HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 622I
RESOLUTION NO. 622
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CBD -1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF AZUSA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Azusa does hereby find, determine and
declare as follows:
A. On or about September 18, 1978, the City Council of the
City of Azusa adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Azusa
Central Business District Redevelopment Project (the "Project
Area"); and
B. On or about September 18, 1978, the Board of Directors
of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa ("Agency")
certified and approved the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project Area pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA")
and the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, 16 U.S.C.
Sections 840 et seq. ("NEPA"). Subsequent Environmental Impact
Reports ("EIR") were prepared for amendments to the Project EIR
and were certified and approved by the Board on or about July 2,
1979, July 21, 1981, November 28, 1983, and December 17, 1984.
C. On July 5, 1988 the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa adopted Resolution No.
472 certifying and approving the Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1
Project ("Project") and filed a Notice of Determination as
required by law. The CBD -1 Project encompassed 141 luxury
apartment units and 35,000 square feet of commercial space on a 9
acre site within the Project Area.
D. Subsequently, the Agency approved project plans for the
Centennial Square component of the CBD -1 Project which
encompassed approximately 25,000± square feet of additional
commercial space beyond that analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS.
E. Under NEPA, the proposed changes to the Project
required supplemental analysis to the previously approved
EIR/EIS; and
F. Consequently, the Agency prepared an Initial Study of
the environmental impacts of the Project, caused to be prepared a
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Statement
("DSEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report Statement ("Final Supplemental EIR/EIS") in accordance
with the provisions of CEQA, State and local CEQA Guidelines, and
NEPA;
G. The DSEIR for the Project was made available for public
review and comment in accordance with CEQA, NEPA and other
applicable law.
SECTION 2. The Agency hereby certifies that the
information contained in the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS,
including but not limited to all comments on the DSEIR and the
responses thereto, has been reviewed and considered by the
members of the Agency.
SECTION 3. The Agency finds that the mitigating changes
which will be incorporated into the Project and discussed in the
Final Supplemental EIR/EIS will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects identified in the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS.
I ,
The Board of Directors finds that�the*itigation measures
described in the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS have been made a part
of the Project's conditions of approval. Said mitigation
measures shall be monitored and enforced by the Redevelopment
Director within the times set forth in the Project approvals and
as part of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and the
Certificate of Completion. The mitigation measures and the
monitoring and enforcement obligations established herein will
ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project
implementation and constitute the mitigation measure monitoring
program required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION 4. In view of the foregoing, the Board of
Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa hereby
certifies that the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS for the Project has
been completed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, NEPA,
and applicable state and local guidelines, and hereby certifies
and approves the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS for the Project. The
Secretary is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination in
the manner required by law.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September ,
1989.
Chai7 n
(/ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa at a
regular meeting thereof, held on thel8thiay of September ,
L
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES: DIRECTORS
ABSENT: DIRECTORS:
Secretarf
AVILA, STEMRICH, LATTA, MOSES
NONE
NARANJO
FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO
FINAL EIR/EIS AZUSA CBD -1 SITE
CITY OF AZUSA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WILD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1989
FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SITE 1
CITY OF AZUSA
ABSTRACT OF FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL EIS On July 5, 1988, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS was adopted on a project
located within Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area,
Site 1. The project consisted of 35,000 square (sf) of new commercial
development (Parcel A) and 141 residential units on an adjacent 5.4
acre parcel (Parcel B). The proposed supplement is to add up to
25,000 sf of office and commercial space for a maximum of 60,000 sf
on Parcel A, the 3.5 site described below. This supplement deals
only with Parcel A.
The public review period for the draft supplement was June 16 -July
31, 1989. The public review period for the final draft was August
18- September 17, 1989. A total of four comments were received.
Each comment has been addressed in the final supplement. The
project, as mitigated, has no significant environmental impacts.
PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is to be located on a 3.5
acre site in the City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, generally bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, San
Gabriel Avenue on the west, Azusa Avenue on the east and the
Atchinson/Topeka and Santa Fe railroad right-of-way on the north.
JOINT LEAD AGENCIES City of Azusa and Community Development
Commission of the County of Los Angeles are the Joint Lead Agencies.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the
federal agency monitoring the environmental review process due to
its partial funding of the proposed project. Further information can
be obtained by contacting:
Redevelopment Agency
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
Attn: Robb Steel
(818) 334-5125
or Community Development Commission
County of Los Angeles
2525 Corporate Center Place
Monterey Park, CA 91745
Attn: Margo Morales
(213) 260-2215
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE SUPPLEMENT
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Need for the Supplement
1.3 Purpose of the Project
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
2.2 Alternative 2 - Addition of Building Area
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
4.3 Noise
4.4 Land Use
4.5 Public Services and Utilities
4.6 Soils, Geology and Topography
4.7 Hydrology
4.9 Biota
4.9 Mitigation Measures Monitoring
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENT AND JOINT
AGENCIES RESPONSES
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
7.0 APPENDICES
•
LOCATION The subject site is located within the City of Azusa Central
Business District Redevelopment Project Area (CBD), Site 1, Parcel A.
It is generally bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, San
Gabriel Avenue on the west, Azusa Avenue on the east, and the
Atchinson/Topeka and Santa Fe (AT & SF) railroad right-of-way on
the north.
PREVIOUS STUDIES The CBD was certified as a redevelopment
project area in May, 1978. At that time, an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was completed on the project area. In 1988, an
EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for a
proposed commercial and residential project on Site 1, Parcels A and
B. The 1988 project proposal for Parcel A ii referenced below as
Alternative 1. In 1989, the project developer recommended adding
25,00 square feet of commercial/office space. This Final Supplement
to the 1988 EIR/EIS discusses the environmental impacts of that
recommendation. The expanded project proposal is referenced below
as Alternative 2.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Two project alternatives are discussed in
this report:
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is the "No Action" alternative. It would
retain the commercial project certified by the Final EIR/EIS for the
CBD -1 site, Parcel A. The project proposes construction of 35,000
square feet (sf) of retail space.
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes the addition of up to 25,000 sf
of commercial/office space for a maximum of 60,000 sf on the CBD -1
site, Parcel A.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY There are no areas of controversy nor
adverse environmental consequences.
-1-
0 0
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would
visually improve the downtown area, upgrade infrastructure and
remove blighting influences. Implementation of either would
require the relocation of existing businesses and residences. The
recommended mitigation measures are applicable to both
alternatives and, therefore, the environmental impacts are virtually
identical. Due to its larger scale, however, Alternative 2 is more
economically viable and has greater potential for long-term success.
For that reason, the City of Azusa prefers Alternative 2.
1.1 Introduction
On July 5, 1988, an EIR/EIS was adopted on a project in the
City's central business district (CBD) consisting of 35,000 sf of
new commercial development and 141 residential units on two
adjacent sites separated by an arterial. Please refer to Exhibits 1
and 2 taken from the Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site for
regional location and site boundaries, respectively. The
proposed supplement is to add up to 25,000 sf of office and
commercial space for a maximum of 60,000 sf on the 3.5 acre
commercial site (Parcel A in Exhibit 2).
1.2 Need for the Supplement
The success of the City's downtown revitalization strategy is
dependent upon the success of the CBD redevelopment effort.
The Azusa City Council first acknowledged the deterioration of
the central city in the mid -1970's when it directed staff to begin
the process of designating the downtown a redevelopment area.
A redevelopment plan was adopted on September 18, 1978 with
the basic objective of "...eradication of blighting influences within
the Project Area and the recycling of land presently containing
these influences, or impacted by the adjacent blighting
FIN
r L
A A
C
7 7w 4
0-
ItL 4f
0
^v
-F I
•
00
tA CRISCIC
UCINADA
FtIrtioct
BURiApk ........ oRisr
GUNOA
h:AZUSA
ASADEN ONROr
CLJ
UAM Lr
U U
,Aj
SAX'WRIEL
7
LH.AM.B IMMEJV�-
7IONTE
PARK) MONTEREy
IN in. "o
.111 A
WHITT
LEA
DOWNEY
LTN"UM
Baer[ rztmmo
F lour NO
IV [I A
I(iw6n
TRANCE LA
IAIIIlq
cm
'I nAm
In uuna
t the
01 AII DX
it
LONG
Regional Location Map
CBD -1 SITE EIR/EIS
,ee
L
S
POMONA
T�
C
C,
7:
ze 7rum
�- �-,
-Al- EXHIBrr 1
cc
w
W
W
Y
U
O
z
D
Z
G)
m
D
rn
Site Boundaries
CBD -1 SITE EIR/EIS
FOOTHILL BLVD.
In
PARCEL A
3.68 ACRES
r7
L
4b- EXHIBIT 2
G)
Z
O
�
D
Zm
<
[<il
D
4b- EXHIBIT 2
influences, to uses consistent with environmental, economic and
social goals of the community". Over the following decade,
several projects proposed for the CBD redevelopment area were
considered but, unfortunately, few came to fruition. The
downtown continued to decline.
This latest effort to construct a commercial and office center in
downtown is intended to be the catalyst to reverse the decline in
the City's business core. It is a joint project of the City of Azusa,
County of Los Angeles and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds in the form of a Section 108 loan guarantee will be
partially funding the commercial development.
Developers and economic development specialists have advised
the City that the "highest and best" use of the land would require
over 35,00 sf of commercial and office development. Highest
and best is defined in this case as the amount of
commercial/office space which intensifies land use without
negatively affecting environmental concerns. Intensification
allows for a better product mix, creates a commercial focal point
in the downtown, draws traffic past strip commercial arterials
leading to the center, and increases the center's potential for
success.
1.3 Purpose of the Project
It is the intent of the proposed supplement to provide the
selected developer the project parameters which will enable him
the most reasonable chance of success. If this project is
successful, it will demonstrate to City residents and investors
that Azusa is a good place to locate a business and a good place
to shop. Until the perception of the City improves, both on a
commercial and a "quality of life" basis, the reality of
improvement will not change.
-3-
0 0
►tPMMSJ 3 1 W I Lei aKSJW.6W9JJ
This section describes the two project supplement alternatives
under consideration. The first is no action; the second is the
addition of up to 25,000 sf of commercial/office development.
The alternatives are presented in comparative form and the
preferred alternative identified.
2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
This alternative would retain approximately 35,000 sf of new
commercial development on Parcel A in the CBD -1 site. The
parcel would be developed as follows:
• Land Area 135,000 sf
• Building Area 34,900 sf
• Parking 216 spaces
2.2 Alternative 2 - Addition of Building Area
This alternative would add up to 25,000 sf of commercial/office
space on Parcel A in the CBD -1 site. This is the preferred
alternative. The parcel would be developed as follows:
• Land Area
• Building Area
• Parking
135,000 sf
60,000 sf (maximum)
240 spaces (maximum)
note: the number of spaces
provided is commensurate with
the square footage of building
area
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
In terms of environmental impact, there is little difference
between the alternatives. Alternative 2 would generate an small
incremental increase in traffic and therefore, a commensurate
-4-
increase
in air
pollutants, noise
and parking demand. However,
the mitigation
measures recommended in the Final
EIR/EIS for
the CBD
-1 site
for Alternative
1 are applicable to
Alternative 2
and, if
implemented correctly,
would render the
environmental
impacts
of the
two alternatives
virtually identical.
The difference in the two alternatives is project scope. The
larger scale project (Alternative 2) is more economically viable
than the smaller one. The City of Azusa desperately needs a
commercial success in the central city.
The City of Azusa is located in the northeast San Gabriel Valley
approximately 30 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is
directly adjacent to the San Gabriel mountains. The City
presently has an adequate supply of good quality water and is
within Earthquake Hazard Zone II. There are no areas of natural
vegetation nor rare or endangered species on the project site or
surrounding properties. No culturally significant sites or
structures are known to exist on or near the project site.
The project site, Parcel A, is bounded by three arterials and the
Santa Fe railroad. Please refer to Exhibit 3 taken from the Final
EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site for a location map of the arterials.
Foothill Boulevard is a divided roadway with two travel lanes in
each direction. Raised medians exist between Azusa Avenue and
San Gabriel Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of Foothill
Boulevard along the project site frontage. Signalization is
provided at both Azusa and San Gabriel Avenues. Azusa Avenue
is one-way northbound in the vicinity of the project site. A
total of three travel lanes are provided with parking allowed on
both sides of the street. The other half of the couplet, providing
southbound travel, is San Gabriel Avenue. This street has four
lanes with parking allowed on both sides of the roadway. Both
Azusa and San Gabriel are State Route 39.
5-
LOCATION MAP
m
1� r.._.. ;....,.w \. ...� �..., '....r1 M -*'1
S.ERRA h9AORE AVE.
sPN�l C w
Q
FOOTHILL
F
W
N
z
B W
a
0
z
W
J
W
c�
z
d
F�ONO
.�N�
A
NO SCALE
a I a
I I
i
W
LD
a
z
a
BLVD.
LEGEND
S CUDY INTERSECTIONS
A= PROPOSED PROJECT -
PARCEL A
WESTON PRINGIE AND ASSOCIATES � -- LxxzBzT 3 -
I ST ST BASE LINE RD.
L
•
0 0
4.1 Air Quality
Alternative 1 Impacts The Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site
states that the project would not have a significant adverse
effect on air quality.
Alternative 2 Impacts The additionally square footage of
commercial/office space is expected to generate an incremental
increase in air pollutants. The increase, however, is not
considered significant and would not have an adverse effect on
air quality.
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Alternative 1 Impacts It was determined under the scope of the
Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site that two intersections,
Azusa/Foothill and San Gabriel/Foothill, would be analyzed. The
firm of Weston Pringle and Associates conducted P.M. peak hour
counts at the two intersections. The peak hour volumes were
utilized in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses.
The ICU methodology of intersection analysis determines the
ratio of traffic volumes to roadway capacity for the critical
movements, then relates the sum of these values to intersection
Level of Service (LOS). The LOS ranges from A (the best) to F
(the worst) with LOS D generally recognized as the minimum
acceptable level for an urban area.
The Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site concluded that based on its
ICU analysis, Alternative 1 produces minimal impact on the
study area. Both intersections will continue to operate at LOS A.
Refer to Table 1 for a break down on anticipated trip generation
by alternative.
M
Alternative
0
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION
RETAIL LAND USE
ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
Daily Ll of
1 37,700
4,440
270
275
2 60,000
7,070
430
435
Daily U of
PM Peak Hour
+1,430 + 95 +110
+4,610 +350 +350
Source: Extrapolated from Final EIR/EIS, Azusa CBD -1 Site, January 1988,
prepared by Casteneda & Associates, Inc.
0 0
Alternative 1 Mitigation Measures The Final EIR/EIS for the
CBD -1 site noted that based on field observations, the westbound
left turn pocket at the San Gabriel/Foothill intersection did not
clear at every signal cycle. It was recommended that the
maximum green time for the westbound left turn lane be
reviewed.
Alternative 2 Impacts The increase of 25,000 sf of building area
will generate a net traffic increase of approximately 2,630 daily
vehicle trips, 495 of which would occur during the P.M. peak
hour. Refer to Table 1 for a break down of trip generation by
alternative. An ICU analysis indicates that both intersections
highlighted above will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS
level.
Alternative 2 Mitigation Measures It is recommended that the
mitigation measure of Alternative 1 be applied to Alternative 2:
review the maximum green time for the westbound left turn
lane at the San Gabriel/Foothill intersection.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
site acceptability standards are as follows:
Average Sound Level Approvals
Standard in decibels Required
Acceptable Not exceeding 65 dB None
Normally Above 65 dB but not Special or
Unacceptable exceeding 75 dB environmental
review and
attenuation
Unacceptable Above 75 dB Special
Approvals
7-
0
0
Note: Approvals subject to requirements of 51 CFR Parts 104-
105.
Alternative 1 Imp According to the Final EIR/EIS for the
CBD -1 site, a computer based LD -700, ANSI type 1, Sound Level
Meter/Analyzer, calibrated by means of instruments traceable to
the National Bureau of Standards, was used to determine the
effect of nearby railroad noise on the project site. Based on
information provided by Santa Fe Railroad, the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) was calculated to be 69.0 dB at 128 feet
from the railroad track centerline. This value was used in
determining the railroad noise environment for the entire site.
The roadway noise calculations of the existing site (i.e., without
Alternative 1) were determined by using a proprietary
computer program version of the Federal Highway
Administration's FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model,
FHWA-RD-77-108. The central portion of the subject site has a
64 dB CNEL; the remaining portion of the site has noise levels at
65 dB or above.
The Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site states that the change in
noise level from existing conditions to conditions resulting from
Alternative 1 would be less than .3 dB for all locations. Changes
of this magnitude would be undetectable to the human ear.
Alternative 1 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures to
be employed were aimed at the existing noise conditions, not
those generated by the project. It was recommended that all
new structures be acoustically engineered and constructed with
sound attenuating materials. Windows would be required to be
closed when occupied; therefore, mechanical ventilation with
fresh air would have to be provided. It was also recommended
that noise screening walls be built to protect both the sensitive
outdoor areas and to shield buildings. The design of the walls
would need to carefully planned particularly along the raised
grade of the railroad tracks.
M
0 •
Temporary construction noise would need to be adequately
muffled and/or kept away from residential areas. Construction
hours would be limited to the daylight hours between 7 a.m. and
7 p.m..
Alternative 2 Impacts The incremental increase in noise
generated by the incremental increase in traffic is nominal
compared to the high level of existing noise. This alternative by
itself does not create a adverse impact on the area noise level.
Alternative 2 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures
recommended for Alternative 1 are recommended for
Alternative 2, also. Additionally, location of the new structures
should be as distant as possible from the noise sources.
4.4 Land Use
The site (Parcel A) is currently comprised of underutilized
commercially zoned properties. Uses include vacant commercial
structures, vacant land, eight general commercial users and four
residential dwelling units. None of these uses conform with the
City's zoning ordinance and/or the City/Agency's development
standards. The Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site describes the
physical situation: " The CBD -1 site is a blighted area. The
majority of structures are in deteriorated condition, needing
substantial rehabilitation. Land is underutilized. Many vacant
lots, filled with weeds, are interspersed throughout the project
site. The number of individual property owners inhibits lot
consolidation for more efficient land use. There is an
incompatible mixture of land uses with intensive commercial
activities located next to residential units. The area contains
several legal non -conforming uses. Without a major planning
effort, the CBD -1 site will continue to decline."
Alternative 1 Impacts This alternative is consistent with the
General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. It will result in the
removal of all existing structures on the parcel. As stated in the
Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site, the proposed smaller sized
commercial center could be economically viable if high
architectural quality is provided.
Alternative 1 Mitigation Measures To mitigate adverse impacts
to existing businesses and residents currently located on the site,
it is recommended that the relocation procedures outlined in the
Azusa Central Business District Redevelopment Plan be followed.
Alternative
2 Impacts This alternative is consistent with the
General
Plan and the Redevelopment
Plan. It will result in the
removal
of
all existing structures on
the parcel. The proposed
increase
in
commercial/office space
allows the developer more
flexibility
in
the selection of tenants
and will permit a greater
margin
for
error. The chance of success
is enhanced when the
density
is
increased.
Alternative 2 Mitigation Measures The recommended mitigation
measures are the same as noted in Alternative 1: follow the
relocation procedures outlined in the Azusa Central Business
District Redevelopment Plan.
4.5 Public Services and Utilities
fw:atl`►I�CaT:� a .. ► .
Alternative i Impacts The Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site
indicated that it was difficult to assess the law enforcement
impacts for Parcel A given that the parcel is currently being
used for commercial purposes. This alternative would replace
several substandard buildings including two beer bars and a
dark alley that tends to encourage criminal activity.
10-
Alternative 1 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures listed in
the Final EIR/EIS for the CBD -1 site that could aid in reducing
service impacts to the Azusa Police Department are as follows:
1. All exterior, single or double doors shall be secured with a
double cylinder deadbolt lock with a bolt projection
exceeding one inch or a hook -shaped or expanding dog bolt
that engages the strike sufficiently to prevent spreading.
2. All hinges on out -swinging doors shall be equipped with non -
removable hinge pins or mechanical interlock to preclude
removal from the exterior portion.
3. All accessible windows shall be of fully -tempered glass or
rated burglary resistant. All windows shall be secured on
the inside by a locking device capable of withstanding 300
pounds of pressure in each direction. Sliding glass doors
shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable
of withstanding 800 pounds pressure. The door shall be
mounted so as to prevent its being lifted out of the track
while in a closed position.
4. No roof shall have outside access.
5. Each business shall have a street number located in a position
on the front of the business which is readable from the
street. The street number shall be adequately lighted during
hours of darkness.
6. All exterior doors shall be illuminated with a minimum of one
foot candle of light during hours of darkness and shall be
protected from weather and vandalism.
7. All parking areas and access thereto shall be provided with a
minimum of one foot candle of light on the parking surface
-11-
0 a,
from dusk until the termination of business every operating
day.
8. All businesses are encouraged to have an intrusion device
installed on each exterior door and window of a type which
allows compliance with the Azusa city ordinance governing
alarms.
9. Only low profile plants, bushes and shrubs shall be used near
doors, windows and walkways. All plant areas are to be
maintained in such a manner as to prevent the concealment
of a human.
Alternative 2 Impacts As noted above, it is difficult to
determine how much additional police service will be required
since the current use is also primarily commercial. However,
given that the need for police service is greater in commercial
areas than in residential areas, there will be an incremental
increase in traffic, patrol and general police service.
Alternative 2 Mitigation Measures The recommended mitigation
measures are the same as outlined for Alternative 1.
hii: ' : �TL1l�i]IYC�3►1
Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Neither alternative requires
additional Fire Department personnel or equipment. Service for
the area is adequate at this time; however, due to limited tax
revenue, service levels may decrease in the future or be funded
directly by the user.
1. New development must comply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains,
fire flows and fire hydrants.
-12-
0
0
2. Fire flows of up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per
square inch residual pressure for a five-hour duration will be
required for commercial development. Hydrant spacing shall
be 300 feet.
3. Fire flows of up to 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per
square inch residual pressure for a three-hour duration will
be required for multiple residential construction. Hydrant
spacing shall be 300 feet.
4. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the building, its
relationship to other structures and property lines and the
type of construction used.
OLORMEWITUM
Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Neither alternative will result in
additional stormdrain runoff. Both alternatives will divert
runoff from Angelino Avenue under the railroad tracks.
Alternatives 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures To ensure adequate
drainage, however, it is recommended that a 24 inch storm drain
be constructed to tie into the culvert system at Foothill
Boulevard.
Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Existing utilities lines and facilities
would need to be relocated for both alternatives.
Alternatives 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures It is recommended
that appropriate procedures for the relocation and protection of
utility lines be established through ongoing coordination with
affected utility agencies. Easements will be granted to the
-13-
appropriate utility companies should any street or alley be
vacated on the subject parcel.
MT.VJ 1.4 MFAMAO M7.19)
Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Both alternatives would require
the upgrading of both water and sewage mains.
Alternatives 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures It is recommended
that new water mains be installed per the requirements of the
Azusa Light and Water Department. It is recommended that
sewer mains servicing the site be upgraded to 12 inches and that
the existing 8 inch sewer main be routed around the
development site. Additionally, it is recommended that the
water conservation measures of the California Department of
Water Resources be implemented. These measures are
described in Section 5.0 herein.
Neither alternative will adversely affect nor impact the Azusa
Unified School District. The positive impact is a 25 cents
temporary construction fee per square foot of building area
which is assessed by the District. Obviously, Alternative 2 would
provide a larger fee to benefit the local school district.
4.6 Soils, Geology and Topography
Neither alternative proposes development activity which would
substantially alter topographic features other than grading for
construction.
4.7 Hydrology
Neither alternative proposes development activity which would
present a flood hazard or affect water quality.
-14-
0 •
4.8 Biota
Neither alternative proposes development activity which would
significantly impact on biota.
4.9 Mitigation Measures Monitoring
In accordance
with California
state law (AB 3180) regarding
environmental
impact reports,
the City of
Azusa will develop a
mitigation measures monitoring program.
This monitoring
program will be presented to
Council for
adoption
simultaneously
with the Final
Supplement
to the EIS/EIR for the
CBD -1 site.
HPON I W" I III I we". clip )1 '14111 W.Milig UP -913 I_Oell wilel PD143 I am I
5.1 California Department of Water Resources
Comment: The comments of the Department of Water Resources
are identical to its comments on the original EIS/EIR. The
Department recommends that water conservation, water
reclamation and flood damage prevention measures be
implemented. Refer to Appendix 1 for a copy of the original
letter and recommendations.
Response: The Supplement will comply with all state mandated
water conservation requirements. Using reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for
beneficial uses requiring high quality water supplies will be
implemented as feasible.
-15-
5.2 Southern California Gas Company
Comment: The Gas Company requires an easement be granted
by the developer in the event the alley between Azusa Avenue
and San Gabriel Avenue is vacated. Refer to Appendix 2 for a
copy of the original letter.
Response: Appropriate procedures for the relocation and
protection of utility lines will be established through ongoing
coordination with the Gas Company.
5.3 Azusa Unified School District
Comment: The school district is concerned that the proposed
supplement will result in an increase in population affecting
enrollment at local schools. The school district intends to levy a
developer fee on the project as provided by state law. Refer to
Appendix 3 for a copy of the original letter.
Response: The Supplement affects only the commercial
component of the project, not the residential component.
Therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the school
age population. All required developer fees will be paid.
5.4 County of Los Angeles, Fire Department
Comment: The Fire Department requires all projects to comply
with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for
construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants.
All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed
width of 26 feet clear to the sky to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.
There are native oak trees located on the parcel. These trees
may be protected by the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
#88-0157. Refer to Appendix 4 for a copy of the original letter.
-16-
Response: The project will comply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements noted above. The oak trees located on
the project site will not be affected by the development.
Nancy G. Gutierrez
SGH Development and Management Group
2820 Vahan Court
Lancaster, CA 93536
(805) 723-0012
(805) 723-8563 (FAX)
7.0 APPENDICES (Attached)
-17-
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
O V"R
July 12, 1989
tats of Talifami C
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
Robb Steel
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702-1395
Subject: Central Business District Site
Request, SCH# 88051503
Dear Hr. Steel:
I 1 '1 '1989
Shortened Review
This is to inform you that concerned state agencies have been
contacted with regard to the request for a 30 -day review for the
Central Business District project. As none of the agencies
object to shortening the review period, the request has been
granted. Accordingly, the review period for state agencies will
be from July 12, 1989 to August 11, 1989. A
If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Ashley of the
State Clearinghouse at 916/445-0613.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
DCN:GA:hr
J
„ Sfate of California •
MAPPENDIX 1
emorandum
Date
1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D.
TO Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Attention: Robb Steel
From : Department of Water Resources
Los Angeles, CA 90055
0C
JUN 2 6'1989
Subjed: Notice of Preparation of a Supplement to Final EIR for Central
Business District Site 1, Received on May 24, 1989
�C: .
��,�
The esoa es Agency
Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources
staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached.
After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality water supplies.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on th.`;
report.
Sincerely,
Charles R. White, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
J
C C
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described
here.
Requlrod
The following State laws require water -efficient plumbing fixtures in
Structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 17921 requires low -flush toilets and
urinals in virtually all buildings as follows:
"After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state
shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which
are water -conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated
flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
o Title 20 California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) A liance
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the
maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink
faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.1M-1979.
o Title 20 California Administrative Code Section 1606(b) (Appliance \i
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency standards.
0Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b)
(California Enera Conservation Stanaares :or New Buildings) prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards.
o Title 24 California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and
address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam and steam -condensate return piping and recirculating hot water
Piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water -heating
systems is also required.
J
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of.
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most
instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with
self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where applicable
Interior•
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure -reducing
valve.
2. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.;
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water -conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water -conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray l
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon request only.*
6. Ultra -low -flush toilets: 1 -1/2 -gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior:*
1., Landscape with low water -using plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by.limiting it to lawn -dependent uses, such as
l playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.
3.Group plants of.similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low -water -using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low -water -using
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information. .
J
5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low -water -using conditions and their use saves water
needed to -establish replacement vegetation.
7. Install'efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban _use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
J
FLOOD.DAP.IAGE PREVENTION
In flood -prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. All building structures should be protected against a 100 -year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100 -year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100 -year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low -water -using plant material).
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
:l
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
J
�t,�,° J�
4 -
Piz—
JUN 1�1989
CIT'i OF;.ZUjs !
i'[C-VEL0P?6:n'1'Ic \
City of Azusa
Redevelopment Agency
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Attention: Robb Steel
Gentlemen:
•c
APPENDIX 2 6
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY
1050 OVERLAND COURT • SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS. BOX 97, SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773
June 12, 1989
Re: "EIS" Central Business District 1
Foothill Blvd./San Gabriel Ave./Azusa Ave.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project location as it applies to
the proposed "EIS" supplement. After reviewing this matter, we find that we
maintain an existing 2" gas main in the alley that is between Azusa Avenue aid
San Gabriel Avenue.
We will require an easement granted by the petitioner in the name of the
Southern California Gas Company if this alley is to be vacated. If this
existing gas main is to be relocated or altered, any related cost will be the
responsibility of the petitioner.
If you have any further questions regarding the foregoing, contact Ron Hopkins
at (714) 394-3844.
Sincerely,
Joe Berta
Technical Supervisor
JB/RHljc
:,v
W, APPENDIX 3 .(
COMMUNITY CONCEPTS
517 Floral Park Terrace
South Pasadena, California 91030
(818) 441-2831
May 30, 1989
Mr. Robb Steel
Redevelopment Agency
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
Dear Robb:
The Azusa Unified School District has asked that I respond
to your Notice of Intent to Prepare a SuDDlement to Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Central Business District
Stite 1 which was received by their office on May 24, 1989.
On their behalf, I wish to indicate that the proposed
residential and commerical development will have an impact
on the schools of the district due to the fact that these
improvements will impact on the community with an increase
in the population. As a direct result, the schools of the
district will have to provide for the facilities needed to
house this increased enrollment. Therefore, it will be the
intent of the district to levy the developer fee on both the
residential and commercial portions of the proposed
development as provided by law. unfortunately, these fees
are not sufficient to fully mitigate the anticipated housing
problem, but other funding options are not available to the
district at this time.
Please feel free to contact me if additional information is
needed.
Sincerely,
Lil
Donald M. Wickert
cc Dr. Duane Stiff, Azusa Unified School District
J
Specializing in Business management services for Public Schools
:l
• C APPENDIX 4 0 r
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
R MICHAEL FREEMAN
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
August 18, 1989
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90069
Margo Morales
Community Development Commission
County of Ics Angeles
2525 Corporate Center Place
Monterey Park, CA 91745
Dear Ms. Morales:
(213) 267-2481
SUaTWr:UWIRD=M IMPACr •a•• a OF
REDEVELOPMENT Aas C• •
..__c: ELO'.•.tET;T:.CE;iCY -
DESIGN AND CONSIRUCPION
The development of this project mist ccuply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows,
and fire hydrants.
Fire flows of tip to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch ,l
residual pressure for a five-hour duration will be required.
Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship
to other structures and property lines, and the type of construction used.
Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phases will
be addressed at the plan check stage.
A fire prevention suggestion that will reduce potential fire and life losses
would be the installation of fire sprinkler systems in the project's residen-
tial dwellings. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for
residential use.
For commercial projects, all on-site driveways shall provide a minimum
Unobstructed width of 26 feet clear to the sky to within 150 feet of all
Portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
BRADBURY
DUARTE
LA CANADA FU:.-PIDGE
MAYWOOD
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
ARTESIA
CARSON
GLENDORA
LAKEWOOD
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
AZUSA
CERRITOS
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA MIRADA
PALMDALE
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
BALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
HIDDEN HILLS
LANCASTER
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOD
BELL
COMMERCE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA PUENTE
PARAMOUNT
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
BELLFLOWER
CUDAHY
INDUSTRY
LAWNDALE
PICO RIVERA
SIGNAL ,-TILL
WHITTIER
BELL GARDENS
DIAMOND BAR
IR1•JINDALE
LOI.IITA
RANCHO PALO''VFRDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
Margo Morales
August 18, 1989
Page 2
FOR=Y DIVISION
we have inspected the area of the proposed Azusa CBD -1 site. Parcels A and B
contain native oak trees. These trees may be protected by a city tree
ordinance or thee IQs Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance #88-0157. This issue
should be addressed in your final supplement.
Drought tolerant, fire resistant species should be utilized for landscaping.
Enclosed is the Los Angeles county Fire Department's original response to the
Azusa Central Business District -1 Project, which does not appear in the final
Environmental Impact Report or the Environmental Impact Statement Report.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at
(213) 267-2481.
Very truly yours,
�l
JF: lc
Enclosure
cc: Robb Steel
Redevelopment Agency
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
0
OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX 5
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -
LOS ANGELES REGION
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, California 91754-2156
(213) 266-7500
September 8, 1989
Robb Steel
Redevelopment Agency
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
P
File: 700.314
FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL EIRE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. SCH #88061503: CITY OF AZUSA
We have reviewed the subject document regarding the proposed
project, and have the following comments:
Based on the information provided, we recommend the following:
We have no further comments at this time.
a
The proposed project should address the attached
comments.
nk you for this opportunity to review your document. If you have
questions, please contact Eugene C. Ramstedt at (213) 266-7553.
i
JOHN L. LEWIS
Environmental Specialist IV
cc: Garrett Ashley, State Clearinghouse
(07-13-89)