HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 04-C2911
RESOLUTION NO. 04-C29
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF AZUSA GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS, the new General Plan for the City of Azusa (the "Project") seek to
address the City's current planning challenges, set the course for the City's future growth,
development and revitalization, as well as provide specific standards for development of
individual future projects to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
(Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and
the City of Azusa's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Azusa (the "City") is the lead agency
for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on
August 26, 2003 and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of
the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility,
as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures
that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
WHEREAS, approximately six (6) written statements were received by the City
in response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a series of meetings for public input, called "The Citizens'
Congress," were held at various milestone points in the General Plan update process, as well as
numerous smaller neighborhood meetings held at local schools and other community facilities to
gather public input on the General Plan update; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on or
about November 26, 2003 and the City initiated a 45 -day public comment period by filing a
Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also
provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had
previously requested such notice and published the Notice of Completion on or about December
1, 2003 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were
provided to interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City
placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City of Azusa Planning Department counter and the public
library, posted the Draft EIR on the City's Internet website and made copies available to the
public; and
WHEREAS, during the 45 -day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and
others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were
sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City
received approximately six (6) written comments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City
provided written responses to comments to all commenting agencies within the statutory time
frame; and
-2-
RVPUBNXM1671085.1
•
0
WHEREAS, the City prepared the EIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21092.5, the City provided draft responses to comments to all commenting agencies and
will provide final response to comments ten days before City Council action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa, at its regularly
scheduled public meetings on January 14, 2004, , January 28, 2004, February 11, 2004, February
25, 2004, March 10, 2004, and March 24, 2004 reviewed the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2004-07 recommending that the City Council certify the General Plan EIR and adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan and adopted a resolution
recommending approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently
detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been
adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or
reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a
whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant
but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
-3-
R VPUBVAXM\671085.1
0
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant
but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the
imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 4 hereof, and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof, and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or
any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information
requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section
15088.5; and
occurred.
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
FINDINGS
At regular session assembled on April 19, 2004, the City Council determined that,
based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public,
organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the
Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant
-4-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the
identified mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative
to the proposed Project; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than
significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation
measures.
SECTION 2
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts
of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
A. Aesthetics and Visual Quality
The policies of the proposed General Plan aim to maintain and enhance the
aesthetic resources of Azusa. (Draft FIR, p. 4.1-3.) In particular, the City's most valuable visual
resource is the San Gabriel Mountains and the foothills that lead into the northern edge of the
City. (Draft EIR, p. 2-2.) By maintaining views of the foothills via scenic roads through the
appropriate scale of building design and keeping up the trail network, the important visual
presence of the San Gabriel Mountains will be preserved. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-3 — 4.1-4.) The
overall visual character of the City will not be adversely affected, and in many cases will be
improved by the proposed General Plan. Additionally, as the City and the proposed General
Plan encourage mine reclamation, the aesthetic character of the City will continue to improve.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-4.) Because future development projects should generally be compatible with
the surrounding environment of Azusa, no new sources of glare or light beyond an acceptable
urban/suburban level are anticipated. (Draft FIR, p. 4.1-5.) Furthermore, the policies of the
proposed General Plan cover varied categories that ensure the preservation or enhancement of
Azusa's visual resources and character. Finally, implementation of the proposed General Plan
will not result in impacts to the aesthetic resources of Azusa. (Ibid.) Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
-5-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
B. Agricultural Resources
Currently, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance exists in Azusa. In addition, there are no Williamson Act Contracts within the City
limits. (Draft FIR, p. 4.2-1.) Certain General Plan policies may provide for recognition of the
citrus and agricultural industry in Azusa's heritage by preserving citrus processing and packing
buildings. (Ibid.) Since the proposed General Plan will not be replacing or degrading any
existing farmland or agricultural resources, no potential significant impact is anticipated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.2-2.) Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
C. Air Quality — Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan
In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Air Quality Management
Plan ("AQMP") of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the air
quality impacts of the proposed General Plan should reflect reductions in emissions similar to the
reductions summarized in the AQMP. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-11.) The analysis in the Draft EIR
shows that emission levels of reactive organic gases ("ROG"), carbon monoxide ("CO") and
nitrogen dioxide ("NOx") are expected to diminish by the year 2020 for both the South Coast Air
Basin ("SCAB") and the City of Azusa. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13.) Sulfur dioxide ("SOx") levels
are expected to remain relatively constant, although particulate matter ("PMIo") levels are
expected to increase in both regions. (Ibid.) This impact is analyzed in Section 4 of this
Resolution. City of Azusa emission projections, as reflected by General Plan growth projections,
are consistent with AQMP pollutant emission projections for the SCAB region. Therefore, the
proposed Project does not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP, and no
significant impacts, other than PMI() levels as noted, are anticipated and no mitigation is
required. (Ibid.) Although mitigation is not required, the General Plan contains the following
implementation program that would insure consistency with applicable air quality plans:
AQ8. The City should proactively work with regional agencies such as
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern
California Association of Governments in the development and
implementation of regional air quality strategies. bid.)
-6-
RVPMMXM1671085.1
0 0
D. Air Quality — Air Quality Standards
Air quality impacts associated with a project are generally best reflected through
the estimated changes in related CO concentrations. (Ibid.) In the Drafl EIR analysis of year
2023 Project conditions, one-hour CO concentrations at study intersections would range from
approximately 2.0 parts per million ("ppm') to 3.4 ppm, and eight-hour concentrations would
range from approximately 1.2 ppm to 2.0 ppm with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Under Project
conditions, the State one- and eight-hour standards of 20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively, would
not be exceeded at any of the study roadway segments. (Ibid.) Therefore, a less than significant
impact regarding air quality standards is anticipated at the study intersections and no mitigation
is required. (Ibid.) Although no mitigation is required, the General Plan contains the following
implementation programs that would further reduce potential future air quality standard
violations:
AQ2. Encourage land use patterns that enable citizens to utilize
alternative transportation methods such as transit, walking, and
cycling in their day-to-day activities. Expand opportunities for
citizens to live and work in close proximity. (Ibid.)
AQ3. Promote mixed-use development that provides commercial
services close to residential zones and employment centers,
enabling citizens to walk or bicycle to services rather than drive.
(Ibid.)
AQ4. Through environmental review processes, conduct an air quality
analysis for all industrial development proposals and require
pollutant -reducing mitigation measures for proposals that may
generate significant levels of air pollution. bid.)
AQS. Continue to require new development and significant renovation
projects to include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and bus shelters
allowing for easy use of alternative modes of transportation.
(Ibid.)
AQ6. Reduce automobile emissions by reducing low -speed and idling
emissions at major intersections that operate at Level of Service E
or F and from idling vehicles at drive-through restaurants and
similar commercial operations by requiring a two -window system
and sufficient pass-through lanes. (Ibid.)
AQ8. The City should provide leadership in the goal to improve air
quality by implementing trip reduction strategies for City
-7-
RVPUB\MXM1671085.1
0
•
employees providing bicycle lockers, storage facilities, showers,
and by using low -emission fuels for City fleet vehicles. (Ibid.)
E. Air Quality — Sensitive Receptors
In the Draft EIR analysis, the proposed Project concentrations of CO would not
exceed the State one- and eight-hour standards of 20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively, at any of
the study roadway segments. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15.) CO is a gas that disperses quickly. Thus,
CO concentrations at sensitive receptor locations are expected to be much lower than CO
concentrations at roadway segments, as CO concentrations decrease rapidly in open air. (Ibid.)
No impact is expected at the analyzed roadway segments. Thus, no potential significant adverse
increase in CO concentrations at sensitive receptor locations is expected, no potential significant
adverse impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) Although no mitigation is
required, the propose General Plan contains the following implementation program that would
further minimize potential impacts on sensitive receptors:
AQ1. Through design review processes, encourage maximum allowable
setbacks of residential and other sensitive uses along busy streets
and adjacent to busy intersections. (Ibid.)
In mixed-use developments, residential units should be placed on
upper levels as opposed to street level, or in the rear of the
development as opposed to the street edge;
Require facilities for the needs of automobiles, pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders in site design and site amenities;
Encourage energy-efficient design elements in new development
including appropriate site orientation, solar design, use of
landscaping, and insulating materials, to reduce energy
consumption for heating and cooling; and
Maximize indoor air quality by incorporating adequate ventilation
into site design and orientation. Encourage use of windows that
open and close, pollution reducing plants and indoor trees,
nontoxic building materials and finishes, and ventilation systems.
(proposed General Plan, Chapter 5, p. 5-59.)
-8-
RVPUBVNXM1671085.1
0 0
F. Air Quality — Odors
The proposed General Plan does not specify any particular project that may create
objectionable odors, and no significant impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) In addition, the proposed
General Plan contains the following implementation program that would further minimize
potential impacts associated with odors:
AQ4. Through environmental review processes, evaluate the potential for
a use to result in objectionable odors for proposed industrial,
manufacturing, processing, and food beverage production
operations. (Ibid.)
G. Bioloizical Resources
The proposed General Plan sets forth numerous policies to protect the existing
vegetation and habitats that are part of the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.) The first goal of the
General Plan Biology section is to "conserve and protect nature." In fulfillment of this goal,
associated General Plan policies include establishing a biological resource database, including
types of habitats, and creating a detailed Biological Resource Area Overly Zone map. (Ibid.)
Additionally, the City will seek, where possible, to restore habitats within nature preserves for
rare, threatened and/or endangered species that are believed to have gone extinct in the Planning
Area as stated in Policy 2.3. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.) According to the proposed land use map, the
growth of Azusa over the next 25 years will occur in already developed areas, limiting habitat
modification of the remaining undisturbed lands. (Ibid.) Specific policies of the proposed
General Plan under the Biological Resources section as well as the Recreation and Cultural and
Historic Resources sections provide for the protection of the San Gabriel River and watershed.
Through these policies, the riparian habitat of the San Gabriel River will be enhanced and
maintained for its ecologic, natural aesthetic, cultural and recreational value. (Ibid.) In addition,
the proposed General Plan will not conflict with any Habitat Conservation or Natural
Community Conservation Plans because none is currently in place. Because the policies and
programs of the proposed General Plan promote the preservation of Azusa's biological
resources, no impact is anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-9.) Therefore, no mitigation is required.
H. Cultural Resources
The proposed General Plan establishes a process for identifying and preserving
prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-6.) Other
General Plan policies deal with known cultural and historic resources such as places and
-9-
RVPUMMXM\671085.1
0 0
buildings. A central goal of the proposed General Plan will be for the City to embrace and
showcase various aspects of its cultural heritage while it continues to develop. (Ibid.)
Achievement of this goal will occur through utilization of historic sites and features as
educational tools, adaptive reuse of historic resources, and provision of tax incentive for cultural
or historic preservation. (Draft EIR, p. 2-4.) As a result of the regulations and incentives for
historical preservation laid out in the proposed General Plan policies, no impact to historical and
cultural resources will occur. (Draft FIR, p. 4.5-9.) Therefore, no mitigation is required.
I. Geology and Seismicity
The General Plan provides policies that will protect people and structures from
adverse effects associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground
shaking, and seismic -related ground failure, including landslides. Thus, a less than significant
impact is anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-8, 4.6-11.) Further, the City is not located in an
Earthquake Fault Zone or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone. (Ibid.) In addition, the
proposed General Plan also contains implementation programs to minimize impacts associated
with liquefaction, since the City is located within a liquefaction zone. (Draft EIR, pp. 2-4, 4.6-
11.) As a result of these programs, a less than significant impact regarding liquefaction is
anticipated and no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, a central repository will be established in the City's Engineering
Department for compiling geologic and soils engineering information related to identified active
faults or potentially active faults of concern and fault zone studies, groundwater levels, soils
characteristics, susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction, and other data as appropriate. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-12.) This information will be used to increase the knowledge and insights of City
reviewers and applicants alike, in support of hazard mitigation. To the extent possible this
information will be in a GIS -database and available in summary form on the City website.
(Ibid.)
Regarding potential soil erosion, a geotechnical investigation will be conducted,
on a project -by -project basis, to evaluate soil erosion potential on the site that is subject to
development. Developments will be designed and constructed in conformance to the specific
recommendations provided in the geotechnical report for each proposed structure. (Ibid.)
Additionally, the proposed General Plan contains implementation programs that will help
maintain soil stability within the City. (Ibid.) Thus, no potential significant impacts related to
soil erosion or soil instability are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
-10-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Regarding expansive soils, a geotechnical investigation will be conducted, on a
project -by -project basis, to evaluate the expansion potential of the materials on the site that is
subject to development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.) Developments will be designed and constructed
in conformance to the specific recommendations provided in the geotechnical report for each
proposed structure. Compressible materials will be removed and replaced as compacted fill
(with the exception of peat, which will be removed from the fills). (Ibid.) The criteria for
leaving surface soils in place will be consistent with the grading specifications of the City.
Additionally, if soils underlying a proposed development are found to be highly expansive, they
will be mitigated by special foundations, such as post -tensioned slab foundations, raft
foundations, or caissons. (Ibid.) Therefore, no potential significant impacts related to expansive
soils will occur and no mitigation is required.
Moreover, the General Plan requires that all new development connect to the
existing sewer system. Therefore, soils capable of supporting septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems are not required. (Ibid.) Thus, no potential significant impacts related to
these types of soils are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
J. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regarding the management of hazardous materials, the roadways and railroads
used in the transport of hazardous materials are expected to remain the same under the proposed
Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-5.) In addition, any potential increased transport of hazardous
materials resulting from the new General Plan as a result of planned increases in industrial land
uses will not interfere with the capacity of emergency response teams to effectively handle
accidents. (Ibid.) Thus, there are no anticipated potential significant impacts related to the
transport, disposal, and creation of hazardous materials and no mitigation is required.
Additionally, the proposed Project does not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Ibid.) Therefore, no
potential significant impacts relating to the creation of significant hazards or foreseeable accident
conditions will result from the proposed General Plan and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Moreover, individual projects developed within the parameters of the General
Plan are subject to their own environmental review and must address possible impacts related to
-11-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0
hazardous materials. (Ibid.) In particular, specific projects will have to address whether they
plan to utilize locations listed as hazardous material sites and develop their own mitigation
measures. (Ibid.) As a result, the proposed General Plan has no potential significant impacts
associated with this risk and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
In addition, the proposed Project does not allow for hazardous emissions or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a proposed or
existing school. (Ibid.) Thus, there are no potential significant impacts related to the presence of
any hazardous materials or emissions within a quarter mile of a school and no mitigation is
required.
Regarding effects on airport safety, the nearest airport, El Monte Airport, is
approximately 9.5 miles southwest of Azusa. The new General Plan does not affect air traffic
patterns, nor does it increase the effects of airports on Azusa residents. (Draft ETR, p. 4.7-6.)
Therefore, the proposed Project contains no airport safety hazards or related potential significant
impacts and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Regarding emergency response planning, the proposed General Plan contains
policies and implementation programs that call for the creation and implementation of a disaster
response plan which will provide for heavy search and rescue, major medical response, interim
morgue, emergency shelter, traffic and utility impacts, debris removal and disposal, as well as
hazardous materials response for any chemicals stored or used in or adjacent to the hazardous
buildings. (Ibid.) As a result of these goals and programs, emergency response planning and
implementation are expected to improve under the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 2-5.)
Regarding fire hazards, the City is located in an area frequently threatened by
wildfires. However, the proposed General Plan does not increase this threat. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-
7.) The proposed land use plan shows that all areas of high and extreme fire risk will remain
open space areas. (Ibid.) In addition, existing fire risks are not augmented under the proposed
General Plan. Also, future projects will evaluate any associated fire hazards in their own
environmental review. Thus, no additional fire risks are associated with the proposed Project
and no potential significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
-12-
R VPUB4v1XM1671085.1
0 0
K. Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed General Plan contains policies and programs that will protect
groundwater supplies in the City. Such policies and programs will include: (1) minimizing
water consumption; (2) continuing the City's water conservation efforts; (3) continuing to
require incorporation of water conservation features in new construction; (4) requiring the use of
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, grading and other non -contact uses; (5) requiring
evaluation of new uses with high water consumption levels to determine means to reduce those
levels; (6) maintaining the natural condition of waterways and floodplains where feasible; and
(7) requiring new developments to use the most efficient drainage technology. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.8-7 — 4.8-8.) These policies and programs will ensure that groundwater supplies will not
deplete and no interference with groundwater recharge will occur such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-
8.) Thus, no potential significant impact to groundwater is anticipated and no mitigation is
required.
Regarding drainage, the proposed General Plan contains policies to provide a
flood control system that can support the permitted land uses while preserving public safety and
to upgrade existing deficient systems. (Ibid.) These policies include: (1) maintaining the
natural condition of waterways and flood plains; (2) maintaining and upgrading existing public
storm drains and flood control facilities; (3) coordinating with Los Angeles County to improve
County facilities; (4) monitoring demands and managing development to mitigate impacts and/or
facilitate improvements to the storm drainage system; and (5) designating, preserving, and
acquiring land, as necessary, for storm drainage and flood control facilities. (Ibid.) In addition,
the proposed General Plan provides implementation programs that will maintain the existing
drainage patterns in the City to prevent erosion, siltation and flooding. (Ibid.) As a result, no
potential significant impacts to drainage are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
In connection with drainage, the proposed General Plan policies and
implementation programs that will maintain, upgrade and expand existing storm drain and flood
control facilities will also reduce impacts associated with water runoff. Thus, it is not likely that
water runoff would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore
no potential significant impacts related to water runoff are anticipated and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
-13-
RVPUBNXM\671085.1
Regarding flooding, the northeastern portion of the City is within the 100 -year
flood zone. The proposed General Plan does not designate residential land uses within the 100 -
year flood zone. bid.) Moreover, the General Plan contains policies that will protect people
and structures from loss, injury, or death related to such hazards. These policies include: (1)
evaluating a structure's flood safety and requiring remedial actions for structures meant for
human habitation within the 100 -year flood plain; (2) maintaining the natural condition of
waterways and flood plains; and (3) supporting Los Angeles County's flood control policies.
(Ibid.)
The proposed General Plan also contains implementation programs that will
mitigate flood flows in areas with people and structures. These programs include: (1) requiring
studies for areas on Flood Insurance Rate Maps not previously subjected to detailed study and, if
necessary, requiring mitigation or restrictions on development in those areas; (2) determining, on
a case-by-case basis, whether flood -related mitigation is to be required for proposed
development within the 100 -year flood plain of the San Gabriel River drainage system; (3)
improving the level of protection, if necessary, of any critical facilities in flood hazard areas; (4)
working with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to construct detention basins where
inadequate 100 -year flood protection exists; and (5) encouraging timely FEMA map changes and
incorporating annually mapped revisions to the 100 -year flood zone into the City's hazards
maps. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-9 - 4.8-10.) Through implementation of these policies and programs,
a less than significant impact related to flooding is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(Draft FIR, p. 4.8-10.)
Regarding dam failure inundation, approximately 95 percent of the City lies within
the inundation areas of one or more of three dams (Cogswell Reservoir, San Gabriel Dam, and
Moms Dam). (Ibid.) Because a significant portion of the City is within the dam inundation
area, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving dam failure already exists. The proposed General
Plan will not expose people or structures to any new risks associated with dam failures. (Ibid.)
Additionally, the proposed General Plan provides implementation programs that will mitigate
impacts of dam inundations. (Ibid.) For example, these programs will prohibit new construction
of Critical Facilities (fire, emergency service, utilities) in potential dam failure inundation areas.
(Ibid.) Through implementation of these programs, a less than significant impact regarding dam
failure inundation is anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Draft FIR, p. 4.8-12.)
Inundation from tsunamis (large waves caused by displacement of the ocean floor)
are not a potential hazard for the City due to the City's elevation and distance from the ocean.
-14-
RVPUBWXM1671085.1
([bid.) Other potential inundation hazards exist within the City, such as seiche hazards. A seiche
is a standing wave, in an enclosed or partly enclosed body of water, normally caused by
earthquake activity. (Ibid.) Seiche hazards could impact water impoundments within or
immediately adjacent to the City, such as water storage tanks or reservoirs outside the City (e.g.,
Morris Dam, San Gabriel Dam or Cogswell Reservoir), and could conceivably cause a dam to
fail. (Ibid.) The proposed General Plan will not expose people or structures to any new risks
associated with seiches. Thus, no potential significant impact related to seiches is anticipated
and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) In addition, any potential hazard from mudflows will be
prevented through the policies and implementation programs in the proposed General Plan
related to drainage and dam failure inundation. Therefore, no potential significant impacts
related to mudflows are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Regarding water quality, the proposed General Plan includes policies and
programs which will ensure that the City will meet all applicable water quality and waste
discharge requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California
Department of Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board — Los Angeles
Region, and the Los Angeles County Health Department. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-13.) These policies
and programs will also ensure that water quality in the City will not be degraded. Thus, the
proposed General Plan will not result in violations of any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, and will protect water quality in the City. No potential significant
impacts associated with water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and water quality
are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
L. Land Use and Planning
Under the proposed General Plan, existing residential communities would remain
in the same location. As a result, the proposed General Plan will not physically divide an
existing residential community. Thus, no potential significant impacts related to a physical
division of a community will occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-6.) In
addition, the proposed Project will promote land use consistency because the proposed General
Plan contains implementation programs that encourage maximum allowable setbacks and
landscaping to create buffer zones between residential and industrial land uses. (Ibid.) The
proposed General Plan also provides setbacks of residential and other sensitive uses along busy
streets adjacent to busy intersections. Additionally, the proposed General Plan will not place
additional incompatible land uses next to each other. Thus, no potential significant impacts
related to land use consistency are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
-15-
R VPUBW XM\671085.1
0 0
Regarding surrounding land use plans, the City of Azusa General Plan land use
designations proposed for the eastern portion of the City are consistent with the City of Glendora
General Plan. bid.) In addition, the City of Covina's Commercial/Retail designation at three
intersections along Arrow Highway is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use
designation of Commercial Mixed Use on Arrow Highway. (Ibid.) Although the Residential
designation between the intersections is not consistent with the proposed General Plan, these
uses already exist in the City of Azusa and the proposed General Plan will not introduce new
land use conflicts in the area. (Ibid.) In addition, the Draft EIR identified other land use
conflicts between Azusa and the General Plans of the cities of Duarte and Irwindale. However,
these land use conflicts currently exist and the proposed General Plan will not introduce any new
land use conflicts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-8 — 4.9-9.) Thus, no potential significant impacts related
to local land use plans are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
Regarding regional land use plans, the proposed General Plan is consistent with
the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") policies contained in its
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") and Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP").
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9 — 4.9-17.) Thus, no impact regarding regional land use plans is anticipated
and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17.) Moreover, there is no adopted habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that will be affected by the proposed
General Plan. Thus, no potential significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(Ibid.)
M. Mineral Resources
Three quarry mining operations are currently in the City of Azusa. The mineral
extracted at each of the mines is aggregate, a necessary component of concrete, road base, and
related building materials. (Draft EIR, p. 2-6.) The State of California classified these three
mines as regionally significant for mineral resource production. (Ibid.)
The policies of the proposed General Plan will maintain these mining operations
that are an important part of Azusa's economic base. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-4.) The proposed
General Plan's Mineral Resources policies recognize the presence of the aggregate resources and
the State's designation in that the City will continue to permit existing mining at its present
location for the next 10 to 35 years. (Ibid.) The policies and associated programs of the
proposed General Plan focus on reducing the adverse visible and ecological effects that mining
can have on the land and natural environment. These policies and programs promote the
reduction of visible impacts from mining through: (1) the timely reclamation of mines as each
-16-
RVPUBWXM1671085.1
phase of mining is completed, (2) the revegetation of mining areas prior to complete reuse, (3)
rock staining to minimize the contrast between mined and unmined areas, and (4) utilizing
screening, where feasible, to block views of mining activity or equipment. (Ibid.) The proposed
General Plan policies stating that revegetation shall occur with native plants will aid in covering
mining scars, stabilizing slopes, and recreating the naturally occurring environment. Other
programs in the proposed General Plan will ensure that the mine operations are part of the
planning process and that the City has the opportunity to periodically review the operations.
(Ibid.) In addition, the proposed General Plan includes programs that will involve the mine
operator in all phases of the reclamation process and will facilitate efficient reuse of the mines.
(Ibid.) As a result of these policies and programs, the proposed General Plan will not result in
the loss of availability of aggregate while mitigating some of the adverse consequences of
mining. (Draft FIR, p. 4.10-6.) Thus, no potential significant impacts to mineral resources are
anticipated and no mitigation is required.
N. Noise
The predominant source of noise for the proposed Project would be vehicular
traffic. (Draft FIR, p. 4.11-5.) Noise conditions along the I-210 Freeway are expected to
improve due, in part, to the construction of additional sound walls along elevated segments of the
freeway. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-7.) With the exception of segments along Gladstone, San Gabriel,
Azusa and Cerritos Avenues, all City roadway segments will, under future conditions, see a
decrease in the Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") which is an average sound level
during a 24-hour day. (Ibid.) In addition, noise levels at City roadway segments will increase by
an imperceptible amount (less than 2.0 dBA). More specifically, an increase of less than 3.0
dBA is not perceptible to the human ear. (Ibid.) Therefore, a less than significant noise impact
is anticipated at land uses along these roadway segments and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
In addition, the proposed General Plan contains implementation programs that will further
reduce the likelihood of future noise standard violations. (Ibid.)
Regarding railroad related noise, combined future rail operations (including the
future extension of the Gold Line Phase II light rail system and increased freight operations)
could result in community noise levels greater than the threshold of 60 dBA CNEL, found in
California Code of Regulations Title 24, possibly resulting in a potential significant adverse
impact. (Draft FIR, p. 4.11-8.) However, because the timing, design and future operations of
the Gold Line Phase II project are conceptual and speculative at this time, related noise is
considered a potential long-term cumulative effect in conjunction with the proposed Project.
(Ibid.) Further, implementation of the proposed Project will in no way provide necessary
-17-
RVPUBWXW671085.1
0 0
approvals to proceed with the Gold Line extension through Azusa. (Ibid.) In addition, the
proposed General Plan contains implementation programs that will minimize railroad related
noise impacts. (Ibid.) Therefore, railroad related noise impacts are less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Regarding noise from the Azusa Gun Club, gunfire noise currently affects
residential communities located along San Gabriel Canyon in the northernmost portions of the
City. (Ibid.) The proposed Project does not contain any provisions that would expand or in any
way alter activities at the Gun Club. Therefore, no potential significant impacts are anticipated
and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Regarding groundbome vibration or noise levels, the City of Azusa currently does
not have a set of ground motion thresholds for structures or humans as it pertains to urban
sources such as rail traffic, etc. (Ibid.) The general assumption is that vibration damage would
need to be minimized using conventional engineering criteria and is typically deferred to various
ground vibration standards currently in effect (e.g., United States Bureau of Mines, Uniform
Building Code ["UBC"], etc.) (Ibid.) No potential significant groundbome vibration impacts are
expected for conventionally built (i.e., UBC compliant) structures at distances greater than 100
feet from the edge of a railroad line. (Ibid.) The proposed General Plan anticipates that future
mining operations will remain the same or decrease. No increase in vibration or noise is
anticipated from such operations. Therefore no potential significant groundbome vibration
impacts are expected due to mining operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-9.) Commercial and
industrial activities may increase, and individual projects may create groundbome vibration or
noise impacts. The City of Azusa, however, will apply conventional engineering criteria to
minimize vibration impacts, and no potential significant vibration impacts are anticipated. In
addition, the proposed General Plan contains implementation programs that will minimize
commercial or industrial groundbome noise impacts to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Regarding ambient noise levels, general CNEL noise levels throughout the City
are anticipated to decrease. (Ibid.) In addition, the sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) evaluated in the Draft EIR are within areas where the
CNEL is less than 70 dBA CNEL, which is the noise level threshold compatible with sensitive
receptors. (Ibid.) Therefore, a less than significant noise impact is anticipated at each of the
sensitive receptor locations and no mitigation is required. In addition, the proposed General Plan
contains implementation programs which will further reduce the likelihood of future substantial
increases in ambient noise levels. (Ibid.) Although construction of future projects within the
City will create discrete temporary increases in ambient noise levels, such activities will be
In
RVPUBWXM\671085.1
0 0
subject to local laws, regulations and standards to minimize noise impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-
12.) Therefore, no potential significant impacts are anticipated regarding temporary or periodic
increases in ambient noise levels and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
In regard to airport noise, the City of Azusa is not located within an airport land
use plan of any airport, nor is it located within two miles of an airport. Therefore, no potential
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of airport noise and no mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.11-12.)
O. Population and Housing
The proposed General Plan allows for a maximum of 3,371 additional residential
units to be constructed by 2025. California Department of Finance statistics show that the
average household size in Azusa grew from 3.17 persons in 1990 to 3.4 persons in 2002. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.12-2.) Based on this rate and the potential construction of an additional 3,371 housing
units, the population of Azusa may increase by approximately 11,600 people by 2025 and from
47,150 in 2003 to 58,760 in 2025. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-2 — 4.12-3.) The Southern California
Association of Governments ("SCAG") has predicted that the population of Azusa will be
50,274 in 2020. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-3.) Thus, full realization of the proposed General Plan could
result in 6,062 more people than projected by SCAG. (Ibid.) Although these projected increases
would constitute substantial population and housing growth for the City, the proposed General
Plan will further the goals of SCAG regarding population and housing, particularly by
encouraging infill and transit -oriented development, providing live -work opportunities through
mixed-use development, and providing the tools for sound planning on all future development,
including the provision of adequate public services and infrastructure. (Ibid.) Therefore,
potential adverse impacts associated with population and housing growth are not anticipated and
no mitigation is required.
In addition, no residence or persons will be displaced as a direct result of adopting
the proposed Project. Neither the proposed General Plan or Development Code calls for specific
redevelopment of any areas that will require the removal of homes. (Ibid.) In addition,
environmental review of individual future projects will ensure that potential displacement is
mitigated consistent with the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Law which provides for relocation assistance and/or monetary compensation for displaced
persons. Therefore, potential impacts related to displacement of people and homes will therefore
be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
-19-
RVPUMMXM\671055.1
0 0
P. Public Services
Police Protection: Full buildout of the proposed General Plan could result in an
increase of 11,596 persons by 2025. Based on the current ratio of 1.30 sworn police officers per
1,000 persons, the City of Azusa police department would need an additional 15 sworn officers
to maintain its current ratio. However, as growth would occur incrementally over a number of
years through individual development projects, the need for additional officers will be analyzed
on aproject-by-project basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-6.) Furthermore, the proposed General Plan
Contains policies that will maintain the level of service of police protection for the City. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.13-7.) Specifically, the police officer to population ratio will be analyzed and adjusted
based on need as population increases. In addition, new development will be required to
proportionally contribute fees that will go towards maintaining police protection resources.
(Ibid.) Therefore, no potential significant impacts to police service levels are anticipated and no
mitigation is required. In addition, the proposed General Plan contains policies to ensure
adequate police service response times. Therefore, no potential significant impacts to police
service response times are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Fire Protection and Emergency Services: The City of Azusa contracts with the
Los Angeles County Fire Department ("LACFD") for fire protection services. (Draft EIR,
p.4.13-1.) Growth anticipated in the City of Azusa could increase the need for fire protection
and emergency services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-7.) The proposed General Plan contains policies
that will improve fire protection and emergency service by assisting the LACFD to meet the
standard five-minute emergency response time. (Ibid.) Implementation of these policies will
ensure that fire protection and emergency service vehicles will arrive at their destinations in a
timely manner to avoid damage to persons and property to the greatest extent feasible. (Ibid.) In
addition, the proposed General Plan contains policies that will ensure that the LAFCD is able to
maintain its level of fire protection and emergency service and facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
Thus, potential significant impacts to fire protection and emergency services are not anticipated
and no mitigation is required.
In addition, the LACFD currently imposes a fee on all new development to offset
associated impacts on fire protection services. In lieu of fees or as partial credit toward required
fees, the LAFCD accepts developer donations of land for new fire stations. (Ibid.) In addition to
these requirements, the proposed General Plan contains policies that will require new
development to design structures to ensure that buildings are adequately equipped with fire and
emergency access, thereby improving emergency response times. (Ibid.) Thus, potential
-20-
RVPUBWXM\671085.1
significant impacts regarding planning and review for fire and emergency services are not
anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Public Schools: All of the schools within the Azusa Unified School District
("AUSD") are over capacity, with the exception of Azusa High School. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
Full buildout of the proposed General Plan could result in an increase of 3,371 dwelling units by
2025. Based on a 1.08 student to dwelling unit ratio, it is anticipated that 3,641 additional
students could attend schools within the AUSD. (Ibid.) The 18 schools within the AUSD are
scheduled for renovation within the next eight years. $100 million in bond funds will be used to
modernize the facilities. To meet classroom facility needs of all new students, the AUSD
collects fees from new development projects, as authorized under state law. (Ibid.) The
proposed General Plan contains a policy that requires the continued dialogue between the City of
Azusa and local schools regarding measures to accommodate student population growth. (Ibid.)
The General Plan also includes a proposed K-8 school site (able to accommodate up to 1,200
students) located in northeastern area (Monrovia Nursery site) of the city. Implementation of the
policy, the provision of the new K-8 school, and the continued collection of fees will reduce
potential impacts regarding public schools to less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is
required.
Libraries: The Azusa City Library is below the standard of three to five volumes
per capita by 0.8 to 2.8 volumes per capita. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-10.) The projected increase of
11,596 in population by 2025 could further reduce volumes per capita to 1.77. To house the
recommended number of volumes, the Azusa City Library Needs Assessment Study, 2000
determined that a new library facility should be 57,000 square feet minimum. (Ibid.) The
amount of library space need may also increase with an increase in population. The proposed
General Plan contains a policy to construct new library facilities and expand them based on the
needs of the community. (Ibid.) Implementation of this policy will make the library adequate
for residents and maintain its future level of service to library users in Azusa. Therefore,
potential impacts to library services will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(Ibid.)
Q. Recreation
Full buildout of the proposed General Plan could result in an increase of total
population for the City up to 58,746 persons. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-3.) Based on the National
Recreation and Parks Association ("NRPA") standards of 0.6 to 1.0 acres of parkland for every
-21-
RVPUBWXM\671085.1
1,000 persons, the City of Azusa would need 35.25 to 58.77 acres of parkland. The existing total
of 53.3 acres satisfies this standard. (Ibid.) In addition, the City of Azusa Master Plan of Local
Parks guidelines suggests 3.5 acres of public parks and facilities and 1.5 acres of school
playground per 1,000 persons. To meet this guideline, the City of Azusa would need 205.61
acres of public parks and facilities and 88.11 acres of school playground. (Ibid.) The City
currently has 53.3 acres of open space and recreation facilities and 186 acres of school
playground available through joint -use agreements with the Azusa Unified School District.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.14-1.) Therefore, existing public parks and facilities are below the desired total
by 152.31 acres and existing school playground exceed the desired total by 97.89 acres. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.14-3.) However, the General Plan includes the addition of 524 acres of open space and
parkland within the City of Azusa. The future anticipated total of parkland is 577.3 acres. This
will exceed the City of Azusa Master Plan of Local Parks suggested total by 371.69 acres.
(Ibid.) In addition, the proposed General Plan contains a policy which will ensure that all parks
are maintained and thus avoid the potential deterioration of existing parks. (Ibid.) Moreover, the
proposed General Plan contains policies that will result in development of parks specific to
community needs. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-4.) Implementation of these policies above will ensure
that parks are maintained and improved and that new parks are created to suit the needs of the
community. Therefore, no potential significant impacts related to recreation are anticipated and
no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
R. Transportation and Traffic — Design Features; Emergency Access; Parking Capacity,
Alternative Transportation
Design Features: The City currently has design standards for roadways and
infrastructure. Any further roadway improvements will be subject to individual review and
approval by the City according to the design standards. Therefore, no potential significant
impacts related to traffic design features are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-11.)
Emergency Access: The City has outlined three public service policies to ensure
that development and traffic congestion will not interfere with emergency access or response
times. Ibid.) These three policies require that the City:
1. Work with Los Angeles County Fire Department to locate fire stations in a
manner that will enable emergency fire response times to meet a five-minute
or less standard. (Ibid.)
-22-
R V PUBNXM1671085.1
rI
2. Require all new development to design site plans and structures with fire and
emergency access and safety in mind. (Ibid.)
3. Identify streets and intersections that are prone to congestion, thereby
impeding emergency response times, and pursue mitigation to the greatest
extent feasible. (Ibid.)
Based on these policies and the individual environmental review that every
development undergoes, no potential significant impacts to emergency access are anticipated and
no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Parking Capacity: The Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan states
that the City will provide adequate parking spaces for all land uses. (Ibid.) Each new
development in Azusa will have to address specific parking needs in their environmental impact
assessments. (Ibid.) Therefore, no potential significant impacts related to parking capacity are
anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Alternative Transportation: The proposed General Plan outlines the policies
that will guide the City's alternative transportation development for the next two decades. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-13.) The proposed General Plan's transportation policies for growth of alternative
transportation in Azusa are as follows.
Policy 3.1 Develop and maintain a citywide pedestrian network of
both on -street and off-street walkways as shown on the Non -Motorized
Circulation Plan. Network shall link new neighborhoods with existing
neighborhoods, connect neighborhood centers, schools, parks, commercial
centers, and citywide destinations such as Downtown, the San Gabriel
River, Civic Center, etc. (Ibid.)
Policy 3.2 Coordinate the provision and maintenance of the non -
motorized circulation network with adjacent jurisdictions. (Ibid.)
Policy 3.3 Provide pedestrian amenities (such as benches, seats, water
fountains, shady street trees, etc.) and conditions that enhance the
pedestrian experience along the pedestrian network. (Ibid.)
Policy 3.4 Develop and maintain a citywide bicycle network of both
on -street bike lanes and off-street bike paths in accordance with the
-23-
R V PUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Bicycle Plan Network. The network provides for off street paths along the
San Gabriel River, railroad rights-of-way, alongside flood control
channels, and within existing and new neighborhoods, where feasible.
The network improves connections between residential neighborhoods,
schools and commercial centers, as well as providing connections to
citywide destinations such as Downtown, the University District, the San
Gabriel River, and Civic Center. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-13 — 4.15-14.)
Policy 3.5 Provide bicycle amenities and conditions on/near to the
bicycle network. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-]4.)
Policy 3.6 Improve/enhance local and regional transit service in the
City.1( bid.)
Policy 3.7 Limit drive-through facilities in the City in pedestrian
areas. (Ibid.)
As shown by the policies above, the proposed General Plan seeks to enhance
alternative transportation in the City. (Ibid.) Therefore, no potential significant impacts
regarding alternative transportation are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
S. Utilities and Service Svstems — Water Supply and Demand; Sewage Collection and
Treatment
Water Supply and Demand: The City of Azusa currently uses 10 billion gallons
of water per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-3.) The City of Azusa's existing water facilities are
adequate to serve the City's demand for water. The City also currently has adequate capacity to
serve the anticipated growth under the proposed General Plan. (Ibid.) When groundwater is not
sufficient to meet the water demand, water is obtained from the San Gabriel River and treated at
the Canyon Filtration Plant. The plant has the capacity to treat 7.5 million gallons of water per
day. In extreme conditions, water can be purchased from the Metropolitan Water District or the
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. (Ibid.) Because of the City's capacity to serve
existing and future water supply needs, no potential significant impacts to water supply and
demand are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Although no potential significant impacts to water supply and demand are
anticipated, the proposed General Plan contains the following policies that will track changing
water supply needs and maintain or improve existing facilities:
-24-
RVPUR\MXM56710R5.1
0
Monitor the demands on the water system, manage development to
mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water
supply and distribution system, and maintain and expand water
supply and distribution facilities. (Ibid.)
2. Continue to update the Water Master Plan and an associated capital
improvements program, and evaluate the adequacy of the water
supply and distribution supply. (Ibid.)
Implementation of these policies will ensure that potentially changing water
supply demands are accommodated. As such, no potential significant impacts to water supply
and demand are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
Sewage Collection and Treatment: The City of Azusa currently generates
approximately 20 million gallons per day ("gpd") of sewage and wastewater. (Draft EIR, p.
4.16-5.) The sewage pipes in the City currently operate at 21 percent below capacity. The
existing pipes have remaining capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth of 19 percent
under the proposed General Plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, no potential significant impact to sewage
collection is anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) In addition, the San Jose Creek
Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant can convey and treat up to
100 and 350 million gallons of wastewater per day, respectively. (Ibid.) At buildout of the
proposed General Plan, an increase of 3.8 million gallons of wastewater is anticipated, which
represents less than a one percent increase of the capacity of these plants. Therefore, no potential
significant impact to wastewater treatment is anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
At buildout, the sewage system pipes will be near capacity. Many existing lines
are currently being improved or planned for improvement. (Ibid.) The proposed General Plan
contains infrastructure policies that will provide for monitoring and maintenance of the sewage
system, as follows:
1. Ensure the City provides and maintains a sewer collection and
treatment system that adequately conveys and treats wastewater generated
by existing and planned development at a maximized cost efficiency.
(Ibid.)
2. Update the Sewer Master Plan to reflect anticipated growth and
current capacities. (Ibid.)
-25-
RVPUBN1XM\671085.1
0 0
3. Work with the County of Los Angeles to determine if the existing
sewer collection systems are adequate to meet existing and anticipated
future demand. (Ibid.)
Implementation of these policies will ensure that the sewage lines are constantly
analyzed and improved, where needed, to accommodate growth within the City. (Ibid.)
Therefore, no potential significant impacts to sewage system capacity are anticipated and no
mitigation is required.
SECTION 3
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in
the Draft EIR which will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and
the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less then significant level are as follows:
A. Transportation and Traffic — Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway
Potential Significant Impacts: Traffic conditions are described by levels of
service ("LOS") and are ranked from LOS A (best) to LOS F (worst). (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-1.)
Most roadway segments will operate at Level of Service ("LOS") D or better with buildout of the
proposed General Plan and many will operate at LOS A, B, or C. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-9.)
However, five roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E, which will exceed the
proposed General Plan standard of LOS D, which will constitute significant impacts. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.15-11.) Two of those roadway segments are Irwindale Avenue, between 151 Street and
Gladstone Street, and Arrow Highway, between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus Avenue. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-9.) The remaining three roadway segments are discussed in Section 4 of this
Resolution.
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts
to transportation and traffic along Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway to a less than
significant level:
-26-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
Transportation 1: Provide additional roadway lanes through roadway
restriping on Irwindale Avenue between 151 Street and Gladstone
Street and Arrow Highway between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus
Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Restriping Irwindale Avenue between I" Street and
Gladstone Street and Arrow Highway between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus Avenue from four to
six lanes (by restricting peak period on -street parking) would reduce both volume to capacity
("V/C") ratios to LOS B. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-14 — 4.15-15.) Such restriping (which could be
implemented on I" Street only at intersections and then ultimately throughout midblock
locations) is considered a measure of last resort by the City. Also, because of joint jurisdiction
with adjacent cities for the segments of Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway, coordination
with the Cities of Irwindale and Covina would be necessary before implementing any
improvements on those two roadways. However, through implementation of the above
mitigation measure, these two potential impacts can be fully mitigated to a less than significant
level. (Draft EIR, 4.15-16.)
SECTION 4
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation
measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. Air Quality — Criteria Pollutant Levels
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The proposed Project would have a significant
impact on air quality if it results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14.) The Los Angeles County portion of the
South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") is designated as a non -attainment area for ozone ("03"), CO
and respirable PM10. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15.) PMIo levels are expected to increase in the City of
Azusa based on the proposed General Plan growth projections and a significant impact is
anticipated. (Ibid.)
-27-
RVPUB\ MxM1671085.1
0 0
2. Finding: The following implementation programs of the proposed General Plan
will reduce potential impacts to air quality to the extent feasible:
AQ7 Provide consistent and effective code enforcement of quarrying
operations and off-road vehicle use in the City to assure that
fugitive dust emissions are minimized. (Ibid.) Actively monitor
dust control strategies and report infractions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. (proposed General Plan, Chapter 5,
Natural Environment, p. 5-59.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Azusa is within a non -attainment area for PMIo and
increased emissions associated with the proposed General Plan growth projections would
constitute a significant unavoidable adverse impact.I( bid.) The above implementation program
will help reduce potential PMIo impacts.I( bid.) However, because any decrease in the amount
of PMIo would be impossible to quantify, a significant impact would remain. (Ibid.)
B. Transportation and Traffic — Sierra Madre Boulevard; Todd Avenue; Cerritos Avenue
1. Potential Significant Impacts: As explained in Section 3 of this Resolution, most
roadway segments will operate at Level of Service ("LOS") D or better with buildout of the
proposed General Plan and many will operate at LOS A, B or C. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-9.)
However, five roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E, which will exceed the
proposed General Plan standard of LOS D. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-11.) Two of those roadway
segments can be fully mitigated to operate at LOS B. However, the remaining three roadway
segments will continue to operate at LOS E, which constitutes a significant impact. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.15-15.) The three roadway segments are: Sierra Madre Boulevard between Vernon Avenue
and San Gabriel Avenue; Todd Avenue between Sierra Madre Boulevard and Foothill
Boulevard; and Cerritos Avenue between 5h Street and I" Street. (Ibid.)
-28-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
2. Finding. The Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan was developed to
provide a comprehensive range of transportation facilities to address future travel needs in the
City and includes roadways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR, 4.15-14.) In
addition, the Mobility Element has been designed to be self -mitigating by providing sufficient
transportation capacity for the land uses in the proposed General Plan. Furthermore, the
evaluation of future conditions has demonstrated that the roadway system will provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate projected travel volumes. (Ibid.) In light of these features of the
Mobility Element, the potential mitigation measures for the above described impacts include
higher uses of transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking, and providing additional roadway
lanes through roadway restriping and/or widening. Since it is possible that the use of transit and
bicycling and of walking in the mixed use districts is greater than the levels assumed in the
conservatively low forecasts, the proposed General Plan standards might not be exceeded at
buildout.
In considering potential mitigation measures for the three roadway segments discussed
here, it is important to consider the goals and policies of the Mobility Element of the
proposed General Plan. (Ibid.) In many cases roadway restriping and widening are just not
feasible given existing land uses. They are also not the City's preferred options, because
they conflict with the goals and policies of the Mobility Element to provide effective
alternative options to the car and to avoid a car -dominated environment that degrades the
quality of life. (Ibid.) The Mobility Element therefore resists roadway widening or
additional lane striping wherever possible, unless it is appropriate for a particular location
and/or circumstance. (Ibid)
The City of Azusa will therefore monitor traffic conditions on the three roadway
segments discussed here, and will implement alternative measures to reduce the increases in
traffic volumes such as transit service improvements (better service frequencies and route
coverage), transportation demand management, and encouragement of bicycling and walking, to
mitigate these impacts. Ibid.) Some of these measures, particularly transit improvements, may
need to be implemented in conjunction with other agencies. (Ibid.) Because the exact programs
are unknown at this time the effects of these measures cannot be quantified. (Ibid.)
Possible mitigation measures for each of the three roadway segments were
identified in the Draft EIR as follows:
-29-
RVPUB\MXM16710R5.1
For Sierra Madre Boulevard between Vernon Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue,
restriping from two lanes to four lanes, which would reduce the volume to capacity ("V/C") ratio
to LOS A. (Draft FIR, p. 4.15-15.)
For Todd Avenue between Sierra Madre Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard,
traffic conditions could be improved by prohibiting on -street parking and striping a central left -
turn lane. (Ibid.) In addition, two measures might reduce future volumes on Todd Avenue: (1)
future growth could also be developed to maximize access to the new street River Parkway to the
west; and (2) directional signage could also be provided to encourage trips in this part of the
City to take River Parkway rather than Todd Avenue. (Ibid.)
For Cerritos Avenue between 5a' Street and 151 Street, proposed mitigation would
be to implement a Traffic Calming Program (as identified in the Mobility Element).Imo.)
3. Supporting_ Explanation. The Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan sets
forth performance standards to maintain a Level of Service D on roadway segments and at
signalized intersections generally throughout the City. (Draft FIR, p. 4.15-4.) In addition, a
number of policies in the proposed General Plan encourage mixed-use districts in certain
locations and encourage the use of transit, which will tend to reduce vehicle -trip making. (Draft
FIR, p. 4.15-5.) Moreover, a number of new streets are planned in the Mobility Element in order
to complete missing links in the City's street system and fully develop the street system to allow
access to all areas of the City. (Draft FIR, p. 4.15-7.) The new streets will provide circulation
not only for autos but also for transit, bicycles and walking. (Ibid.) These beneficial policies
along with the City's efforts to implement alternative measures to reduce increases in traffic
volumes may mitigate some of the impacts regarding the three roadway segments discussed here.
Restriping Sierra Madre Boulevard between Vernon Avenue and San Gabriel
Avenue from two lanes to four lanes would reduce the volume to capacity ("V/C") ratio to LOS
A. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15.) However, restriping is not considered an appropriate mitigation
measure for this street due to the residential area through which it passes and the substantial
amount of surplus roadway capacity that would be created, which would conflict with many
other goals of the Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, even with
restriping as mitigation, this significant impact could remain. (Ibid.)
For Todd Avenue between Sierra Madre Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard,
insufficient right-of-way exists to restripe or widen to add through lanes and it is not considered
feasible to acquire additional right-of-way along this entire roadway segment. (Ibid.) However,
-30-
RVPUBWXbM71085.1
0 0
traffic conditions could be improved by prohibiting on -street parking and striping a central left -
turn lane. In addition, two measures might reduce future volumes on Todd Avenue: (1) future
growth could also be developed to maximize access to the new street River Parkway to the west;
and (2) directional signage could also be provided to encourage trips in this part of the City to
take River Parkway rather than Todd Avenue. (Ibid.) All these measures would improve traffic
conditions on Todd Avenue. However, they might not reduce the Level of Service to LOS D, so
it is possible that this significant impact could remain.
For Cerritos Avenue between 5h Street and 1" Street, it is also infeasible to
restripe or widen the roadway to provide additional travel lanes. Furthermore, such actions are
not considered desirable because of the residential land uses adjacent to this street segment.
(Ibid.) The proposed mitigation measure for this location is to implement a Traffic Calming
Program (as identified in the Mobility Element). While this proposed mitigation measure should
reduce this impact, the results cannot be precisely predicted. Therefore, it is possible that this
significant impact might remain. (Ibid.)
Although various mitigation measures may be implemented, as described above,
the results of these measures cannot be precisely predicted, so the impacts cannot be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
C. Utilities and Service Systems — Solid Waste
Potential Significant Impacts. Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional
concern. (Draft FIR, p. 4.16-3.) Growth within the City of Azusa would increase solid waste
sources and solid waste disposal at landfills. (Ibid.)
2. Finding. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts
to solid waste to the extent feasible:
Solid Waste 1 The City shall evaluate the solid waste impacts of
development on a project -by -project basis. For large-scale
developments within Azusa, the City shall require the
incorporation of an on-site recycling and conservation program,
including waste management techniques, aggressive use of
recycled materials and furnishings, or other recycling/conservation
measures. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-6.)
-31-
R VPUB\MX W671085.1
11
0
3. Supporting Explanation. Many programs are in place at local and Countywide levels to
reduce waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites).
(Draft EIR, p. 4.16-3.) The City's recycling program helped to divert 57 percent of solid waste
from landfills in 2001. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-2.) Assuming the diversion rate of 57 percent is
maintained, approximately 43,400 tons of solid waste per year (834 tons per week) would be
taken to landfills by buildout of the proposed General Plan in 2025. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-3.) This
represents an increase of 166 tons of solid waste per week for the City. The Puente Landfill can
receive up to 72,000 tons of solid waste per week. An increase of 166 tons would be less than
one percent of the capacity of the landfill. The Puente Landfill has enough capacity to
accommodate the increase. (Ibid.) However, the Puente and Olinda Alpha Landfills are
expected to close in 2013. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-5.) After the closures of the two landfills, waste
must be taken to alternative sites.
The proposed General Plan contains Infrastructure Policy 5.3 which will monitor
and maintain or improve the City's existing solid waste diversion rate:
Policy 5.3 Monitor reduction and recycling programs to ensure proper
implementation and achievement of mandated solid waste
reduction and diversion goals. Revise and replace programs that
do not achieve their intended purpose. (Ibid.)
Implementation of this policy and the above mitigation measure will reduce the
amount of solid waste disposed of at landfills. (Ibid.) However, technologies are not currently
available to completely recycle, destroy or reuse all solid waste. Continued disposal of solid
waste at landfills will contribute to the eventual close of the landfills. (Ibid.) No feasible
mitigation measures exist that would completely eliminate the disposal of solid waste at regional
landfills. Since the City is unable to completely eliminate disposal at landfills and future landfill
sites are uncertain, long-term unavoidable significant adverse impacts may result. (Draft EIR, p.
4.16-6.)
SECTION 5
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, compound or increase the environmental impact of a proposed project.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the cumulative impacts
-32-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
of a project "when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable," e.g., when "the
incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects." (Ibid.) Due to the nature of the proposed Project being a long-term citywide planning
tool, the Draft EIR considered the likely effects of the maximum development potential of the
proposed General Plan over an approximate 20 year timeframe. (Ibid.) Therefore, the analysis
in the Draft EIR is inherently cumulative in nature and considered the cumulative effects of
adopting the proposed General Plan and Development Code. (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR further broadens the scope of analysis in determining long-term
cumulative effects through including an additional annual growth rate of 0.5 percent in the
traffic analysis (which is also used as the basis for the air quality and noise analyses). (Ibid.)
Over a period of 20 years, this analysis is roughly equivalent to growth projections for the San
Gabriel Valley region as provided by the Southern California Association of Governments
("SCAG"). Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR not only accounts for Citywide growth in
Azusa over 20 years, but also for neighboring growth in the communities of Glendora, Duarte,
Irwindale, and Covina. (Ibid.)
SECTION 6
RESOLUTION REGARDING
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Irreversible environmental changes are not anticipated for the proposed Project or
any of the Project alternatives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2.) The proposed General Plan promotes and
requires protection of the significant environmental resources within the City, including
biological resources, cultural resources and mineral resources. (Ibid.)
SECTION 7
RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to address the ways in which the
proposed Project could be growth -inducing. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA
Guidelines states that an EIR must describe the "ways in which the proposed Project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surround environment." (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) The proposed General Plan and
-33-
R VPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Development Code inherently represent carefully -planned growth within the area, calling for the
provision of new housing, industrial, and commercial uses, along with enhancements to and
protection of the natural environment. (Draft FIR, p. 5-2.) The proposed Project would likely
result in increased demand for governmental services and infrastructure, while providing
localized job growth. With substantial increases in population and housing, the proposed Project
should thus foster economic growth within its locality and the region. (Ibid.)
SECTION 8
t TOX1111 9 Ma Oki 0011 "11 Oct" -us M"41M U11 V1
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a
project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages
over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological
factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could
feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives. In all cases the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason.
The lead agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative identified in
the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and:
(1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be
reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social economic, technological or other
considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an FIR must present a statement of
objectives sought by the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-1.) For the proposed Project, no
individual development projects are being evaluated. Rather, the proposed General Plan itself
can be thought of as a comprehensive set of objectives for development of the City over the next
20 to 25 years. (Ibid.) In the broadest sense, the objectives of the proposed Project are broken
down as follows:
NATURE: Protect the City's unique environment by restoring the River, canyon
and foothill areas and pursue a greener and more sustainable relationship with nature throughout
Azusa. (Ibid.)
NEIGHBORHOODS: Preserve the City's small town atmosphere with a
community fabric of healthy and welcoming neighborhoods. (Ibid.)
-34-
RVPUBWXM\671085.1
0
COMMERCE: Support economic vitality by creating and supporting mixed-use
districts for workplaces and stores to flourish. (Ibid.)
LEARNING: Provide citizens of all ages with opportunities to advance through
education. (Ibid.)
FAMILIES: Sustain human connections with active support for the environments
and institutions that strengthen family life. (Ibid.)
MOBILITY: Put people first by calming traffic, improving connections and
encouraging walking, biking, and public transit. (Ibid.)
HISTORY: Respect the legacy left the City through the six thousand years that
people have called Azusa home. (Ibid.)
PARTICIPATION: Continue to actively engage the citizens of Azusa to plan the
future of their community. (Draft EIR, p. 3-2.)
More detailed objectives of the proposed Project are reflected in the hundreds of
goals, policies and programs of the proposed General Plan.
A. Alternative 1 -"No Proiect" Alternative (Existing 1983 General Plan)
1. Description: The No Project Alternative is required by Section 15126.6
(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines and assumes that the proposed General Plan and
Development Code would not be adopted or implemented. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1.) The No Project
Alternative does not mean that future development or change within the City would not occur.
(Ibid.) Under this alternative, existing 1983 General Plan would remain in place and resulting
development would occur consistent with that land use plan. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) The following
project -related impacts would occur under the No Project Alternative:
Aesthetics and Visual Quality: The No Project Alternative will likely result in
greater amounts of commercial and industrial development. A reasonable assumption will be
that larger and/or taller buildings would be needed to accommodate this growth. A greater
density of buildings or taller heights would potentially affect scenic vistas or view corridors of
the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.)
-35-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Agricultural Resources: No farmland or other agricultural resources exist within
the City. Thus, no impacts to these resources will occur under the No Project Alternative. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-4.)
Air Quality: This alternative will generate more commercial and industrial
growth than the proposed Project. Pollutant emissions will increase with the No Project
Alternative as a result of the greater amount of commercial and industrial development. (Ibid.)
Biological Resources: The significantly higher amounts of commercial and
industrial growth resulting from the No Project Alternative occurring without up-to-date policies
to guide the development potentially threaten the City's biological resources as the demand for
space and new roads would increase. (Ibid.1 Additionally, policies in the proposed General Plan
calling for the rejuvenation and enhancement of biological resources such as the San Gabriel
River or certain foothill canyon areas will not be in place under this alternative. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources: Higher levels of commercial and industrial growth will
place a greater demand to redevelop buildings or areas competing with cultural or historic value
of a place as the need for space develops. (Ibid.) The No Project Alternative lacks the policies
in the proposed General Plan calling for an integrated preservation effort of cultural and historic
resources and promoting their meaning in the City. (Ibid.)
Geology and Seismicity: More built space will require greater regulation and
monitoring of the potential geologic and seismic hazards that do exist in the City. (Draft EIR, p.
6-5.) While the No Project Alternative generates more commercial and industrial growth, it does
not provide the policies, programs and mitigation measure for the safety of people and property
found in the proposed General Plan. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Waste: The No Project Alternative lacks the policies
and implementing programs of the proposed General Plan for monitoring and limiting hazardous
materials in the City. (Ibid.) In addition, this alternative's greater emphasis on commercial and
industrial development will create more potential for hazardous materials to be present. (Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality: The No Project Alternative will not provide
updated information about the hydrology and water quality of Azusa in a current timeframe.
(Ibid.) In addition, this alternative lacks the policies in the proposed General Plan calling for
flood safety measures and protection of the San Gabriel River watershed. (Ibid.)
-36-
RVNUBU4XM1671055.1
0 0
Land Use and Planning: The No Project Alternative will generate greater
commercial and industrial development without up-to-date policies to guide the associated
growth such as the increase in traffic, the expansion of roadways, and a rising demand for
housing or public services. (Ibid.) Because the policies of the existing General Plan would not
be revised, the current and near future land use needs of the City will not be addressed under this
alternative. (Ibid.)
Mineral Resources: The increase in the amount of commercial and industrial
development under the No Project Alternative will not reduce the availability of a known mineral
resource. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) There is the potential for mining operations to expand under this
alternative, and the No Project Alternative lacks the beneficial effects of mine reclamation and
reuse encouraged in the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Noise: More commercial and industrial development would likely result in
increased operational noise through greater traffic volumes, a primary noise source. Heavier
industry could also be a potential noise source. (Ibid.)
Population and Housing: The California Department of Finance reports that
there are on average 3.44 people per dwelling unit in Azusa. Under this alternative, an additional
12,900 residents will be generated in Azusa. This is more than the proposed Project and is
anticipate to have more impacts. (Ibid.)
Public Services: The No Project Alternative will generate -350 more new
residential units than the proposed Project. This level of growth in the City's population would
increase the demand placed on public services. (Ibid.)
Recreation: The No Project Alternative will generate 350 more new residential
units than the proposed Project. This level of growth in population would increase the demand
placed on the City's recreational facilities. (Ibid.)
Transportation and Traffic: The No Project Alternative allows for more than
double the commercial and industrial growth. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) Consequently, this alternative
would generate more trips, traffic congestion, and air pollution than the proposed General Plan.
Given the constraints of the proposed General Plan's Mobility Element and the impacts already
resulting from the proposed General Plan, it is unlikely that impacts could be mitigated to a less -
than -significant level. (Ibid.)
-37-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Utilities and Service Systems: The greater commercial and industrial growth
generated by the No Project Alternative will place an intensified demand on utilities service
providers. (Ibid.) Commercial and industrial uses create greater water and energy demands than
residential uses and also produce more wastewater. This alternative lacks the proposed General
Plan policies to direct the growth of service providers. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative is
environmentally inferior to the proposed Project because it would result in increased potential
significant impacts to air quality; biological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; noise
and transportation and traffic; public services, recreation, and population and housing and, as a
result of these increases, it is infeasible because it fails to meet most of the basic Project
objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation: The No Project Alternative would result in
increased air pollutant emissions as a result of the greater amount of commercial and industrial
development in this alternative, compared with the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) In
addition, this alternative includes significantly higher amounts of commercial and industrial
growth that potentially threaten the City's biological resources. (Ibid.) Also, the No Project
Alternative's greater emphasis on commercial and industrial development will create more
potential for hazardous materials to be present. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) Under this alternative, more
commercial and industrial development will likely result in increased operational noise due to
greater traffic volumes, a primary noise source. In addition, heavier industry could be a potential
noise source. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) Moreover, the No Project Alternative will generate more
vehicle trips, traffic congestion and air pollution than the proposed General Plan. It is unlikely
that these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.)
Furthermore, the No Project Alternatives increased commercial and industrial
development along with its increased potential significant impacts prevent this alternative from
meeting the Project objectives regarding additional open space, affordable housing and
preservation of cultural resources. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that the No
Project Alternative is infeasible because it is environmentally inferior to the proposed Project
and fails to meet most of the basic Project objectives. On this basis, the City Council rejects the
No Project Alternative.
-38-
R VPUB\MXMM 1085.1
0 0
B. Alternative 2 — Reduced Growth Alternative
Description: Alternative 2 is a reduced growth alternative that maintains the
vision, goals, and policies of the proposed General Plan and Development Code. albeit at a
smaller scale. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) Alternative 2 contemplates a reduced plan which could add
approximately 2,000 housing units, 2.5 million square -feet of industrial uses, and 100,000
square -feet of commercial uses. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics and Visual Quality: No impact to aesthetics and visual quality would
be expected under Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.)
Agricultural Resources: No impacts to agricultural resources would occur under
Alternative 2. (Ibid.)
Air Quality: Alternative 2 would generate less residential, commercial, and
industrial growth than the proposed Project or the No Project Alternative and therefore, pollutant
emissions would be expected to be less with this alternative. (Ibid.)
Biological Resources: No impact to biological resources would occur under
Alternative 2. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources: No impact to cultural resources would take place under
Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Geology and Seismicity: The policies of the proposed General Plan provide
implementation programs and mitigation measures to address the existing geologic and seismic
issues and related potential hazards. Under Alternative 2, these policies would be in place while
less growth occurs. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Waste: Under the proposed General Plan, policies call
for hazardous material monitoring and seek to limit further development of business that would
require or produce hazardous materials. (Ibid.) Alternative 2 would present the most limited
opportunity for the presence of hazardous materials in the City. (Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality: The proposed General Plan addresses drainage,
flood, and water quality issues in the context of Azusa's current level of growth and rate of
development. It provides policies, programs and mitigation measures to protect the watershed of
the San Gabriel River and mediate potential flood hazards. With a reduced level of growth,
-39-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0 0
Alternative 2 would generate a smaller need for land and space, reducing the pressure to further
develop watershed areas. (Ibid.)
Land Use and Planning: Alternative 2 provides revised land use policies to
address current needs of the City and residents and to focus the direction of Azusa's growth. The
proposed General Plan calls for specific urban design and landscaping features and for the
enhancement of the City's natural assets such as the San Gabriel River and access to the San
Gabriel Mountains. Implementing programs accompany these policies to ensure that the
planning process facilitates their realization. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-5 — 6-6.)
Mineral Resources: No impacts to Mineral Resources would result under
Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.)
Noise: Less operational noise would be associated with this alternative. Less
commercial and industrial development would generate fewer daily vehicular trips and reduce
the potential for industrial noise sources. (Ibid.)
Population and Housing: Using statistics from the California Department of
Finance, this alternative will generate 6,880 residents. This is less than the proposed General
Plan and is not anticipated to have any significant impacts. (Ibid.)
Public Services: This alternative would generate 1,400 fewer new residential
units than the proposed Project, thus reducing the demand that would be placed on the City's
public services. ([bid.)
Recreation: Alternative 2 would generate 1,400 fewer new residential units than
the proposed Project, reducing the demand that would be placed upon recreational facilities in
the City. (Ibid.)
Transportation and Traffic: This alternative will generate fewer vehicle trips
than the proposed Project. Alternative 2 assumes implementation of mitigation measures to
reduce any street segment impacts through road widening and street lane restriping to
accommodate increased traffic volumes. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) These measures were not
recommended for the proposed Project because they would directly conflict with the objectives
of the General Plan, namely to maintain the current street network geometry. Ibid.) Due to this
fact, the proposed Project results in significant unavoidable impacts at three street segments. By
mitigating those street segments, Alternative 2 would eliminate this impact of the proposed
Project, but would compromise some of the objectives of the Project as well. (Ibid.)
-40-
RVPUB\MXM1671085.1
0
Utilities and Service Systems: Alternative 2 would place less demand on
utilities and service providers. (Ibid.)
2. Findin¢: The City Council finds that although Alternative 2 (Reduced Growth
Alternative) is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it is infeasible because it fails to
meet most of the basic Project objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation: Alternative 2 is a reduced growth alternative that maintains the
vision, goals and policies of the proposed General Plan and Development Code, although on a
smaller scale. (Draft EIR, p. 3-5.) As mentioned above, the Project objectives are reflected in
the hundreds of goals, policies and programs of the proposed General Plan. Therefore, it is
beneficial to compare the actual goals and policies to the provisions of Alternative 2. Under this
alternative, implementing the proposed General Plan policies on a reduced scale also means the
benefits provided by those policies will be reduced.
More specifically, implementation of Alternative 2 will mean a reduction in
meeting some of the City's current needs and the proposed General Plan policies. For example,
due to a regional housing shortage, a total of 20 percent of households in Azusa are
overcrowded. This indicates the need for more affordable housing. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-1.) In
comparison with 3,400 housing units under the proposed Project, the reduced number of 2,000
dwelling units proposed by Alternative 2 will not fully satisfy the City's housing needs. In
addition, reduced development under Alternative 2 will not achieve the policy of the proposed
General Plan to ensure a range of housing opportunities for Azusa residents of all ages, incomes,
and family structures. (proposed General Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-6.) In addition, Alternative 2 will
not achieve the proposed General Plan policy to offer a broad mix of housing choices to support
a diverse resident workforce. (proposed General Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-5.)
In addition to reduced housing, Alternative 2 also provides reduced commercial
and industrial growth. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) The limited commercial and industrial component of
Alternative 2 will provide a reduced number of new employment opportunities when compared
with the proposed Project. Moreover, the reduction in commercial and industrial growth under
Alternative 2 will not achieve the following goals of the proposed General Plan and their related
policies and implementation programs:
Goal 1: To build and maintain a strong diverse economy in Azusa and its related
policies. (proposed General Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-5.)
-41-
RVPUBIMXM\671085.1
0
0
Goal 2: Maintain and increase the sectoral diversity of Azusa's economy and
Azusa's ability to support a diverse set of uses that evolves over time.
(Ibid.)
Goal 3: Ensure the occupational diversity of Azusa's job base. (Ibid.)
Goal 4: Create a high quality employment environment for Azusa residents.
(proposed General Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-6.)
Goal 10: Strengthen the retail and commercial base. (Ibid.)
In addition to the above described inadequacies in achieving the goals and
policies of the proposed Project, Alternative 2 also provides impacts similar to the proposed
Project related to air quality, transportation and traffic and solid waste disposal, albeit on a
smaller scale. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-4, 6-7.) Nevertheless, these impacts will exist under Alternative
2 and it is unlikely they can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Specifically, a
significant impact to air quality will occur due to increased PMIo levels based on General Plan
growth projections. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15.) Although growth under Alternative 2 would be
reduced, that growth will still contribute to increased PMIo levels. Because the City of Azusa is
in a non -attainment area for PMIo, any cumulatively considerable net increase will result in a
significant unavoidable adverse impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14-4.3-15.)
Regarding impacts to traffic and transportation, Alternative 2 assumes
implementation of mitigation measures to reduce street segment impacts to less than significant
levels. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) The available mitigation measures include road widening and street
lane restriping to accommodate increased traffic volumes. (Ibid.) However, these measures
were not recommended for the proposed Project because they would conflict with the objectives
of the proposed General Plan, namely to maintain the current street network geometry. (Ibid.)
Due to this fact, the proposed Project results in significant unavoidable impacts at three street
segments (although two of those segments can be partially mitigated through traffic calming
features and removal of on -street parking). (Ibid.) By mitigating those street segments as well,
Alternative 2 would eliminate this impact, but would also compromise some of the objectives of
the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Regarding impacts to solid waste disposal, Alternative 2 will generate less
commercial and industrial development and fewer residential units than the proposed Project,
thereby placing less demand on solid waste disposal services. (Ibid.) However, any growth
within the City of Azusa will have a significant impact to regional landfill capacity. (Draft EIR,
-42-
RVPUB\MXM\673085.1
0 0
p. 4.16-5.) No feasible mitigation measures exist that will completely eliminate the disposal of
solid waste at regional landfills. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-6.) Therefore, Alternative 2 will have a
significant unavoidable impact regarding solid waste disposal similar to the proposed Project.
The above similarities regarding significant impacts indicate that Alternative 2
would not provide a substantial benefit over the proposed Project. In addition, this failure to
improve upon the proposed Project is amplified by Alternative 2's inability to achieve Project
objectives, as explained above. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that
Alternative 2, although environmentally superior, fails to meet Project objectives and is therefore
infeasible. On this basis, the City Council rejects Alternative 2.
SECTION 9
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the
Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be
considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than
significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 4 of this
Resolution.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith
effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set
forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives
-43-
RVPUB\MXM1671085.1
0 0
and/or specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any
environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed
the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City
Council has determined that the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the
Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse
environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
1. The organization of the proposed General Plan is designed to be more
user-friendly and logical than typical government documents. (proposed General Plan, Chapter
2, p. 2-8.) This improved organization of the proposed Project provides the benefit of
streamlining the seven State -mandated elements, along with the optional elements, into three key
themes: (1) The Built Environment; (2) Economy and Community; and (3) Natural Environment.
(proposed General Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-8.) This organization combines uses that can and should
co -exist together in a healthy community. (proposed General Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-5.)
2. The proposed Project provides numerous beneficial policies not found in
the existing General Plan, including policies for rejuvenating and enhancing biological resources;
policies for integrating preservation efforts of cultural and historic resources and promoting their
meaning in the City; policies promoting the safety of people and property regarding seismic
hazards, hazardous materials, and flood hazards; and policies promoting the beneficial effects of
mine reclamation and mine reuse. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-4 — 6-6.)
3. Under the proposed Project, the future anticipated total of parkland is
577.3 acres. This amount will exceed the City of Azusa Master Plan of Local Parks' suggested
total by 371.69 acres. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-3.)
4. Under the proposed Project, the City will share with the public on the
City's website, to the extent possible, its compilation of geologic and soils information related to
identifying active or potentially active earthquake faults, groundwater levels, susceptibility to
landslides and liquefaction and other data in summary form. (Draft ETR, p. 4.6-12.)
5. Under the proposed Project, the mixed-use style of development, where
businesses, stores, and public services are accessible to residents living right in the same area,
-44-
RVPU[3\MXM\671085.1
will allow for a more pedestrian and bicycle -oriented environment, keeping the neighborhood
and predominantly residential feel of Azusa. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-4.)
6. Emergency response planning and implementation will improve under the
proposed General Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 2-5.)
7. Under the proposed Project, the City will, where possible, restore habitats
within nature preserves for rare, threatened and/or endangered species that are believed to have
gone extinct within the City and/or Sphere of Influence. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
8. Through the proposed Project, the riparian habitat of the San Gabriel River
will be enhanced and maintained for its ecologic, natural aesthetic, cultural and recreational
value. (Ibid.)
9. Under the proposed Project, a new street, River Parkway, will provide
access to the river area and improve overall circulation in the northwest part of the City. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-7.)
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the
public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project, which cannot be mitigated. The City Council
finds that each of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects
identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 10
The City Council also finds that the General Plan and EIR are consistent with the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (California Public Resources Code, Section
2715 et seq. — "SMARA") and advance state mining policies. Specifically, the policies
contained in the "Natural Environment" Element of the Azusa General Plan, identified as the
City's "Mineral Resource Management Policies" comply with SMARA for the following
reasons:
a. The policies recognize the mineral information provided by the state (See
General Plan Figure MR -1);
-45-
RVPUBWXW671085.1
0 0
b. The policies assist in the management of land uses which are incompatible
with the development of minerals in areas designated as having state or regional significance.
(See Mineral Resource Policy MR3, See also Table CD -2 , Land Use Goal No. 8 and Policies 8.1
to 8.12) The General Plan designates a majority of the available areas of regional significance in
the "Open Space" land use designation which prohibits all but passive open space uses. Thus,
there will be no uses permitted that are incompatible with mining operations. Further, the
proposed Development Code will contain an "Open Space" zoning designation that will be
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation.
C. The policies emphasize the conservation and development of identified mineral
deposits (See Mineral Resource Figure MR -1 & MR -2; Mineral Resource Policies 1.2 & 1.3
which permit continued mining; See also Land Use Goal No. 8 and Policies 8.1 to 8.12.)
Thus, in accordance with Public Resources Code, Section 2764, the City Council
finds that the future land uses and particular access routes identified in the General Plan are
compatible with the continuation of surface mining operations because the General Plan contains
policies that recognize areas of regional significance and permit mining to continue within
mining operations that have a vested right to mine in the City of Azusa. Moreover, the General
Plan policies prohibit the development of uses that would be incompatible with such mining
operations. The General Plan policies also prohibit development of uses that would be
incompatible with mining operations in non -vested areas that have regional significance should
these areas ever be considered for mining. In the interim, however, the unavailability of these
areas for mining will not have a significant impact given the availability of aggregate in other
mining sectors in the region ( See "Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends Document, pp. 4-
79 to 4-95.)
-46-
RVPUBWXM1671085.1
SECTION 11
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE EIR
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
evaluating the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines
and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no new significant impacts as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft
EIR which would require recirculation.
The City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the following findings and
conclusions:
A. Findings. The following significant environmental impacts have been
identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but
cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: Air Quality — Criteria Pollutant Levels;
Transportation and Traffic — Sierra Madre Boulevard, Todd Avenue; Cerritos Avenue; and
Utilities and Services Systems — Solid Waste.
B. Conclusions.
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of
the proposed Project have been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the
impacts listed in Section A above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project which could
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project have been considered and rejected
in favor of the proposed Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any
alternatives to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated
into the proposed Project.
-47-
RVPUBWXM1671085.1
0 0
SECTION 12
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached the General Plan EIR as Exhibit A to this
Resolution. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth
herein and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall control.
SECTION 13
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these Findings have been based are located at the City of Azusa, 213 East Foothill Boulevard,
Azusa, California. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Director.
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 14
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within
five (5) working days of final Project approval.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 19th day of April, 2004.
Cristina Cruz Madrid, Mayor
-48-
RVPUB\MXM\671085.1
0
Approved as to form:
-�-
Sonia R. arvalho, Cit Attorne
0
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19 day of April 2004, by
the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, CHAGNON,
MADRID
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
OeraMendoza, City Clerk
-49-
R VPUBNMX W671085.1