Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 3000 0 RESOLUTION NO. 300 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA AND GLEN "E" CORPORATION THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Azusa does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. An Initial Study of Environmental Impact and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed agreement entitled "Owner Participation Agreement By and Between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa and Glen "E" Corporation, a California Nonprofit Corporation" dated as of September 15, 1986, and said Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's CEQA Procedures; B. On or about September 18, 1978, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa certified and approved the Environmental Impact Report for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project. Subse- quent Environmental Impact Reports were prepared for amendments to the project area and were certified and approved by the Board on or about July 2, 1979; July 21, 1981; November 28, 1983; and December 17, 1984. These EIR's address issues concerning development in the Central Business District Project Area which includes the proposed Glen "E" Project. Applicable mitigation measures in said EIR's have been incorporated into the project. The project contains no features or impacts which will require important revisions to the previously approved EIR's, nor new, significant environmental impacts not previously considered in the EIR's. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the Central Business District Redevelop- ment Project or the environmental factors addressed which will require important revisions in the previous EIR's due to the involvement of new, significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous EIR's. No new information of substantial importance has become available on the Central Business District Redevelopment Project so as to require revision of the EIR's; 0 0 C. At its meeting of September 15, 1986, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa considered the adoption of the proposed agreement and heard evidence on the proposed agreement and the Negative Declaration; D. Prior to approving the agreement, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa considered the proposed declaration, together with the Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the information from the previous EIR's for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project, together with any comments received during the public review process; E. On the basis of this review, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Azusa hereby certifies and approves the Negative Declaration for the proposed Owner Participation Agreement, a copy of which Negative Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, and further determines that the Negative Declaration shall be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles in the manner required by law. SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thisl5th day of September , 1986. l I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Azusa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of September , 1986. AYES: BOARD MEMBERS NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: AVILA, COOK, LATTA, MOSES NONE CRUZ -2- U CITY OF AZUSA INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent/Applicant: Azusa Redevelopment Agency 2. Address and phone number of Proponent/Applicant: 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 3. Name of Project (if applicable): Owner Participation Agreement between the Azusa Redevelopment Agency and Glen "E" Corporation 4. Description of Project and Address: Site Area: 22,500 square feet Building Area: 8,707 square feet Parking: 53 spaces Landscaping: 1,900 square feet Zoning: CBD General Plan: CBD Scheduling: Construction Commences 10/86 Construction Completed 6/87 5. Id--ntification of Environmental Setting: The subject site is located on the Southwest corner of Angeleno Avenue and Foothill Blvd. Surrounding land uses include single-family dwellings on the immediate south and west property boundaries with a used car lot further west along Foothill Blvd. The subject property consists of two vacant lots and a single-family dwelling to be demolished. The subject site is located along a major arterial roadway and is designated for commercial development by both the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Access is from Foothill Blvd. and Angeleno Avenue. The environmental effects of redevelopment in the Azusa Central Business District Redevelopment Project were previously described in the Program EIR for the original Redevelopment Plan Certified on September .18,.1978. -1- CITY OF AZUSA ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INITIAL STUDY A copy of the Initial Study for Public Works projects will be available to the public in the Azusa Public Works Department. A copy of the initial study for the Planning Department projects will be in the Planning Department and the Public Library. Comments from the public on the projects may be made, in writing, to the respective department directors or at the public hearings for the projects. Project Description: An Owner Participation Agreement between the Azusa Redevelopment Agency and Glen "E" Corporation (aka Elk's Lodge) for the construction of a 8,707 sq. ft. meeting facility in the Azusa Central Business District Redevelopment Project. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth Will the project result in: 2. Air Will the project result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water Will the project result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? x b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X I YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modifica- tion of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geo- logic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? X 2. Air Will the project result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water Will the project result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? x b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X I YES MAYBE NO C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surf.ace water quality, including but not limited to tempera- ture, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X L. HAteiatlon of the direction or rate of flow oc ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Change in quality of ground water? X i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X _ 4. Plant Life Will the project result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (includ- ing trees, shrubs, grass, craps, micro- flora and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life Will the project result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers or any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 4 X C. Introduction of new species or animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild- life habitat? X 6. Noise Will the project result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? _X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X 7. Light and Glare Will the project produce new light or glare? X -I- 0 0 YES MAYBE NO d. Land Use gill the project result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present or X 14. Public planned land use of an area? X --- eEfect b. Incompatibility with existing zoning, or the General Plan, any specific plan, or of other applicable land use control? X — 9. Natural Resources will the project result in: X b. a. Increase in the rate of use of any nat- X C. ural resources? — d, b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew- X e, able natural resource? X — 10. Risk of Upset Does the project involve a X f. risk or an explosion or the release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11. Population tdill the project alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing 11ill the project affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transoortation/Circulation will the project result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X — b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? X — C. substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? _ _ X d. i+Iterations to present patterns of circulation or movement or people and/ cr goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services uill the project have an eEfect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d, Parks or other recreational facilities? X e, I.1ainteriance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? I X -4- 0 YES 14AYBE NO 15. Eneray Will the project result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities_ Will the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health Will the project result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or po- tential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics Will the Project result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation Will the project result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of ex- isting recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeolooical/Historical Will the project result in an alteracicn of a significant archeological or histcrical site, struc- ture, object or building? X 21. Mandatory Findings of SioniFicance a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have tyle potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-terin, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long - tern impacts will endure well into the future.) X YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHED DISCUSSION IV. MITIGATION MEASURES Describe mitigation measures included in the project, if any are needed, to avoid potentially significant effects: V. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared and is attached. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION DILL HE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date 9/12/86 Signature / Title Re evelopment Directy 0 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Description of the Proiect: An Owner Participation Agreement between the Azusa Redevelopment Agency and Glen "E" Corporation for development of a 8,707 square foot meeting facility in the Azusa Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area. 2. Location of the Proiect: Southwest corner of Angeleno Avenue and Foothill Blvd. 3. Findina: The proposed project will not generate significant new environmental effects which were not addressed in the previously certified Program EIR for the Azusa Central Business District Redevelopment Project. The proposed project therefore could not have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Initial Studv• Attached 5. Miticatien Measures: None Required Discussion of Environmental Evaluation lb. Normal overcovering of soil for new development. lg. Property subject to geologic hazards typical of area. 2a. Construction will create dust emissions. Normal wetting procedures will be imposed. 3b. Normal increase in run-off due to site overcovering. Storm drainage system adequate. 6a. Increase in noise level due to new traffic, particularly in evening hours. Noise increases should not be significant and will be mitigated by block wall and landscaped buffer. 7. Project will emit new light,and glare. Lights would be directed away from adjacent residences. 8a. Vacant site and existing single-family residence will be converted to more intense use. Development intensity is not incompatible with surrounding uses. 8b. Proposed use is not specifically permitted by CBD zoning, although it is consistent with the zone's intent. Owner Participation Agreement shall serve in lieu of zoning authorizations by specifying development standards. 13a. Intensification of existing use will create new vehicular movements. No significant impacts are expected, however. 13b. Demand for new parking will be provided on-site.