Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 00-C0030 • RESOLUTION NO. 00-C3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE MOUNTAIN COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Proposed Project and related actions ["the Proposed Project" approvals consisting of (1) General Plan Amendment No. GPA 99-03; (2) Zone Change No. Z-99-05; (3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52824; (4) Precise Plan of Design No. P-3-99-9; and (5) Prezone and Annexation of 77 -acre portion of project site currently within unincorporated Los Angeles County], initiated by the Applicant, propose development of 331 single-family homes on an approximately 258 -acre site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), the City is lead agency for the Proposed Project as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR') was issued June 2, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation and oral statements were received at a public scoping meeting advertised in the Azusa Herald on July 8, 1999 and held on July 12, 1999. Both written and oral statements assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project implementation; and WHEREAS, all requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City for the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been evaluated properly, including alternatives and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the EIR 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, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated October 1999, the City initiated a 45 -day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability which contained a notice of public hearing of this matter before the Planning Commission with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Los Angeles County Clerk, published the same Notice of Completion and Availability in the October 8, 1999 San Gabriel Valley Tribune, mailed the same Notice of Completion and Availability to residents within 300 feet of the project site and concerned citizens as evidenced by the affidavit of mailing on file in this matter, and posted the same Notice of Completion and Availability on October 7, 1999, in the City Clerk's Office, the City Library, the Azusa Police Department lobby, and the West Wing of City Hall as evidenced in the declaration of posting on file in this matter; and i WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were sent to 62 public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in the public library and at the Planning Division counter at City Hall for public review. Personal copies of the EIR were distributed to those who asked for them, and 13 members of the public did so; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 0 • 20 written comments, all of which were responded to in writing by the City. Those comments and the corresponding responses are included as part of the Final EIR ("Final EIR" includes Volume I: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume Il• Technical Appendix, Volume III: Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Statements of Overriding Consideration); and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City held a hearing at the November 10, 1999 Planning Commission meeting to receive oral public comments on the DEIR. A Notice of Hearing on the DEIR was sent to residents within 300 feet of the project site, concerned citizens, and public agencies as evidenced by the affidavit of mailing on file in this matter. Charter Communications ran a summary of the notice on its electronic board from October 27, 1999, through November 11, 1999; and WHEREAS, after close of the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 5 additional written comments, all of which were responded to by the City, despite not being legally required to respond to late comments. Those comments and the corresponding responses are included as part of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, after completion of the Final EIR, the City received additional written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the corresponding responses were forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the City held two duly noticed joint City of Azusa City Council ("City Council') and City of Azusa Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") study sessions to frame the issues around the Project and provide detailed information about concerns, issues, and questions raised about the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, providing an opportunity for additional public comment on the Project and Final EIR on December 15, 1999; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 1999 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 99-54 through 58, recommending that the City Council adopt the Project and related actions, and certify the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors 10 days prior to any action being taken by the City with regard to the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 1999, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project, providing an additional opportunity for public input on the Project and Final EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which and EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the EIR; or 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding 0 • Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section 4.0; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the EIR and set forth herein are described in Exhibit A, Section 5.0; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section 7.0; and WHEREAS, a discussion of the Project benefits identified by the city Council and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A, Section 6.0; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures more particularly described in Exhibit B of this Resolution; 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 Final EIR, the Fiscal Impact Analysis, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur and no feasible project mitigation measures as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AZUSA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council of the City of Azusa, in regular session assembled on January 18, 2000, hereby finds, that based on all the evidence presented, including the EIR, Fiscal Impact Analysis, 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 potentially significant unless otherwise indicated and each of these impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures; SECTION 2: Environmental Impacts Considered Less Than Significant. The City Council hereby finds that the potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures for the reasons described in Exhibit A, Section 4.0. SECTION 3: Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures outlined in the EIR have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts and the mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant level are described in Exhibit A, Section 5.0. 0 • SECTION 4: Significant Environmental Imuacts Not Fullv Mitieated to a Less Than Sienificant Level. The City Council hereby finds that despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included as Exhibit A, Section 6.0. SECTION 5: Alternatives. The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described in Exhibit A, Section 7.0. 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 of the project proposal, and (2) may be feasiblely 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 feasiblely 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 the project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological, or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. The EIR identified the City's and the Applicant's objectives for the Project as described in Exhibit A, Section 2.1. SECTION 6: Proiect Benefits and Statement of Overridine Considerations. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must balance 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 finds that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that will 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 less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Exhibit A, Section 6.0. The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Specific Plan. The City Council finds 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 Specific Plan, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or economic, social, and other benefits that this Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives, or have greater environmental impacts. The City Council 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 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 overriding considerations detailed in Exhibit A, Section 9.0. The City Council finds that the benefits described in Exhibit A, Section 9.0 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 further finds that each of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed in Exhibit A, Section 9.0 , standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the EIR in evaluating the Project, that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and the EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that requires recirculation. The City Council 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 Exhibit B of the is Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality and visual resources (landform alteration) impacts. B. Conclusions All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section A above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasiblely achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. SECTION 7: Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. SECTION 8: Location of Records. 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 91702. The custodian for these records is the Azusa Community Development Director, Roy Bruckner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. SECTION 9: Effective Date. The Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE i 0 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. C 3 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on January 18, 2000, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE% COUNCILMEMBERS: MADRID COUNCILMEMBERS APPROVED AS TO FORM ty Attorney ` NONE NONE Exhibit A - Findings of Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Final Environmental Impact Report, Mountain Cove Residential Development Project SCH No. 99061054, December 1999. Exhibit B - Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program, December 1999. • d0 -e l3 Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 1 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 1-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and when acceptable to the City, the City shall accept an emergency response plan for the notification of those properties located within the dam inundation area as defined herein or as subsequently redefined by the Applicant based Community Prior [o Issuance Prior on a site-specific analysis. Should the proposed improvement result in the elimination of that hazard Development Occupancy area from the project site, as evidence by a site-specific analysis deemed acceptable by the City, no Director Permits emergency response plan would be required. 1-2 For all properties located with the dam inundation zone, the Applicant shall provide notification to all prospective purchasers of the presence of that hazard and shall provide copies of the approved emergency response plan to each such purchaser either prior to or concurrent with the escrow process. Should the proposed improvement result in the elimination of that hazard area from the project site, as Community Prior to Issuance evidence by a site-specific analysis deemed acceptable by the City, no notification obligations would Development of Occupancy be imposed by the City. This mitigation measure does not, however, alleviate the Applicant or any Director Permits subsequent holders of real property interests or any agents representing those parties from any notification obligations imposed thereupon by the California Department of Real Estate. 2-1 All construction activities proposed on the project site shall be conducted in accordance with the minimum conclusions and recommendations contained in the "Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Tentative Tract 52824, City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, California" (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Prior to Issuance July 7, 1999), any additional further project -specific geotechnical investigation that may be required by City Engineer of Grading the City to address specific design features (e.g., bridge crossings) associated with the project, and all Permits applicable code requirements. All such conclusions, recommendations, and requirements thereof shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 3-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any on-site disturbance other than the installation of temporary electrical facilities and/or drainage control devices, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and, when acceptable, approve a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Prior to Issuance prepared in accordance with current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit City Engineer of Grading requirements. The SWPPP shall identify the location of sediment control devices and indicate Permits measures to control the pollution of runoff due to construction activities. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Professional. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 1 • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 2 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for' Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 3-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any on-site disturbance other than temporary drainage control devices, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and, when acceptable, approve an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which may constitute a component of the SWPPP or constitute an independent document thereto. The ESCP shall address both construction -term and prior to Issuance operational effects on downstream environments and watersheds. The ESCP shall also address all City Engineer of Grading relevant NPDES requirements and recommendations for the use of best management practices and shall permits ensure compliance with the water quality objectives established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. 3-3 Temporary erosion control measures shall be used during construction to minimize water quality impacts. Specific measures shall be identified in the project -specific ESCP and shall include the consideration of the following control measures during construction: (1) minimize the removal of existing vegetation; (2) provide temporary soil cover (e.g., hydroseeding, mulch/binder, erosion control City Engineer Prior to Issuance of Grading blankets) to protect exposed soil from the effects of wind and rain; (3) Incorporate silt fencing, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainage courses; (4) rough grade contours to reduce flow permits concentrations and velocities; (5) divert runoff from graded areas using straw bales, earth, and sandbag dikes; (6) install sediment traps or basins; and (n maintain and monitor erosion/sediment controls. 3-4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of Community Prior to Issuance the City that a plan for a temporary river crossing to be installed and maintained during construction Development of Grading has been approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Director Permits 3-5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any on-site disturbance other than temporary drainage control devices, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and, when acceptable, approve a Master Drainage and Flood Control Improvement Plan identifying all required drainage and flood I Prior to Issuance control improvements necessary to support the project's implementation. The capacity, location, and City Engineer of Grading size of all storm drain facilities proposed for conveyance to the County of Los Angeles shall be designed Permits to the satisfaction of the LACDPW. All privately -owned facilities shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3-6 Reflected on the final map, the Applicant shall identify and subsequently convey to the City or to such other party as may be identified by the City all on-site easements as may be required to construct and Community Prior to maintain all storm drain facilities identified by the Applicant or required by the City or the County to Development Final Map safely and effectively convey storm waters from the project site to other off-site drainage facilities. Director Recordation Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 2 Pi • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 3 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 3-7 Prior to recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall provide the City with evidence demonstrating the County's acceptance or conditional acceptance of all embankment improvements and willingness to accept both those improvements and subsequent maintenance obligations for all.public storm drain City Engineer Prior to Final Map facilities located upon the project site or required as a condition of project approval. Alternatively, the Recordation Applicant shall provide the City with an alternative maintenance plan specifying the agency or parry responsible for facility maintenance and the mechanism for the funding of those activities. 3-8 Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and, when acceptable, approve a detailed Drainage and Flood Control Maintenance Plan delineating the activities to be performed by the homeowners' association and/or others for the ongoing maintenance Prior to of all private on-site storm drain facilities. The maintenance plan shall discuss frequency of City Engineer final Map maintenance, repair functions, emergency response, funding of improvements, and shall identify a Recordation licensed civil engineer as a responsible party. The maintenance plan shall further include an annual or, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, a more frequent water sampling program to document compliance with all NPDES, storm water, and other related water quality permit obligations. 3-9 Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and, when acceptable, approve a detailed construction plan for the proposed bridge crossings of the San Gabriel River and Roberts Canyon Wash. Should any footing or foundation work be required within the channel area, if the County is to assume maintenance responsibilities for the channel, the Applicant Prior to shall submit documentation evidencing the County's approval and/or acceptance of the proposed City Engineer Final Map design plans. Alternatively, if an alternative maintenance provider is identified for the channel, the Recordation Applicant shall submit additional engineering studies documenting the impacts of those improvements on stream flows and the adequacy of the proposed design plans to withstand those hydraulic forces I affecting the bridge. 3-10 Any improvements to State Route 39 (San Gabriel Canyon Road), inclusive of any improvements within Prior to the right-of-way of that roadway, shall conform to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) City Engineer Final Map standards, as applicable. Recordation 4-1 If required by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), a conceptual revegetation plan for impacts on Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub will be developed. The plan will compensate at a ratio Community Prior to of 1:1 (one acre restored/enhanced for every one acre of habitat removed), unless otherwise directed by Development Final Map CDFG. A conceptual mitigation plan will be drafted and, at a minimum, will contain the proposed Director Recordation mitigation site location, mitigation goals and objectives, implementation plan, maintenance, performance standards, monitoring program, and bond ing/assurance. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 3 • • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 4 Responsibility. Mitigation. Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for . Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 4-2 During all construction activities, the Applicant shall ensure that construction equipment or vehicles shall not be stored within the streambeds and that there shall be no fueling, lubrication, or maintenance City Engineer Ongoing during of construction equipment within 150 feet of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Construction United Stales Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional areas. 4-3 During construction activities, the Applicant shall ensure that no waste material shall be discharged to Ongoing during any drainage areas, channels, or streams. Spoil sites shall not be located within any streams or in areas City Engineer Construction where it could be washed into any surface water body. 4-4 The project design shall not incorporate, either during construction or operation, any structure/culvert Community Prior to Issuance placed within a stream where fish may occur such that it constitutes a barrier to upstream or Development of Grading downstream movement of aquatic life, or causes an avoidance reaction by fish impeding their upstream Director Permits or downstream movement. This includes, but is not limited to, the supply of water at an appropriate depth for fish migration. Building Ongoing during Inspector Construction 4-5 A qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities and its effects on aquatic habitats. If the Community project biologist determines that turbidity/siltation levels resulting from project -related activities Development Ongoing during constitute a threat to aquatic life, activities associated with the turbidity/siltation, shall be halted until Director Construction effective control devices are installed, or abatement procedures are initiated. 4-6 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared pursuant to NPDES general permit requirements for Prior to Issuance projects with five or more acres, will be prepared and implemented to protect downstream water City Engineer of Grading quality and prevent extensive siltation associated with construction of the project. Permits 4-7 Prior to project construction, focused surveys to determine the presence or absence of the western pond turtle within the impact areas of the proposed project will be conducted. If this species is not found within the impact area, exclusionary fencing, or other appropriate devices acceptable to the CDFG shall Community Prior to Issuance be installed to preclude turtles from entering the area prior to the initiation of construction. If turtles are Development of Grading found within the construction area, the turtles will be removed from the impact zone prior to construction Director Permits activities. Relocation of any turtles will be conducted by a qualified biologist with the necessary permits and who is acceptable to the CDFG. Prior to construction, the turtles will be relocated upstream or downstream in appropriate habitat within the San Gabriel River. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 4 • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 5 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for. Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 4-8 Thirty days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist with appropriate resource agency permits shall survey within the limits of project disturbance for the presence of occupied raptor nests. Any occupied raptor nests found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If nesting activity is present at any nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Nesting activity for raptors in the region of the project site normally occurs from February 1 to June 30. To protect any raptor nest site, the following restrictions on construction are required between February Community Prior to Issuance 1 and June 30 (or unless nest are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist): (1) clearing Development of Grading limits will be established a minimum of 100 feet in any direction from any occupied raptor nest and (2) Director Permits access and surveying will not be allowed within 50 feet of any occupied raptor nest. Construction during the non -nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified biologist has determined that the raptor nests are no longer active. If an active raptor nest is observed during the non -nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest the biologist will flush any raptor to open space areas. The biologist will then remove the raptor nest site So raptors cannot return to the site. 5-1 Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the Applicant shall submit and the City shall Prior to Issuance review and, when deemed acceptable, approve a construction traffic phasing and routing plan designed City Engineer of Grading to provide appropriate and adequate construction management at and near the project site. Permits 5-2 Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a haul plan and a construction access plan defining the points of ingress and egress that will be used during the various stages of project construction. At minimum, the traffic control plan shall describe the number and type of vehicles anticipated, the hours during which I Prior to Issuance vehicles will be allowed to access or depart the site, the methods to be employed by the Applicant and City Engineer of others to ensure the safety of the workers and the motorists, how those methods will be enforced and Permits how the obligations established under the plan will be conveyed to all parties authorized to access the project site during the construction period. The traffic control plan shall further describe the Applicant's obligations to maintain any public streets impacted during construction and the manner in which the site will be secured both during and after each construction day. 5-3 In order to reduce construction -term impacts on the local street system, in the event that soils must be Ongoing during imported or exported to or from the site, the Applicant shall coordinate grading operations with the City Engineer Construction appropriate traffic control measures. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 5 - • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 6 Responsibility Mitigation. Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 5-4 Prior to any construction activities affecting any existing public right-of-way, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a traffic control plan conforming with the guidelines Prior to Issuance presented in the "Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, Eighth Edition" (American Public Works y Engineer CilEn of Grading Association, 1996) manual and addressing proper traffic control measures to be implemented in Permits construction areas. For areas under the jurisdiction of the Caltrans, Caltrans approval will be required; however, the City shall also review these plans as they may relate to on-site or City jurisdictional issues. 5-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall develop and submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a detailed on-site circulation plan, presenting design details for that system. At Prior to Issuance the City's discretion, an evaluation of the proposed plan, prepared by a Registered Traffic Engineer, City Engineer of Building may be required to be submitted and deemed adequate by the City Engineer. Upon acceptance by the Permits City Engineer, the Applicant shall fund or participate in the funding of all on-site and off-site street and signage improvements approved by the City. 5-6 'fhe City shall work cooperatively with the Applicant to formulate improvement plans for the Prior to Intersection of Todd Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will City Engineer Tentative Map bear responsibility for a "fair -share' contribution thereto. Approval 5-7 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations identified in the "Traffic Impact Analysis for the Mountain Cove Project" (RKJK & Associates, Inc., September 15, 1999) and Prior to Issuance such additional improvements as identified by the City. The recommendations are contained within City Engineer of Occupancy various sections of the traffic study, which include, but are not limited to: Site Access, Sight Distance Permits Review, Findings (Recommendations), and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Proposed Project Traffic Conditions. 6-1 All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational Ongoing during emissions. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is being properly City Engineer Construction serviced and maintained. 6-2 Prior to commencement of construction, the construction contractor will provide evidence that low- Prior to Issuance emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized or that their use was investigated and found to City Engineer of Grading be infeasible for the Mountain Cove project. Permits 6-3 The Applicant shall specify that the construction contractor use low emissions paints and coatings. Community Prior to Issuance Development of Building Director Permits Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 6 • • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 7 Responsibility. Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation. Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 6-4 All paints shall be applied using either hand application, or through the use of high-volume low Building Ongoing during pressure (HVLP) spray techniques Inspector Construction 6-5 Traffic lane improvements, as outlined in the project's traffic study, shall be implemented and will Prior to Issuance generally improve on-site and off-site traffic flow, thereby reducing emissions created in the project City Engineer of Occupancy area. Permits 6-6 To encourage the use of mass transportation, the Applicant shall consult with applicable public transit Community Prior to Issuance agencies to determine the feasibility of constructing a bus stop and/or shelters along San Gabriel Development of Building Canyon Road in proximity to the site's entrance. If determined by the public transit agency to be Director Permits beneficial, the Applicant shall include that feature in the project's design and development. 6-7 The Applicant shall provide pedestrian and trail connections within the project site and linkages Community Prior to Issuance between the project site and San Gabriel Canyon Road (SR -39). Development of Building Director Permits 6-8 To further encourage the use of bicycles, the Applicant shall provide bicycle racks at the entrance to all Community Prior to Issuance recreational amenities, such as parks. Development of Building Director Permits 6-9 The Applicant shall specify the installation of energy efficient lighting, air conditioning, water heaters, Community Prior to Issuance and appliances in all residential units. Development of Building Director Permits 7-1 Prior to the issuance of the first use and occupancy permits, the Applicant shall prepare or cause to be prepared a noise study which will specifically address impacts to those sensitive land uses located i along both San Gabriel Canyon Road and San Gabriel Avenue north of Sierra Madre Avenue. The study shall examine any cumulative noise impact anticipated as a result of projected traffic volumes along those road segments and shall formulate an implementation strategy to reduce cumulative noise Community Prior to Issuance impacts to the extent feasible to promote compliance with City's noise standards. If walls and/or berms Development of Occupancy are determined to be infeasible, the study shall suggest alternative methods (e.g., acoustic -rated Director Permits windows) to reduce interior noise at affected receptor locations. The recommendations of this noise study shall be binding on the Applicant who shall pay a proportional "fair -share" toward the implementation of those measures. "Fair share" shall be based on the project's contribution to the total noise environment. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 7 • Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 8 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 8-1 Construction vehicle and equipment staging and operations shall be conducted to avoid conflicts with Building Ongoing during bicyclists using the existing bike path along San Gabriel Canyon Road. Inspector Construction 9-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a construction and demolition waste recycling plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The plan shall provide measures for separation and Community Prior to Issuance short-term storage of waste materials to facilitate collection and recycling/diversion efforts that Development of Grading minimize the volume of landfill disposal required for construction wastes. The plan shall apply to all Director Permits construction phases. 9-2 The project's design shall incorporate provisions to facilitate the attainment of the City's source Community Prior to Issuance reduction and recycling objectives. Development of Building Director Permits 10-1 Prior to the commencement of on-site grading operations, the Applicant shall, subject to the City's review and approval; (1) Identify and include within the grading plans all actions as may be required by the City and the County for the removal of septic tanks and systems; (2) document the manner of removal and depository of all identified drums and buckets containing petroleum products and Community Prior to Issuance automobile batteries as identified in the "Environmental Site Assessment of Tentative Tract Map No. Development of Grading 52824, Azusa, California" (GeoRemediation, Inc., September 3, 1999) to the satisfaction of the City Director Permits Engineer; (3) document the closure of all on-site wells in accordance with applicable State requirements or provide plans for the continued (either interim or long-term) use of those wells; and (4) provide the City will an inspection report documenting the presence or absence of asbestos -containing building materials in those on-site structures planned for demolition. 10-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the issuance of any building permits, construction tCommunity Prior to Issuance fire safety management measures and procedures shall be prepared and submitted for review and Development of Grading approval by the LAUD. Approved measures shall be incorporated into grading and building plans and Director Permits specifications. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 8 • E Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 9 Responsibility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure . for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 10-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall accept a Construction Fire Safely Plan for all phases of the project construction. The plan shall provide for: (1) water sources and supplies for fire suppression for each construction phase, including provision of temporary water tanks on the site, use of water from the San Gabriel River, and/or other Community Prior to Issuance sources; (2) adequate access for fire equipment and personnel through completion of no less than one Development of Grading of the three proposed new bridges prior to start of aboveground construction of structures; (3) fire suppression equipment available at the site, such as fire extinguishers, a dedicated fire truck, and/or Director Permits other appropriate equipment; (4) site access; and (5) other measures identified by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Prior to City acceptance, the plan shall be submitted to the LACFD and USFS for review and comment. 10-4 All grading activities will be conducted under the observation and testing of a soils engineer and Community Prior to Issuance engineering geologist to ensure that any contaminants from local trash and debris dumps on the site are Development of Grading properly stored and disposed of. Director Permits 10-5 Prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall accept a Operation Fire Safety Plan for the project. The plan shall include those measures identified by the LACFD to prevent wildland fires and provide adequate safety, which may include sprinklering of Community Prior to additional structures; additional, larger, or different fuel modification zones specifications; use or Development Tentative Map prohibitions regarding specific landscape materials; requirements for the use of specific building Director Approval materials or performance standards; specific fire alarm systems, and/or other measures. Prior to City acceptance, the plan shall also be submitted to the LACFD and USFS for review and comment. 11-1 The Applicant shall work with the City and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to formulate a bank protection program and landscape plan that will minimize or avoid the creation of a Community Prior to highly urbanized edge treatment along the banks of the San Gabriel River and Roberts Canyon Creek. Development Final Map To the maximum extent feasible, the design plans shall create a transitional area that incorporates a Director Recordation plant pallette utilizing indigenous plant species. Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 9 • is Mountain Cove Residential Development Project Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 10 Responsi,bility Mitigation Verification No. Recommended Mitigation Measure for Milestone (Name/Date) Verification 11-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable to the City, the City shall approve a comprehensive tree inventory for both the proposed area of disturbance and for a 200 -foot radius extending beyond the proposed edge of grading, prepared by a Registered Arborist. The inventory shall document the general location, species, size, and health of each tree with a size of 25 -inches or more in circumference measured 4.5 -feet above mean natural grade, inclusive of both native and non-native species, excluding avocado trees. The Applicant shall prepare a replacement and Community Prior to Issuance preservation plan for those inventoried tree which will be removed during project construction. Development of Grading Replacement shall be at 1:1 for those trees meeting the size criteria and a health rating of at least two Director Permits points on a five point scale. In order to satisfy all or a portion of the replacement requirement, the Applicant shall: (1) retain or relocate some avocado trees to the extent feasible; and (2) preserve those trees located within the fuel modification zone subject to the tACFD approval. If the replacement requirement cannot be met on the project site, the Applicant shall work with the City to identify an appropriate off-site location(s) to locate the balance of the replacement requirement. 12-1 Qualified archaeological and paleontological monitors, including a representative of the Gabriel eno/Fongva Tribal Council, shall be present on the site throughout grading operations. At minimum, the monitors shall observe grading operations for a period of not less than ten hours per week; however, if resources are identified, monitoring activities shall increase to not less than 15 to 20 hours per week. If the Topanga Formation is encountered, monitoring hours shall be increased to full- Community Prior to Issuance time during active excavation. The on-site archaeological/ paleontological monitors (excluding the Development of Grading representative of the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council) shall have the authority to temporarily halt or Director Permits divert grading operations if any significant historic or paleontologic resources are uncovered to allow evaluation, avoidance, preservation and/or removal of significant features or specimens, in compliance with CEQA requirements. Upon completion of grading operations, a written report shall be submitted , to the City and Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council documenting the actions of the monitors, quantifying any features or specimens identified, and the location of the collection, if any. 12-2 If a previously unknown archaeological site is uncovered, the California Native American Heritage Building Ongoing during Commission and the State Office of Historic Preservation and Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council shall Inspector Construction be notified. 12-3 If any human remains are uncovered, the California Native American Heritage Commission and Building Ongoing during representatives of the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council shall be notified. Inspector Construction Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Azusa January 2000 Page 10