Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 8713RESOLUTION NO. 8713 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CBD -1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council 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 City Council of the City of Azusa ("City") 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 sea. ("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 City Council of the City of Azusa adopted Resolution No. 8458 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 City 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 City 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 City 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 City. SECTION 3. The City 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. The Council finds that the mitigation 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 Prr.ject 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 City Council 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 City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination in the manner required by law. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18thday of September, 1989. i Mayor HEREBY CERTIFY that the adopted by the City of Azusa at a on the 18tday of September , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: G ' ;i1i y C 1 e r COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7NCILM�MBE RS' 111, ) foregoing resolution was duly regular meeting thereof, held 1989. AVILA, STEMRICH, LATTA, MOSES NONE NARANJO 0 FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL EIR/EIS AZUSA CBD -1 SITE CITY ®F AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ' SEPTEMBER 1989 2 C1 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 onlv 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 1 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) 333-5125 or Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles 2525 Corporate Center Place Monterey Park, CA 91745 Attn: Margo Morales (213) 260-2215 LJ SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 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 1 4.6 Soils, Geology and Topography 4.7 Hydrology 4.8 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 SUMMARY 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 I 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 is 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 ') 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. I 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. 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE SUPPLEME\T 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 i 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 2- 'v.:+ 40 0 IU �18URBANA( cnnv. .- I ->..�: 5 ,_,,,•. � GLENOAL A. — PI!�A ,M A �An ACIA- SAN GA"eFIEl a FIT T11 - WON SIFP S auH. l t ��� A ANGE ES�... LE'h'CGD I i � ,�. .—v tin � � - � WhITTIFF r •m jj .� SLJ'A � �� � fill I ao {{ m• . - CG MPiGN . L nuo, �, s � - - ��r NGRwA�\i pL'llEii OM i 7— :RANGE — I �"... __r', NEYGG Cn A_MGEONG BEACH 4:nsr.,nu Il r n — �,,.= ANA Regional Location Map f C13Q-1 SITE EIR/EIS EXHIBIT 1 Ir w w w Y U FOOTHILL BLVD. Site Boundaries CBD -1 SITE EIR/EIS C L cn m D r1l / PARCEL A 3.68 ACRES D C D Z ➢ � Z C mr cn hl > a o 30 < > m rm- -92*- 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 Citv'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 Z 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 Citv 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- 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 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 C13D-1 site. The parcel would be developed as follows: Land Area 135,000 sf Building Area 31,900 sf Parking 216 spaces 2.2 Alternative 2 - Addition of Building Area I 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 (Alterna(ive 2) is more cconomically viable than the smaller one. The City of Azusa desperately needs a commercial success in the central city. 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The City of Azusa is located in the northeast San Gabriel Valley approximatety 30 miles east of the Cit• 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 IL 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 -I site for a location map of the arterials. Foothill Boulevard is a divided roadwav 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- �— �— r.--- r_-- I_-.,.- r.—. '..,,..:. \,- .4 ,,.. i..... �"�'..�� 1 _ l 1 � ---1 S�ERRA NIAF)Ri I \ AVE. LOCATION MAP 0 FOOTHILL v) WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES is, ST. B w a Ll «II A > v NO SCALE BLVD. ` i FGFNn j 5 f IJDY INTERSECTIONS A= PRCMSED PROJECT - PARCEL A - EX111:1311p BASE LINE RD. E U • 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Air Quality Alternative I 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 analvzed. The t 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 methodologv 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 arca. Both intersections will continue to operate at LOS A. Refer to Table 1 for a break down on anticipated trip generation by alternative. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RETAIL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 Alternative Size Dailv 1 37,700 4,440 2 60,000 7,070 In Out Daily In Out PM Peak Hour 270 275 +1,430 + 95 +110 430 435 +4,610 +350 +350 Source: Extrapolated from Final EIR/EIS, Azusa CBD -1 Site, January 1988, prepared by Casteneda & Associates, Inc. 1 • Alternative I 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 analvsis 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. I 4.3 Noise 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- • C Note: Approvals subject to requirements of 51 CFR Parts 104- 105. Alternative 1 Impacts 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 roadwav 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. 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 arc 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. 1 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 LAW ENFORCEMENT 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 300 pounds pressure. The door shall be mounted so as to prevent its being lifted out of the track 1 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 - from dusk until the termination of business every operating day. S. 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 arc 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. 1 Alternative 2 Mitigation Measures The recommended mitigation measures are the same as outlined for Alternative 1. FIRE PROTECTION 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. Alternatives I and 2 Mitigation Measures 1. New development must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. -12- r 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. STORM DRAINS Alternatives 1 and '� Impacts Neither alternative will result in additional stormdrain runoff. Both alternatives will divert runoff from Angelino Avenue under the railroad tracks. 1 Alternatives I and 2 Mitigation Measures To ensure adequate drainage, however, it is recommended that a 24 inch storm drain be constructed to tic into the culvert system at Foothill Boulevard. UTLILITIES Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Existing utilities lines and facilities would need to be relocated for both alternatives. Alternatives 1 and ? 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. WATER AND SEWAGE Alternatives 1 and 2 Impacts Both alternatives would require the upgrading of both water and sewage mains. Alternatives 1 and ? 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. SCHIPSI 1 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- 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. 5.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENT AND JOINT AGENCIES RESPONSES 5.1 California Department of Water Resources 1 Comment: The comments of the Department of Nater 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 l 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 skv 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. 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 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) 1 -17- bite of l'�c`TZifIII'2Ti�t GOVERNOR'S OFFICE we r OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN GO ERNOR July 12, 1989 Robb Steel City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702-1395 Subject: Central Business District Site Shortened Review Request, SCH-� 88031503 Dear Mr. Steel: 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, 1983 to August 11, 1059. } If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Ashley of the State Clearinghouse at 916/-145-0313. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance DCV:'OA:hr ., State,of California APPENDIX 1 Memorandum Date 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. To Assistant Secretary for Resources — 2. City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. JUN 2 5 jgg9 Azusa, CA 91702 Attention: Robb Steel From . Department of Water Resources Los Angeles, CA 90055 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Supplement to Final EIR for Central Business District Site 1, Received on i•iay 24, 1959 -1EC The Resources Agency Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of hater 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 th1f report. Sincerely, Charles R. White, Chief Planning Branch Southern District Attachments J DEPARTMEi1T OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described here. Roquirod The following State laws require water-efficie Structures: nt plumbing fixtures in o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.E 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 requirecents of this section." o Title 20, California Administrative Cede cz�ct+on 1604(f) (Acoliance Efficiencv Sta:':dares) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flew 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, a -,d known as ANSI A112.18.1}1-1919• 0 Title 20. California Administrative Coce on 1606(b) (Apcliance } Efficiencv 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 compli with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable ance efficiency standards. o Title 211 of the California Administra•�•:•e Cc e Secrion 2--5')07(b) (California crerev Conservation Stancares -c- Vow Buildin s) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate stazdares. o Title 24, California Administrative Ccce Sec�icns 2-53;2(i) and M address pipe insulation requirements, trhich can reduce water used 'oefore hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. hese requirements apply to steam and steam -condensate return Piping and recirculating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or -heated 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. f?otel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.' ;hhermostatically 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 emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced `low. 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 Playing fields. When lawn is used, require warn 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 (dater 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 increasir.0 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 wa`er recharge, t 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. J FLOOD.DAMAGE PREVE14TION 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 Mao or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency 6!anagement 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). %. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudficr: should be assessed and mitigated as required. 1 8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. J JUN 1 /1. 1989 City of Azusa Redevelopment Agency 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 Attention: Robb Steel Gentlemen: APPENDIX 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA I gaS COMPANY 1050 OVERLAND CCLRT • SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS BOX 97, SAN DIMAS, CAL'FORNIA 91]]3 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/RH:jc V4 APPENDIX 3 COMMUNITY CONCEPTS 517 Floral Park Terrace South Pasadena, California 91630 (818) 441-2831 May 30, 1989 Mr. Robb Steel Redevelopment Agency City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 Dear Robb: i;1A'> The Azusa Unified School District has asked that I respond to your notice of Intent to Prepare a Suo31ement to Final, Envirnnnental Lnnact Statement for Central Business District Stite 1 which was received by their office on ?lay 24, 1()3().0n their behalf, I wish to indicate that the proposed residential and commerical development will have an impact on the schnols of the district clue 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. Ti:ere=ore, it will be the intent of the district to levy the developer fee on both the residential and commercial portions of the proDnsed development as provided by law. Unfortunately, these fees are not sufficient to fu11y 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, Donald ;i. l,icice rt cc Dr. Duane Stiff, Azusa Unified School District Specializing in Business management services for Public Schools APPENDIX 4 e COUNT' OF LOS ANGELES HIRE DEPARTI\tEN'T 1320 NOR TEI E ASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063 (213) 267-2481 P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER 8 FIRE WARDEN August 18, 1989 Margo Morales COR-Vminity Development Connission County of Los Algeles n L52✓ WrPcratC Canter Pla(-e Monterey Park, CA 91745 Dear Ms. Morales: SUHTECP: EWIROI U:EllrALI =ACP REPO!Zr — CITY OF AZUSA RIDEv=F!VIEVI' AGENCY — (AZUSA CBD --1 S=) DESICN AND C0NSTRUCPION The development of this project must conply with all applicable code and Ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flags, and fire hydrants. 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. Final fire flan 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 require.,ens for the construction Chases will be addressed at the plan check sage. A fire prevention suggestion that will reduce potential fire and life losses would be the installation of fire sprinkler systams in the project's residen- tial dcaellings. Systers are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. For cor>Lrcial projects, all on-site drive rays shall provide a rLnin_rJ 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 anv building. SOUTH GATE TEMPLE: CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYVPD WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHTTTIER SERVING THE UNINCOIIPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF ,n QUR4ESIA 111LL$ ©RADBURY DUARTE LI CANADA IU'. TTIDGE MAYYIODD 4zUSa CARSON CERRITOS GLENDORA HAWAIIAN LAKEWOOO NORWALK q OLU%G HILLS ROLLING HILLS ESTATES RALDVI"PARK GLAREMONT GARDENS LA;'IRADA PALMDALE ROSEMEAD .TELL COMMERCE HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALOS VERDES ESTATES SA`. DmMAS °ELLE CUDAHY HUN TING TON PARK LA PUENTE PARAMOUNT SANTA CLARITA `1L1 L 1L n11lf^P ' DTNi DIAL'ohD RAR INDUSTPY 'RYJIvnAI= L AYINDALE PICO Rlv ERA SIG'.AL -ILL .0511-:. SOUTH GATE TEMPLE: CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYVPD WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHTTTIER Marro Morales August 18, 1989 Page 2 FORESTRY DIVISION We have inspected the area of the proposed Azusa CBD -1 site. Parcels A and B contain native oak trees. 'These trees say be protected by a city tree ordinance or thee Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance 88-0157. This ;c�,e should be addressed in your final supplement. Drought tolerant, fire resistant species should be utilized for landscaping. Enclosed is the Eos Angeles County Fire Depart -Dent's original response to the Azusa Central Business District -1 project, which does notappear in the final Ervro inmental Intact Report or the Environ ental I pact Statement Report. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 267-2481. very truly yours, BY JOSEPH FERRARA IIID DT..FL= FORESTER FORESTRY DIVISIO14 JF: lc Enclosure oc: Robb Steel Redevelopment Agency City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 C I Ks r � e ,, •STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX S CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - GEORGE DEU KM EJIAN Govem or LOS ANGELES REGION 101 Centre Plaza Drive S JL>e Plonterey Park, California 91754-2155 (213) 266-7500 September 8, 1989 File: 700.314 Robb Steel Redevelopment Agency City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL EIR, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. SCH 488061503: 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. The proposed project should address the attached comments. Ik you for this opportunity to review your document. If you have questions, please contact Eugene C. Ramstedt at (213) 266-7553. JOHN L. LEWIS Environmental Specialist IV cc: Garrett Ashley, State Clearinghouse (07-13-89)