the City's current
General Plan) is estimated at 22,128 units in the City and its SOI, with 60,940 residents
and over 12.2 million square feet of non - residential development. This development
capacity would lead to 2,443 fewer dwelling units, 6,656 fewer residents, and 2.4 million
square feet of non - residential development less than the development capacity of the
proposed Project. (EIR p. 5 -9.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the City Council rejects
the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative because (1) it would have greater
impacts than the proposed Project in some resource areas and (2) it would not meet the
Project objectives. (EIR pp. 5 -9 to 13.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the No
Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of
this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan
Alternative would have greater impacts on biological resources because the public
designation of open space under the current General Plan would not prevent future
development on these areas. (EIR p. 5 -13.) Moreover, this alternative would also lead
to significant and unavoidable adverse pollutant emission, noise, traffic, and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts. (EIR p. 5 -12.)
In addition, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet the
following Project objectives:
• To promote a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system, which
includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails, that is efficient and safe and
that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and open
space areas. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
85
• To maintain a commitment to working with the school district to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To encourage the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse
housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their lives. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain and enhance special places and features that contribute to the
City's character, such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and
nearby mountain views. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
Therefore, the City Council hereby rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan
Alternative. (EIR pp. 5.9 to 12.)
3. Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Alternative
Reduced Commercial Alternative. This alternative decreases the allowable FAR
in the Commercial areas within the Downtown overlay from 1.0 to 0.50, except on
Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Avenue. This may also be
accomplished by the elimination of the Downtown overlay for areas west of Santa Anita
Avenue and along Santa Anita Avenue, except for the parcels at the intersection of
Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. This alternative would include the retention
of the same allowable residential densities in the City's residential areas, Downtown
Mixed Use, and Mixed Use areas as the proposed Land Use Policy Map. Commercial,
Regional Commercial, and Industrial areas would be allowed to develop at a maximum
FAR 0.5 and Public Facilities, Open Space - Outdoor Recreation, and Open Space -
Resource Protection would also be designated as in the proposed General Plan
Update.
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the City Council rejects
the Reduced Commercial Development Alternative because (1) it would not result in a
reduction in potentially significant environmental impacts and (2) would not meet the
Project objectives. (EIR p. 5 -13 to 5 -17.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the
Reduced Commercial Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this
alternative.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the Reduced Commercial Alternative
would not result in a reduction in potentially significant environmental impacts when
compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Commercial Alternative would still
contribute to existing air quality and noise violations, traffic congestion, and GHG
emissions, which would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Reduced
86
Commercial Alternative would have the same significant unavoidable impacts as the
proposed Project. (EIR p. 5 -17.)
In addition, this alternative does not represent the mix of land uses and
development that the residents, stakeholders, City staff, and leaders envisioned at
buildout of the City and its SOI. It would not encourage redevelopment and
revitalization of the downtown are and near the proposed Gold Line station.
Consequently, the Reduced Commercial Alternative would not achieve the following
Project objectives:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system, which
includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails, that is efficient and safe and
that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and open
space areas. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To preserve the City's identity as a "Community of Homes" by protecting and
preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To promote a healthy economy with a diversified employment and fiscal base
that is accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, while
providing a balance of regional serving businesses that attract additional
regional income. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To maintain and enhance special places and features that contribute to the
City's character, such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and
nearby mountain views. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
(EIR p. 5 -17.) Therefore, the City Council hereby rejects the Reduced Commercial
Alternative. (EIR p. 5 -17.)
4. Alternative 4: Expanded Downtown Focus Area
Expanded Downtown Focus Area Alternative. This alternative would still
preserve existing residential areas in the City, as well as promote the transition of
existing land uses in the same eight focus areas but expands the Downtown Mixed Use
87
designation to include 10 additional parcels along St. Joseph Avenue. Exhibit 5 -2 shows
parcels that would be redesignated Downtown Mixed Use. These 10 parcels over
approximately 3.22 acres of land, which are currently developed with a mix of
residential, commercial and industrial uses and vacant land.
This alternative proposes a Downtown Mixed Use designation for the ten parcels,
with an allowable FAR of 1.0 and a residential density of 30 to 50 du /acre. This area is
currently designated as Industrial (with an allowable FAR of 0.45) and is proposed to be
designated as Commercial (with an allowable FAR of 0.5) in the proposed General Plan
Update. With the Downtown Mixed Use designation under this alternative, an increase
in commercial and residential development could occur on these 10 parcels. With an
assumed ratio of residential to non - residential development of 40 to 60 percent,
respectively, this alternative would lead to the Toss of industrial development but an
increase in commercial floor area and residential units.
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the City Council rejects
the Expanded Downtown Focus Area Alternative because (1)) it would not result in a
reduction in potentially significant environmental impacts (2) it would result in greater
environmental impacts than the proposed Project in some environmental areas, and (3)
would not meet the Project objectives because it would result in the Toss of industrial
development. (EIR p. 5 -17.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Expanded
Downtown Focus Area Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this
alternative.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the Expanded Downtown Focus Area
Alternative would not result in a reduction of potentially significant environmental
impacts. Like the proposed Project, the Expanded Downtown Focus Area Alternative
would have impacts to air quality, noise, traffic, and GHG emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable. (EIR p. 5 -21.) Moreover, the Expanded Downtown Focus
Area Alternative would have greater mineral resource, recreation, transportation and
traffic, utility and service system impacts than the proposed Project. (EIR pp. 5 -17 to
21.)
Finally, because the Expanded Downtown Focus Area Alternative would result in
a loss of industrial development, this alternative would not meet the following Project
objectives:
• To establish a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth
and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To affirm the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by taking
actions that work toward achieving regional environmental quality goals,
providing local government support, encouraging partnerships, and fostering
innovation in sustainable principles. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
• To provide high - quality services that generate a source of civic pride and
bring the community together. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
88
• To promote a healthy economy with a diversified employment and fiscal base
that is accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, while
providing a balance of regional serving businesses that attract additional
regional income. (EIR p. 3 -32.)
Therefore, the City Council hereby rejects the Expanded Downtown Focus Area
Alternative. (EIR pp. 5 -17 to 21.)
5. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Environmentally Superior Alternative. An EIR must identify the environmentally
superior alternative. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2).) The No Project/No
Development Alternative and the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative are
considered environmentally superior alternatives. The No Project/No Development
Alternative is environmentally superior because no changes to existing environmental
conditions in the City would occur. (EIR p. 5 -21.)
In addition, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would also be
considered environmentally superior because this alternative would result in less
development in the City at buildout, with the lower residential development density for
High Density Residential Areas and Mixed -Use areas (24 units per acre) and the lower
allowable FAR for Industrial and Mixed -Use areas. (EIR p. 5 -21.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the City Council rejects
the No Project/No Development Alternative because (1) it would be infeasible and (2)
would not meet any of the Project objectives. (EIR p. 5 -5 to 5 -8.) Additionally, the City
Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative because (1) it would have
greater impacts than the proposed Project in some resource areas and (2) it would not
meet the Project objectives. (EIR pp. 5 -9 to 13.) Each of the stated grounds for
rejecting the No Project/No Development Alternative and the No Project/Existing
General Plan is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: As explained above, the No Project/No Development
Alternative would be infeasible because of individual property rights. That is, property
owners on vacant lands have the right to an economic use of their property, which this
alternative would prevent. This alternative could only be implemented if the City bought
out vacant lands and designated them as open space for permanent preservation. (EIR
p. 5 -5.) Moreover, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of
the Project objectives. (Draft Finally, the No Project/No Development Alternative would
not incorporate new goals and policies to address the needs of the existing resident
population nor address current regional issues on GHG emission reductions and
sustainability. (EIR p. 5 -8.) Therefore, the City Council hereby rejects the No
Project/No Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative.
As explained above, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have
greater impacts on biological resources because the public designation of open space
under the current General Plan would not prevent future development on these areas.
89
(EIR p. 5 -13.) Moreover, this alternative would also lead to significant and unavoidable
adverse pollutant emission, noise, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. (EIR
p. 5 -12.) In addition, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet
most of Project objectives. Moreover, this alternative does not include goals and
policies for sustainability and energy conservation that would reduce GHG emissions
from future development under the proposed Land Use Policy Map and from public and
infrastructure projects. Finally, due to the current Land Use Map's lower development
capacity, the total future housing needs of the City (set at 2,149 units under the RHNA)
would not be met by this alternative. (EIR pp. 5 -12 to 13.) Therefore, the City Council
hereby rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative.
SECTION IX
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. The City declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed General Plan Update against
any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the
proposed update. If the benefits of the proposed General Plan Update outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable ".
B. The City declares that the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update has
identified and discussed significant effects which may occur as a result of the proposed
update. With the implementation of existing regulations, Standard Conditions, Project
Design Features and the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, the environmental
effects of future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update can be
mitigated to less than significant levels, except for unavoidable significant impacts to Air
Quality, Noise, Transportation and GHG Emissions. Specifically, future development in
the City would contribute to existing violations of clean air standards in the South Coast
Air Basin. Future development would also incrementally increase noise levels where
they currently exceed City standards. Similarly, increase in traffic volumes on City
streets would lead to roadway operations exceeding City standards. GHG emissions
from future development would incrementally contribute to global warming. These
impacts cannot be readily addressed by individual developments in the City or by the
Arcadia General Plan because they are global, regional or area -wide. Thus, they would
remain significant and unavoidable.
C. The City declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate potential impacts on Air Quality, Noise, Transportation
and GHG Emissions. To the extent any mitigation measures could not be incorporated,
such mitigation measures are infeasible because of specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations and the benefits of the proposed General Plan
Update outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
90
D. The City further finds that except for the proposed General Plan Update,
all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the
realization of the Project's objectives and the City's goals and /or because of specific
economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits that the City finds outweigh any
environmental benefits of the alternatives.
E. The City declares that, having reduced the significant adverse
environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Update to the extent feasible by
adopting the mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on
the proposed update, and having weighed the benefits of the proposed update against
its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City has determined that the
following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposed General Plan
Update outweigh the potential unavoidable significant adverse impacts and render
those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable, based upon the following
overriding considerations:
Comprehensive Update: The current General Plan was last updated and
adopted by the City in 1996, with the Housing Element last updated in 2001. The
proposed General Plan Update presents an opportunity to re- evaluate the City's values;
address broader issues; and respond to the changing economic, environmental, legal,
and social settings. The proposed General Plan Update has been developed with
extensive public input and participation and better articulates the City's vision for
ultimate development than the current General Plan.
Citywide Vision: The proposed General Plan Update reflects the collective
vision of residents, business owners, stakeholders, community groups, City staff and
leaders, and was developed with the following guiding principles:
• Balanced Growth and Development: The General Plan establishes a balance
and mix of land uses that promote economic growth and maintain a high quality
of life for Arcadia residents. Our development decisions reflect Smart Growth
principles and strategies that move us toward enhanced mobility, more efficient
use of resources and infrastructure, and healthier lifestyles.
• Connectivity: Arcadia has a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system
- which includes streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and trails - that is efficient and
safe, and that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping, services, parks, and
open space areas.
• Neighborhood Character. Arcadia's single - family and multi - family residential
neighborhoods have given the City its identity as a "Community of Homes ". The
City protects and preserves the character and quality of its neighborhoods by
requiring harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles.
91
• Schools: Our schools are a valuable community asset. The quality of the schools
draw people to our City. We remain committed to working with the school district
to achieve mutually beneficial goals.
• Cultural Diversity: We embrace and celebrate the cultural diversity of Arcadia.
Our lives are enriched by the many cultures that contribute their arts, food,
values, and customs to our community. We promote activities and programs that
strengthen these community bonds.
• Environmental Sustainability: We are committed to environmental sustainability,
which means meeting the needs of the present while conserving the ability of
future generations to do the same. We take actions that work toward achieving
regional environmental quality goals. Arcadia leads the way to a healthy
environment by providing local government support, encouraging partnerships,
and fostering innovation in sustainable principles.
• City Services: The high quality services the City provides are a source of civic
pride and bring us together as a community. We adjust service needs in
response to demographic changes, and we take actions to provide funding to
support these services.
• Changing Housing Needs: The City encourages the retention, rehabilitation, and
development of diverse housing that meets people's needs in all stages of their
lives.
• Economic Health: A healthy economy requires a diversified employment and
fiscal base. Our priority is to create a resilient and thriving local economy,
accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, with a balance of
regional - serving businesses that attract additional regional income. We are
business friendly.
• Preservation of Special Assets: Arcadia's quality of life is enhanced by special
places and features such as Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanical Garden, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest,
attractive streetscapes, diverse parks, historic buildings and places, and nearby
views of the mountains. These assets are preserved and enhanced so they
continue to contribute to our City's character.
These principles are embodied by the proposed General Plan Update and would
improve livability and the quality of life of all residents, businesses, employees and
visitors in Arcadia.
Land Use Compatibility: The Land Use Policy Map in the proposed General
Plan Update preserves the City's established residential neighborhoods by designating
these areas to reflect existing development densities. Future development and
redevelopment are also anticipated and promoted in specific focus areas which would
benefit from redevelopment, revitalization and new investment through changes in
existing land uses or increases in densities /intensities.
92
Economic Stability: The Economic Development Element responds to the
City's need to maintain and enhance the fiscal health of the local economy, and to
support uses that provide high - quality jobs, generate tax revenues, and diversify
Arcadia's tax base. By allowing mixed use developments and increased intensities in
the City's downtown area, commercial districts and near the Gold Line station in the
Land Use Policy Map, the City would sustain a resilient and thriving local economy, as
well as protect its employment base.
Open Space Protection: The proposed General Plan Update preserves the
open space resources in the City by designating these areas as Open Space— Resource
Protection and Open Space — Outdoor Recreation. These designations would preclude
any future development in parks, drainage channels, and public recreational facilities
and promote Tong -term protection of these areas for open space.
Housing Needs: The Housing Element of the proposed General Plan Update
has been developed to meet the City's existing and future housing needs, as defined by
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The update also increases housing
opportunities in the City and promotes the redevelopment of older multi - family
developments to improve the current housing stock.
Sustainability: The proposed General Plan Update responds to regional
concerns for resource protection and environmental sustainability by promoting mixed
use developments, alternative transportation systems, higher density /intensity uses
near the rail station, energy and water conservation, solid waste reduction, and vehicle
trip reduction. Goals and policies in the Resource Sustainability Element and the
Circulation and Infrastructure Element, along with the implementation actions for these
goals and policies would create a more sustainable community in Arcadia for the benefit
of existing and future residents.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the
public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified
significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project, which cannot be mitigated.
The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION X
CERTIFICATION OF EIR
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
evaluating the Project, that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully
complies with the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council
consequently certifies the EIR.
93
The City Council declares that no new significant information as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the
Draft EIR nor added by the City to the EIR that would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the EIR based on, without limitation, the following
finding and conclusions:
A. Finding: The significant environmental impacts set forth in Section IV of
this Resolution have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation, but cannot be
mitigated to a Tess than significant level.
B. Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update have been identified in the EIR and, with
implementation of the identified mitigation measures impacts will be
mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in
Section IV of this Resolution.
2. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the proposed General Plan Update override and make
infeasible mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
3. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update that
could feasibly achieve the basic goals and objectives of the proposed
update have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed
General Plan Update.
SECTION XI
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit "A ". In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set
forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION XII
PROJECT APPROVAL
Based upon the entire record before the City Council, including the above
findings and all written evidence presented to the City of Arcadia, the City Council
hereby approves the proposed General Plan Update.
94
SECTION XIII
CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these Findings have been based are located at the City of Arcadia at 240 W. Huntington
Drive, Arcadia, California 91007. The custodian for these records is Lisa Mussenden,
Chief Deputy City Clerk. This information is provided in compliance with Public
Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION XIV
STAFF DIRECTION
The City Council hereby directs staff to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of
Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk's Office and the Office of Planning
and Research within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 16th day of November , 2010.
I/ / , 1 ayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
ity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
c4.14„, P. -eA,L.c4'
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
95
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the
foregoing Resolution No. 6715 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 16th day of November, 2010 and that said Resolution was adopted by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Chandler, Harbicht, Kovacic, Segal and Amundson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia
96
EXHIBIT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(Attached)
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
SECTION 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
While approval of the proposed project would not result in direct or immediate changes to the
environment, implementation of the General Plan's plans, programs, and implementation
actions, as well as future development that would be allowed under the General Plan Update,
would result in environmental changes or impacts. These impacts are indirectly attributable to
the General Plan Update and thus, are analyzed in the Draft EIR as "impacts" to the extent
feasible, without the availability of specific development concepts or proposals. At the same
time, a number the goals, policies, implementation actions and other programs in the General
Plan Update are not expected to result in environmental impacts, but are intended to avoid or
reduce them.
As stated in Section 15097(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, where the project at issue is the
adoption of a general plan, specific plan, community plan or other plan -level document
(zoning, ordinance, regulation, policy), the monitoring plan shall apply to policies and any other
portion of the plan that is a mitigation measure or adopted alternative. The monitoring plan may
consist of policies included in plan -level documents. The annual report on general plan status
required pursuant to the California Government Code may serve as a reporting program for
adoption of a city general plan. Thus, the goals, policies, and implementation actions identified
under each environmental issue in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR would be implemented by the
City as part of the General Plan and would be monitored during the annual report on
the General Plan status. Thus, these goals, policies and implementation actions are not
repeated below.
In addition to the annual report of the General Plan status, Table 2 -1 describes the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to be adopted by the City of Arcadia for the
proposed General Plan Update pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097.
Table 2 -1 includes the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update, the mitigation
program (including standard conditions /requirements [SCs] and mitigation measures [MMs]) to
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels, and the party responsible for implementation
and verification. SCs are based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently
required independent of CEQA review, yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts.
Because SCs are incorporated into development projects, either in the project design or by law
as part of project implementation, they do not constitute mitigation measures, but would reduce
or avoid a potentially significant impact. Thus, SCs are included in Table 2 -1 for clarification but
the agency that adopted the regulation is responsible for monitoring compliance, as
afforded by law.
R: 1PAS\ProjectsWogleU010\Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc 3 MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
r
nda
„5ta rcIbncittions andMitiga}9n ttiie tir s
�esponsibie arty ��
P )
l n tyf'
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
SC 4.1.1 All proposed development within the City of Arcadia must comply with applicable Arcadia Municipal Code requirements that
address aesthetic character within the City of Arcadia, including but not limited to:
• Architectural Design Guidelines for single - family, multiple - family, commercial and industrial development (Municipal Code
Section 9295 et. seq.);
• Architectural Review Board (ARB) standards for residential properties within the five homeowners associations (HOAs) in the
City (Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3 and Municipal Code Section 9295 et. seq.);
• Municipal Code requirements related to oak tree preservation, comprehensive tree management in public rights -of -way, street
setbacks, underground utilities, property maintenance, and nuisance abatement (Municipal Code Article IX et. seq.; Municipal
Code Article IV, Chapter 9 and 9.3); and
• Zoning Regulations and development standards for all land use zones, including hillside areas, and exterior light and glare
standards (Municipal Code Article IX, Chapter 2 et. seq.).
Section 4.3 Air Quality
SC 4.3 -1 Construction activities shall implement the following measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is re- entrained into the
atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403:
1. Require the following measures to be followed during the construction of all projects in order to reduce the amount of dust and
other sources of PM10:
a. Dust suppression at construction sites using vegetation, surfactants, and other chemical stabilizers;
b. Wheel washers for construction equipment;
c. Watering of all actively disturbed construction areas;
d. Limit speeds at construction sites to 15 miles per hour; and
e. Covering of aggregate or similar material during transportation of hauling materials.
2. Pave currently unpaved roads and parking Tots or establish and enforce 15 -mile per hour speed limits on low -use, unpaved
roads as permitted under California Vehicle Code Section 22365.
SC 4.3 -2 Future development shall comply with the performance standards for odor, smoke, or other particulate matter, including dust, dirt or
ash; production of humidity; and odorous gases and other odorous matter as contained in the Arcadia Municipal Code.
SC 4.3 -3 Construction projects within the City shall comply with the applicable regulatory requirements established by the SCAQMD,
including but not limited to Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule
1186/1186.1 (Street Sweepers).
SC 4.3-4 In accordance with 13 CCR, Chapter 10, Section 2485 and CARB's ATCM, large commercial, diesel - powered vehicles shall not
idle for more than five minutes. The City shall ensure this action is implemented during construction activities.
SC 4.3 -5 Future development shall comply with pertinent SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Regulation IX for new stationary
sources, Regulation X on NESHAPS, Regulation XI for source specific standards, Regulation XIII for new source permits,
Regulation XIV for TACs, and Rule 2202 for Motor Vehicle Mitigation, as applicable.
TABLE 2 -1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009061034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS\Projects \HogIeU010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
4
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
MM 4.3 -1 The City shall require construction projects that are subject to discretionary approval to
implement the following measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment:
1. Commercial electric power shall be provided to the project site in adequate capacity to
avoid or minimize the use of portable gas /diesel - powered electric generators and
equipment.
2. Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel) shall be replaced
or substituted with electrically driven equivalents (provided that they are not run via a
portable generator set).
3. To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall be used to further
reduce exhaust emissions.
4. On -site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
5. Staging areas for heavy -duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible
from sensitive receptors.
MM 4.3 -2 The City shall require future development that is inconsistent with the recommended buffer
distances (siting criteria) in CARB's Land Use Handbook to prepare a site - specific health risk
assessment to determine impacts to sensitive receptors. In light of the results of the
aforementioned analysis, the City shall implement the following measures to minimize
exposure of sensitive receptors and sites to health risks related to air pollution:
1. Encourage site plan designs to provide appropriate set -back and /or design features that
reduce TACs at the source;
2. Encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses to incorporate design features (e.g.,
pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or
other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts to sensitive
receptors; and
3. Orient activities involving idling trucks as far away from and downwind of existing or
proposed sensitive receptors as feasible.
Contractors of individual
construction projects would
implement this MM, with the City
Building Services Division
monitoring implementation through
field inspections.
Developers of individual projects
would implement this MM, with the
City Planning Services monitoring
compliance during site plan review.
i cation of
omp
R: \PAS\Projects \Hogle\J010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc 5
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R:\PAS\Projects \HogIetJ010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
6
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
, .
, F � Standatrd ndtttons``and Mtttg f Measu < �
R esponsible Parly(tes)
en�ication of
Compietia
Section 4.4 Biological Resources
SC 4.4 -1
A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation
activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15).
The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted no
more than three days prior to commencement of activities (i.e., grubbing or grading).
If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and /or the California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all
native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be
erected a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species
and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and /or applicable regulatory agency permits.
Clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is
no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when
disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.
SC 4.4 -2
Prior to any fill of or alteration to jurisdictional resources including drainage tributaries, wetlands, and /or riparian vegetation, the
project proponent shall obtain the appropriate regulatory agency permits and /or agreements from the USACE, the CDFG, and
the applicable RWQCB. The project proponent shall comply with the conditions and mitigation measures specified in the regulatory
agency permits and /or agreements in order to ensure no net Toss in biological resource values.
SC 4.4 -3
In compliance with the City's Oak Tree Regulations, prior to vegetation clearing or grading, surveys shall be performed to
determine if any protected oak trees are located within disturbance areas. If protected oak trees would be affected, the project
proponent shall be required to obtain an Oak Tree Permit from the City pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Regulations and shall
comply with all stipulated mitigation measures.
SC 4.4-4
In compliance with the City's Street Tree Master Plan, a City permit shall be obtained prior to any planting, removal, cutting, or
damage to a City -owned tree or shrub on any public property (in City parks, within street medians and along parkways, and on
other public properties). The Public Works Department shall review the plans of any development, redevelopment, or public and
infrastructure projects for compliance with the number of street trees or the species, as listed in the City's Street Tree Master Plan.
MM 4.4 -1
Prior to the development of vacant and undeveloped areas, a qualified biologist, under the
direction from the City, shall determine whether a habitat assessment is required to assess
site potential to support any special status plant or wildlife species. If potentially suitable
habitat is present for any special status species, then the City shall direct appropriate focused
surveys to be performed to determine the presence or absence of special status species. If
any special status species is identified on the site, then appropriate avoidance and /or
mitigation measures shall be implemented, as approved by the resource agencies, and
subject to the necessary permits under the FESA, the CESA, the California Fish and Game
Code, and other applicable regulations.
A biologist shall conduct biological
assessment and focused surveys,
with the City Planning Division
requiring biological reports with
appropriate mitigation measures
to be submitted during the
planning permit process for
individual projects.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R:\PAS\Projects \HogIetJ010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
6
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
.w
..: tar darx nc �f�njns �rttf ttt a> t� l a�et y _ ..
v . ,
ns4
e po 6i+ x ?a r#Y(les) 1
Q} -,
,,L4
ComR l � ro
�etio
Section 4.5 Cultural Resources
SC 4.5 -1
All development projects in the City that are subject to CEQA shall comply with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the CCR
Title 14, Chapter 3 as they relate to cultural resources. These regulations require the identification and assessment of historic,
archaeological, and paleontological resources and the determination of feasible mitigation measures (MMs) to reduce or avoid
identified impacts to significant resources.
SC 4.5-2
If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work
(PRC Section 5097.98). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are
County- approved Archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric,
responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be
as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
48 hours of being granted access to the site. The recommendation of the
scientific removal and non - destructive analysis of the human remains and
(California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). If the landowner rejects
rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location thaat
(PRC Section 5097.98).
'shall halt, and the County Coroner shall be notified
of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of the
he /she will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be
responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains,
The MLD will make his /her recommendation within
MLD shall be followed if feasible, and may include
any items associated with Native American burials
the recommendations of the MLD, the landowner shall
will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance
MM 4.5 -1
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that may affect structures 50 years
a qualified architectural historian shall conduct an assessment to determine
of the structure(s) and /or site(s). Project applicants /developers shall ensure
maximum extent possible, direct or indirect impacts to any known properties
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, the CRHR, or a local designation be
preserved consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Historic Properties. Should avoidance and /or preservation not be a feasible
architectural historian shall develop a mitigation program that may include,
to, formal documentation of the structure using historical narrative and
documentation, facade preservation, and /or monumentation. Properties
significant, and some retain more significance than others. Therefore, prior
decisions, a qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate
regarding the property and planned development and to male
decisions regarding documentation of the property.
of age or older,
the significance
that, to the
that are deemed
avoided and /or
the Treatment of
option, a qualified
but not be limited
photographic
are not equally
to development
the circumstance
management
The City Planning Division shall
verifying compliance prior to
issuance of the demolition permit
for individual projects.
MM 4.5 -2
Projects that would require ground disturbance and would be located on undeveloped parcels
or near known cultural resources shall implement the following: j
1. If only minor ground disturbance is anticipated, a "Quick Check" records search at the
South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, must be performed to determine
whether archaeological resources are recorded on the project site. If I no archeological
resources were recorded on the project site based on past surveys completed, then no
further action is required. If no survey has ever been conducted on the project site, or if
archaeological resources are found to be recorded on the project site, a Phase I study is
required. Should cultural resources be encountered during construction I activities,
The City Planning Services shall
verify compliance prior to issuance
of a building permit for individual
projects.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R: \PAS\Projects\HogIe1J010 \Response to CommentsArcadia GP RTC 092810.doc
7
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Enata
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
a qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery and shall implement
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the ( sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the resources, as appropriate. If the resources are found
to be significant, the Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions —in cooperation
with the City —for preservation and /or data recovery.
2. If a project requires major ground disturbance (e.g. grading, trenching), a Phase 1 study
shall be undertaken to evaluate the current conditions of a project site. The study shall
consist of (1) an initial records search including records, maps, and literature housed at
the Archaeological Information Center located at California State University, Fullerton;
(2) a Sacred Lands check with the NAHC and initial scoping with interested Indian Tribes
and individuals identified by the NAHC; (3) a pedestrian field survey by a qualified
Archaeologist to determine the presence or absence of surficial artifactual material
and /or the potential for buried resources; and (4) a technical report describing the study
and offering management recommendations for potential further investigation.
3. If archaeological resources are discovered as a result of the Phase I study, a Phase II
evaluation of the significance of any prehistoric material that is present shall be
undertaken. The evaluation shall include further archival research, ethnographic
research, and subsurface testing /excavation to determine the site's horizontal and
vertical extent, the density and diversity of cultural material, and the site's overall
integrity. The evaluation shall include a technical report describing the findings and
offering management recommendations for sites determined to be Significant.
Non - significant resources would require no further study.
4. If the Phase II evaluative study indicates that a significant site is present, the qualified
Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with th'e City of
Arcadia, for preservation and /or data recovery of the resource. Preservation in place is
the preferred manner of mitigation, as provided in CCR Section 15126.5(b)(3). This could
include (1) avoidance of resources; (2) incorporation of resources i to open space;
(3) capping the resource with chemically stable sediments; and /or', (4) deeding the
resource into a permanent conservation easement. To the extent that a resource cannot
be preserved in place, a Phase III data recovery excavation shall e completed to
recover the resource's scientifically consequential information. A technical report shall be
completed that adheres to the OHP's Archaeological Resources Maragement Report
(ARMR) guidelines.
5. Monitoring of ground- disturbing activities shall be undertaken by a qualified Archaeologist
as a final mitigation measure in areas that contain or are sensitive for the presence of
cultural resources.
R: \PAS1Projects HogleU010 \Response to Comments1Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
8
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
. , tandatd iGond tfiatas and t llttgata 0 eastir s
I sp onsi le lyalrly(ies)
1lenfication of
Compietrr n
MM 4.5 -3 Future development and public and infrastructure projects that would ex
Quaternary Alluvium deposits shall implement the following:
1. An archival records search shall be undertaken at the NHMLAC td
depositional environment within the project area and to evaluate the likelihood
being present.
2. A field survey shall be undertaken prior to ground- disturbing activities in
but unknown sensitivity to evaluate the site for the presence of significant
and establish the need for paleontological salvage and /or monitoring.
3. If significant fossils are discovered as a result of a field survey or during
operations, a qualified Paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions,
with the City of Arcadia, for the preservation and /or salvage of the resourc
4. Any monitoring activities shall be accomplished by a qualified paleontolog
discovered during grading can be scientifically and efficiently recovered and
5. A qualified paleontologist shall prepare collected specimens to a point of
place the prepared fossils in the appropriate institution for permanent cur
6. Upon completion of recovery and curation, all studies and actions shall t4e
paleontological technical report prepared by a qualified paleontologist.
=vate into Older
I
determine the
of fossils
areas of potential
fossil resources
monitoring
in cooperation
st so that fossils
preserved.
dentification and
tion.
described in a
A paleontologist shall implement
this MM, with the City Planning
Services requiring paleontological
resources reports during the
planning permit process for
individual projects.
Section 4.6 Geology and Soils
SC 4.6-1 All future development projects within the City shall comply with Article VIII, Sections 8010 -8927 of the Arcadia Municipal Code,
which incorporates by reference the 2007 California Building Code (2007 CBC), and any applicable ordinances set forth by the
City, or the most recent City building and seismic codes in effect at the time the grading plans are approved.
SC 4.6 -2 All future development projects within the designated Alquist Priolo Earthqu
geologic investigation in compliance with the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fau
literature and aerial photo review, field mapping, possible geophysics and/or
land subdivisions and habitable structures consisting of four units or more th
Note 48, all essential facilities, public schools, hospitals, and other facilities
standards than residential developments.
ke Fault Zone for the Raymond fault shall prepare a
t Zone Act, which shall include but not be limited to
rench excavations, and alluvial deposit age dating for
t are proposed within this zone. As required by CGS
eemed critical or important shall be judged to higher
SC 4.6 -3 All future development projects within 660 feet on either side of the Raymond flult
confirm the presence or absence of hazardous faults in that area in compliance
The geologic report shall be prepared by or under the direction of a Geologist
with the guidelines of the State of California Board of Mines and Geology. The
• No structure for human occupancy shall be built over a potentially active o
• A setback area of 50 feet shall be provided from a potentially active, or
reviewing a geologic study, determines that either (1) a lesser setbac
damage due to surface rupture or (2) a setback greater than 50 feet
hospitals, and buildings over 2 stories high).
shall be subject to special geologic investigations to
with the City's Special Studies Geologic Zones Code.
(registered in the State of Califomia and in accordance
gtlirements of this code include the following:
an active fault trace.
n active fault trace, unless the City's Geologist, after
would not pose an unnecessary risk of structural
s needed for high risk structures (such as schools,
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS\Projects \HogleUO10 \Response to Comments1Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
9
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
kt
Staac)2i td #tdns ansi IM t igatio ur s f
map. t� �� �
� onstite i
)?a
� -. P _.. rty(esjr
en ca t n O1
{tomple)
A seller of real estate or his agent shall disclose in writing to any prospective buyer the fact that the property is located within a
Special Studies Zone, to be signed by the purchaser prior to entering escrow,'
SC 4.6-4 In accordance with the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, agents and sgllers of real property located within a designated
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone shall disclose to any prospective urchaser that the property is within an Earthquake
Hazard Zone pursuant to the requirements of this Act.
SC 4.6 -5 In accordance with Section 9250.5.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, eve
among other things, a report of an engineering geological investigation, whk
and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the geologic
and slope stability in natural materials on the proposed development. Th
published guidelines and implementation procedures from the Seismic
professionals (California Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering GGeologist)
the site - specific mitigation; and participate in the implementation process.
structural design and construction recommendations for earthwork, grading,
geologic and seismic considerations, should be incorporated into the design
application for a development permit shall include,
h shall provide a description of the geology of the site
nditions, including consideration of seismic hazards
Report shall be conducted in compliance with the
Hazards Mapping Act, which requires registered
to conduct liquefaction evaluations; establish
Recommendations of the report, as they pertain to
slopes, foundations, pavements, and other necessary
and construction of the proposed development.
SC 4.6 -6 In accordance with the City's Zoning Regulations and Building Regulations,
Residential Mountainous Single Family Zone shall include plans for erosion
systems or watering devices that cause soil erosion or saturate the soil to
configuration that causes or will cause erosion, subsidence, surface water;
adjacent properties or the public health, safety, and welfare are prohibited.
every application for a development permit within the
control planting or other protective devices. Irrigation
cause slope failure are prohibited. Site topography or
runoff problems, or other conditions that may affect
SC 4.6 -7 All existing and future development within the City shall be conducted ii
R4 -2004 -0146, which regulates discharges from residential on -site wastewater
Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles and Ventura Counties). The General Wthste
tanks proposed in areas with shallow groundwater, areas adjacent to water bodies
the Clean Water Act, areas where groundwater is used for domestic purposes,
of ground or surface waters. 1
compliance with Los Angeles RWQCB Order No.
treatment systems throughout the entire
Discharge Requirements (WDRs) apply to septic
listed as impaired pursuant to Section 303(d) of
and areas with nitrogen or bacterial contamination
SC 4.6 -8 All future development within the City shall be conducted in compliance with
Building Code), which provides standards for the design and construction of
water systems in buildings, and which prohibits connection to a septic to
requires the proper abandonment of septic tanks, cesspools, and seepage pi
the California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of the California
water and sewer systems, storm drains and recycled
k in areas served by a public sewer system. It also
s.
Soils at the northern
end of the City pose
limitations to the use of
septic tanks.
MM 4.6 -1 Future development at the northern edge of th
north /northwest of Canyon Road) shall provide for�the
sewer lines to serve the proposed project in order
associated with soils incapable of supporting septic
City (generally
extension of
to avoid hazards
tank systems.
The project engineer shall
incorporate this MM into building
plans, with the City Building
Services monitoring compliance
during the plan check process.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R. \PAS\Projects\HogIe\J010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
10
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
- ,. - Stancifiard pn dit�r> n flit attdr Vl�isu . s 5 m
Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
t .sp i nsi
Y en gat!
mi pletion
SC 4.7 -1
All development within the City shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and which governs the transport of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, contaminated soil,
asbestos, or lead- containing materials. Vehicles transporting hazardous waste materials are required to comply with the
regulations, as implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
SC 4.7 -2
All development within the City shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; the management of non - hazardous solid wastes and
underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances would be required for hazardous material users, waste
generators, and transporters. Compliance with this Act also includes corrective action by the owner or operator of the leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) or clean up of LUSTs by USEPA to reduce hazards associated with ground and water
contamination by tank leaks, spills, or accidental release.
SC 4.7 -3
All development within the City shall comply with the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, which regulates facilities that
generate or treat hazardous wastes. Permits for individual facilities allow the Department of Toxic Substances Control and /or the
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA, in this case, the Los Angeles County Fire Department) to inspect the facilities for
compliance and to enforce the provision of the Act.
SC 4.7-4
All development within the City shall comply with the regulations of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which serves as the
designated CUPA and which implements the State and federal regulations related to:
• The Hazardous Waste Generator Program,
• The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program,
• The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP),
• The Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Program, and
• The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program.
SC 4.7 -5
All development within the City shall comply with CaIARP to prevent the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable
substances. CaIARP requires stationary sources that utilize hazardous materials exceeding a threshold quantity to develop and
submit a risk management plan that addresses the potential impacts of accidental releases of hazardous materials, along with
reducing hazards through prevention, response, and remediation measures.
SC 4.7 -6
All development within the City shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rule 1403, which
provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos - containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures
that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by !a Certified Asbestos Consultant (certified by the
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [CaIOSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Removal
of the asbestos should include prior notification to the SCAQMD and compliance with removal procedures and time schedules;
asbestos handling and clean -up procedures; and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements under this rule.
R: \PAS\Projects\HogIeU010 \Response to Comments Arcadia GP RTC 092810.doc
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
11
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
f
Sta ndar>) Cocid tlons jat�on it sur s � R � �
l esppnsibl<e Par y sj
�le rr f ic >, -. of
Corn tetion
SC 4.7 -7 All demolition that could result in the release of lead shall be conducted according to the California Code of Regulations (Title 8,
Section 1532.1) regarding the removal of lead -based paint or other materials containing lead, which must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services. The CaIOSHA
standards are intended to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated
with exposure to these materials.
SC 4.7 -8 Future development pursuant to the General Plan Update and public and infrastructure projects in the City shall comply with pertinent
provisions of the Califomia Building Code (CBC), which now includes building standards for the Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Area.
The standards call for the use of ignition resistant materials and design to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by
a vegetation fire to help reduce losses resulting from repeated cycles of interface fire disasters. These standards apply to the areas
within the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone at the northern end of the City. The City of Arcadia has officially adopted
the regulations for Wildland Urban Interface Area into Article 3, Chapter 1, Part 3 of the City's Municipal Code.
SC 4.7 -9 All demolition or construction activities shall comply with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.) and the
California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529), which prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos related demolition or
construction activities; require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos;
specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers; and
require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos.
The standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards
associated with exposure to these materials.
SC 4.7 -10 Development in the City that is within 20,000 feet of the El Monte Airport shall comply with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR), which requires Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification and review of site and building plans to determine the effects
of proposed construction on air navigation and to identify measures to be applied for, the continued safety of air navigation, if it involves
construction or alteration of a temporary or permanent structure, equipment, highway, railroad, roadway, or natural growth that is more
than 200 feet in height or that extends into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal
distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is 3,200 feet or longer or at a slope of 50 to 1 for a horizontal
distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is less than 3,200 feet long.
SC 4.7 -11 Development in the City of Arcadia shall comply with the California Fire Plan, as implemented by the State Board of Forestry and
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Implementation of the California Fire Plan would reduce wildland
fire hazards at the Angeles National Forest and the foothills in Arcadia.
SC 4.7 -12 The City shall continue to implement its Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for the
The Plan includes mitigation activities that include inventories of at -risk buildings
emergency preparedness programs; review of ordinances that protect natural
reduction.
protection of life and property from natural hazards.
and infrastructure and prioritized mitigation;
systems for enhancement; and strategies for risk
SC 4.7 -13 All development within the City shall comply with SCAQMD Rules X and XIV
pollutant emissions. Rule X adopts the National Emission Standards for
specifies the limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR), cancer burden,
from new, modified, or relocated stationary sources that emit toxic air contaminants.
chronic HI, and acute HI that need to be met before a permit to construct/operate
within 1,000 feet of an existing school or a school under construction.
which include regulations for toxic and hazardous air
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) and Rule XIV
and non - cancer acute and chronic hazard index (HI)
The rule includes specific limits for MICR,
if approved for new stationary sources located
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS\Projects \Hogle1J010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
12
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS\Projects \HogIeu010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
13
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
�` 1 tb is i lVl g t btl M aSur
espu o e) "alftl fes�
���/etafi
roitiple
, `€
SC 4.7 -14 Pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code, subsequent to receipt of the FAA determination (see SCs 4.7 -10), the
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), shall review projects
within 2 miles of the El Monte Airport for compliance with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. Developers shall comply
with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission.
SC 4.7 -15 In accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541), persons planning new construction, excavations, and
new utility lines near or crossing existing high pressure pipelines, natural gas /petroleum pipelines, electrical lines greater than
60,000 volts, and other high priority lines are required to notify the owner /operator of the line and must identify the locations of
subsurface lines prior to any ground disturbance for excavation. Coordination, approval, and monitoring by the owner /operator
of the line would avoid damage to high priority lines and prevent the creation of hazards to the surrounding area.
Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
SC 4.8 -1 The project applicant/developer for all applicable development projects shall file a Permit Registration Document (PRD) with the
State Water Resources Control Board in order to obtain coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2009-009 -
DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) or the latest approved general permit. The project applicant/developer shall provide
documentation of coverage under the Construction General Permit to the City of Arcadia. The PRD consists of a Notice of Intent
(NOI); Risk Assessment; Site Map; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP); annual fee; and a signed certification
statement. Pursuant to permit requirements, the project applicant/developer shall develop and incorporate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for reducing or eliminating construction- related pollutants in the site runoff. Starting in 2011, SWPPPs shall also
be prepared and implemented for construction sites less than one acre, per Title 24 Green Building Standards.
SC 4.8-2 As required under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. 01 -182;
NPDES No. CAS0041) for the County, the City of Arcadia requires new development and major redevelopment to prepare a Standard
Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) as part of the development permit process. The SUSMP shall identify post -
construction treatment - control BMPs that would be implemented on site for long -term storm water pollutant mitigation. The SUSMP
shall be prepared pursuant to the guidelines prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works' SUSMP Manual.
SC 4.8 -3 All development in the City shall comply with Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the Arcadia
Municipal Code supplements the City's NPDES permit, which prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water and
requires development projects to provide best management practices to reduce pollutants in the storm water.
SC 4.8-4 Discharges of groundwater from construction and project dewatering shall comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board's (LARWQCB's) Order No. R4- 2003 -0111, which outlines the waste discharge requirements to surface waters in the
coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (General NPDES Permit No. CAG994004). Projects that involve
dewatering activities and that could result in discharges into "Waters of the State" must file a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD)
with the LARWQCB. The LARWQCB reviews the RWD and the proposed discharge and prepares Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs), which include operational requirements, contaminant limitations, and monitoring requirements. Compliance with the WDR
would: (1) prevent groundwater discharges from resulting in water quality degradation of receiving surface water bodies and
(2) protect beneficial uses of water.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS\Projects \HogIeu010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
13
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
.
k} Standard Cor> l ti i i s anti Mrti stio Measures
? mss Pik lii tes
1Terrf;r:aitan o
Gom .letion
SC 4.8 -5 All new construction and major improvements shall be built in accordance with the City's Floodplain Management Regulations
(Article III, Chapter 10 — Floodplain Management of the Arcadia Municipal Code), which require that structures (1) be adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads during flood;
(2) be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage and using methods and practices that minimize
flood damage; and have electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other utility systems that
prevent water from entering or accumulating within structures during floods.
Section 4.9 Land Use and Planning
SC 4.9 -1 As the primary land use policy document for the City, the Arcadia General Plan will regulate all future development. Consistency
with the goals, policies and programs of the Arcadia General Plan, as amended, will be required for all development projects.
SC 4.9 -2 The City's Zoning Regulations provide development standards and design guidelines for the development of individual parcels in
the City. Future development projects will need to comply with pertinent zoning regulations.
Section 4.10 Mineral Resources
SC 4.10 -1 Any future mining operations shall comply with the regulations and guidelines of SMARA regarding permits, annual reporting, and
reclamation plans.
SC 4.10 -2 Any future mining operations and ongoing mine reclamation shall comply with Article IX, Chapter 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code
regarding mining and reclamation operations in the City.
Section 4.11 Noise
SC 4.11 -1 The City of Arcadia's Building Code limits construction - related activities to occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM,
Monday through Saturday, unless otherwise permitted by the Development Services Department. Construction is prohibited on
Sundays and major holidays. Future development shall comply with these time limits to prevent construction noise during the
evening and early morning hours.
SC 4.11 -2 Future development in the City shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, (Chapter 6, Part 1, Section 4610.3 of the Municipal
Code), which sets limits for exterior noise levels.
SC 4.11 -3 Future development in the City shall comply with Title 24, Chapter 12 of the Califomia Administrative Code, which requires that
residential structures (other than detached single - family dwellings) be designed such that the interior CNEL with windows dosed shall
not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.
SC 4.11 -4 Future development in the City shall comply with the City's vibration standards in Title 3, Performance Standards,
Section 9266.3.9, of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R. \PAS\Projects \HogIeVI010 \Response to CommentsWrcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
14
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
MM 4.11 -1
Prior to issuance of discretionary permits for construction activities, project
applicants /developers shall submit evidence to the Director of Development Services that
the following noise reduction measures are stated as requirements on the construction plans
and specifications:
• During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all
stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise -
sensitive receptors.
• When feasible, the construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that
will create the greatest distance between construction- related noise sources and noise
sensitive receptors during all project construction.
• The construction contractor shall limit all construction- related activities that would result
in high noise levels, according to the construction hours set forth in the Municipal Code.
• The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified
for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
MM 4.11 -2 Prior to the issuance of discretionary permits for residential development in areas with
existing high levels of ambient noise (i.e., along major roadways and the railroad tracks), a
detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical
Consultant and submitted to the Development Services Department for residential
structures. This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the
building(s), the amount of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction provided in the architectural
plans, and any upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for
residences). The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the
architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction.
Contractors of individual
construction projects will be
required to implement this MM,
with the City Building Services
monitoring compliance through
field inspections or report
submittal.
A noise consultant shall prepare
the acoustical study and the
project architect shall incorporate
the needed noise control
measures into the project plans,
with the City Planning Services
monitoring implementation through
site plan review and the City
Building Services Division
monitoring compliance during the
plan check process.
R:\ PAS\Projects\Hogleu01o\Response to CommentstArcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
15
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
MM 4.11 -3 For proposed commercial and industrial land uses that would generate stationary noise near
noise sensitive receptors, a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified
Acoustical Consultant prior to the issuance of building permits. The assessment shall utilize
noise data provided by the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized by the project or noise
measurements from substantially similar equipment to project noise levels at the noise -
sensitive uses (on- and off - site). Compliance with the City's noise standards for residences
shall be demonstrated and any measures required to meet the noise standards shall be
described and incorporated into the building plans for the project. These measures may
include, but not be limited to, selection of quiet models, construction of barriers, equipment
enclosures, and placement of the equipment. Project applicants /developers shall submit
evidence to the Director of Planning Development that the following noise reduction
measures are stated as requirements on the construction plans and specifications:
• Require preparation of a noise analysis for all proposed commercial and industrial
projects to be located adjacent to an existing noise - sensitive use, including but not
limited to residential areas, schools, and hospitals.
• Design the construction of new commercial and industrial uses adjacent to noise -
sensitive uses with noise mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts associated
with truck deliveries and stationary equipment, such as pumps, compressors, and air
conditioning units.
• Require that all loading facilities be located and designed to minimize the potential noise
impacts to adjacent noise sensitive uses.
MM 4.11 -4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for projects that have a potential to generate
groundborne vibration (e.g., use of pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers) or be
exposed to vibration from off -site sources, the City shall require applicants for development
projects that would be located adjacent to any developed /occupied sensitive local receptors
or for proposed residential projects to submit a construction- related vibration mitigation plan
to the City for review and approval. The mitigation plan shall depict the location of the
construction equipment and activities and how the vibration from this equipment and activity
would be mitigated during construction of the project.
A noise consultant shall prepare
the noise assessment and the
project architect and engineer shall
incorporate the needed noise
control measures into the project,
with the City Planning Services
monitoring implementation through
site plan review and the City
Building Services Services
monitoring compliance during the
plan check process.
The project engineer shall prepare
the vibration mitigation plan when
required, with the City Building
Services monitoring compliance
during the plan check process and
through field inspections during
construction.
Section 4.12 Population, Housing and Employment
SC 4.12.1 In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1940 et seq., termination of a lease or eviction of renters /tenants shall require
written notice from the landlord or his/her agent, prior to the sale or demolition of a dwelling or unit.
SC 4.12.2 In accordance with the State Relocation Assistance Act, public agency projects and redevelopment activities shall provide
adequate notice, fair compensation, and housing and business relocation assistance when displacement of residents, households,
businesses, or tenants occurs as part of their activities.
R: \PAS\Projects \HogleU010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
16
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
,.Standard Con�#itl d ga c Me siiiites �
iROsponsable E?alrty( es
eriti On
ompte tfcin
SC 4.12.3 In accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law, a redevelopment agency is required to provide temporary
housing for displaced residents, households, and tenants and to develop replacement housing for redevelopment activities and
projects that involve displacement.
Section 4.13 Public Services
SC 4.13 -1 All development in the City shall comply with the California Fire Code and regulations in the Fire Department section (Article III,
Chapter 1) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which include standards for building construction that would reduce the creation of fire
hazards and facilitate emergency response. Building plans are reviewed and structures inspected by the Arcadia Fire Department
for compliance with applicable fire safety, emergency access, and fire flow standards in these codes and in order to identify
additional development features that could reduce demand for fire protection services.
SC 4.13 -2 In compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government Code (SB 50), prior to approval of a development project, the
property owner /developer shall pay applicable fees to the impacted school district(s). Under State law, payment of the developer
fees provides full and complete mitigation of the project's impacts on school facilities.
Section 4.14 Recreation
SC 4.14 -1 Future residential development shall comply with the City's Ordinance 2237, which requires new residential developments to pay
applicable Park Facilities Impact Fees to fund the provision and /or expansion of parks and recreational facilities to serve new
development.
SC 4.14 -2 Future residential development shall comply with Article IX, Chapter 2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which requires multi - family
residential developments to provide on -site private and common open space areas. The open space and recreational facility
requirements depend on the zoning of the project site and the size of development.
Section 4.15 Transportation
SC 4.15 -1 In accordance with the City's Transportation Impact Fee Program, future development shall pay development impact fees to help
fund intersection and roadway improvements in the City.
SC 4.15 -2 Future development shall improve perimeter and on -site roadways in accordance with the City's roadway standards under Article
IX, Chapter 1, Parts 1 (Design of Streets) and 2 (Street Improvement Plans) of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
SC 4.15 -3 Future development shall provide internal circulation improvements in accordance with City standards for the location of traffic
signs, minimum drive aisle widths, turning radii, sight distances /vision clearances, pedestrian walkways /crosswalks, and other
features.
SC 4.15 -4 Future development shall include a Traffic Control Plan to be prepared and implemented in compliance with the California Manual
for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for all construction activities within public rights -of -way. If the project construction
requires special measures outside the California MUTCD standards, the Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and
signed by a registered Traffic Engineer. If the development is located on or near California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
right -of -way, the Property Owner /Developer shall provide a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to Caltrans for review and approval.
SC 4.15 -5 Construction work on public rights -of -way shall be performed in accordance with City regulations, including the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and the MUTCD.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R: \PAS Projects \HogIeU010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
17
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
., ��..
.. .. = 5ta nctarci �c r�clitrons trid 1111�ti a pn Yi eas u r s .,
..'
_ehfi
.. ..mo .. .� ...:�
. ¢� Respnnsib o 1? jj+ s s `
of
�. = ompietro
SC 4.15 -6 New non - residential developments shall comply with City's Traffic Conges ion Management regulations, which require non-
residential development to provide transportation demand management and trip reduction measures, such as display /kiosk for
transportation information, preferential parking space for carpool /vanpool vehicles, bike racks, loading /unloading zones, bus stop
improvements, designated pathways, and convenient access for bicyclists.
SC 4.15 -7 Future development shall be subject to review and approval by the Arcadia Fire Department for the appropriate provision of
adequate emergency access and evacuation routes.
SC 4.15 -8 Off - street parking shall be provided by new development, redevelopment, expansions, or with changes in occupancies in
accordance with the parking requirements in the City's Zoning Regulations. The required parking spaces and other parking
requirements shall be shown in site improvement plans submitted to the City during the permit process.
SC 4.15 -9 Future development in the City and other public projects shall comply with the CMP requirements for the preparation of Traffic
Impact Analysis, which provides a consistent methodology for determining background traffic conditions, trip generation, and trip
distribution; analyzing impacts; and identifying, evaluating, and implementing mitigation.
Section 4.16 Utilities
SC 4.16 -1 All water, sewer, storm drain, and other utility infrastructure improvements within the City shall be conducted in compliance with the
applicable regulations set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code, which incorporates by reference applicable State regulations,
including those that adopt the California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical Code, and California
Mechanical Code. Article IX, Chapter 1, Subdivision Code, sets forth standards for the review and approval of all development
plans by the City Engineer and requires that the project applicant/developer provide utility facilities in accordance with the
standards and specifications approved by the City Engineer.
SC 4.16 -2 The City of Arcadia shall require all future projects implemented pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update that are subject to
SB 610 and /or SB 221 to comply with all applicable requirements in order to demonstrate the availability of an adequate and
reliable water supply.
SC 4.16 -3 All new construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects and private non - residential development projects of a
qualifying size shall be subject to compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In compliance with City regulations,
development projects that fall into these categories shall implement water conservation measures in accordance with the standards for
plant selection and grouping, water features standards, irrigation design and system requirements, and soil and grading requirements.
SC 4.16 -4 In compliance with the LACSD's Wastewater Ordinance, all wastewater discharges into LACSD facilities shall be required to
comply with the discharges standards set forth to protect the public sewerage system. The LACSD Surcharge program requires all
industrial companies discharging to the LACSD sewerage system to pay their fair share of the wastewater treatment and disposal
costs, and the Connection Fee program requires all new users of the LACSD sewerage system, as well as existing users that
significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge, to pay their fair share of the costs for providing
additional conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities.
SC 4.16 -5 All development projects in the City shall implement waste reduction, disposal, and recycling measures during construction and
operation in accordance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), prepared in compliance with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act, as well as provide collection and loading areas for recyclables, as required under the
City's Zoning Regulations.
R: \PAS \Projects \Hogle\1010 \Response to Comments\Arcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
18
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata
vd, N
Star onsd►gt�1 Isree
.3.a
T ..
� Y en�cat,on o
:A .,e dF
C+c�in
SC 4.16 -6 The City of Arcadia shall require all future projects implemented under the 2010 General Plan Update to comply with all State Energy
Efficiency Standards and City Municipal Code requirements in effect at the time of application for building permits (Title 24). Title 24
covers the use of energy efficient building standards, including ventilation, insulation, and construction and the use of energy saving
appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting, as well as the Title 24 Green Buildings Standards on planning and
design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes demonstrating compliance with energy and green building standards
and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance.
MM 4.16 -1 Prior to approval of development applications that could have an impact on existing water,
sewer, or storm drain infrastructure capacities, as determined by the City Engineer, the
project applicant/developer shall be required to determine project impacts on each system. If
water, sewer, and /or storm drain infrastructure improvements are required in order to serve
the proposed project, then appropriate mitigation shall be provided in the analysis and shall
be incorporated into site development plans, subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer. If infrastructure improvements outside the jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia are
required, including improvements to trunk sewer lines owned by the Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, the needed improvements, or fair share payments in lieu of
infrastructure improvements, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
appropriate jurisdictions.
The project engineer shall
incorporate this MM into building
plans, with the City Building
Services monitoring compliance
during the plan check process.
Section 4.17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM 4.17 -1 The City shall actively encourage the development and maintenance of mixed uses,
particularly in the Mixed Use and Downtown Mixed Use areas, by maintaining a list of sites
available for mixed use and infill development and making the list available to developers.
The City shall establish developer incentives to encourage well- designed, mixed use and
infill development projects in these areas.
Developers of individual projects
would implement this MM, with the
City Planning Services monitoring
compliance during site plan
review.
MM 4.17 -2 The City shall encourage future development and major renovation projects to achieve
LEED certification, and /or other green certifications. The City shall investigate the potential
to offer density bonus incentives on residential projects that achieve LEED certification, and
other green certifications and ratings.
The City Planning Services shall
implement this MM during the site
plan review process for individual
projects.
MM 4.17 -3 The City shall consider and evaluate the applicability of the policies contained in the Califomia
Attorney General's Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate
Change California Attorney General's Office 1/22/10 and the Califomia Air Pollution Control
Officers Association's (CAPCOA's) Model Policies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in General
Plans June 2009. Attachment B of the Air Quality Report (Appendix E of the Draft EIR)
includes the referenced documents in their entirety.
The City Planning Services shall
implement this MM, with the
Development Services Director
verifying compliance.
TABLE 2 -1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
SCH 2009081034
Arcadia General Plan Update
Response to Comments, MMRP, and Errata
R \PAS\Projects\HogleU010 \Response to CommentslArcadia GP RTC_092810.doc
19
MMRP, Response to Comments and Errata