HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 05-C0770 0
RESOLUTION NO. 05-C77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
AZUSA PACIFIC.- UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND APPROVING
THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources
Code (PRC), § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Code of California Regulations
(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 environmexital
impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on December 17,
2002 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 EIF, and
WHEREAS, approximately 12 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 public scoping meeting was held on January 15, 2003 to familiarize the public
with the Project and the environmental review process and receive input as to the scope of the
Draft EIR and issues of community concern; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on or about December
3, 2004 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
P:11 P1=inglEnitlemems\SP7_APU\CC_Docs\CC_EIIL_Rwolution_APU_09-06-05.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC 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 3, 2004 in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Project area. Pursuant to the City of Azusa Local CEQA Guidelines, the
Notice of Completion was mailed to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project,
as identified on the latest equalized assessment roll 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 free 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 five written comments, and after the close of the comment period but before the
production of the Final EIR, the City received five additional written comments, and the City
responded to all of these comments (including the five untimely comments) in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC Section 21092.5, the City provided written responses to comments
to all commenting agencies within the statutory time frame; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final EIR and, pursuant to PRC Section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa, at its regularly scheduled public
meeting on July 13, 2005 reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and recommended that the
City Council certify the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on
August 15, 2005 and September 6, 2005 reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR; 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
2
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
significant adverse 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 the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this
Resolution are based on 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 Final 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 Final EIR as potentially significant and
adverse but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 3 hereof, and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant and
adverse 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 Final EIR and set forth
herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant adverse
environmental impacts are described in Section 7 hereof; and impacts are not adverse or
beneficial unless there is an adjective indicating that
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, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final 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
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS.
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
At a regular session assembled on August 15, 2005 and September 6, 2005, the City Council
determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the Final
EK 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 and adverse 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 adverse 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. Land Use and Plannin¢
General Plan and Zonins Consistency: The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with applicable
goals and policies listed in the City's General Plan and no significant adverse impacts would
result. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-6 to 4.1-17 ) As the Development Plan in the proposed Specific Plan
will serve as the official land use guide for the Azusa Pacific University (APU) campuses,
adoption of the Specific Plan will replace contrary provisions on the project site. Therefore, the
Specific Plan does not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, and no significant adverse impacts
would result. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-17.) Development of land uses contained in the Specific Plan
and related projects would change the intensity of land uses in the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-17.)
The City of Azusa Department of Economic and Community Development reviews all projects
for compliance with applicable development and design guidelines that regulate permitted uses,
development density, building heights, site and building design, transportation demand and
neighborhood protection. In addition, all development is closely monitored Citywide. City staff
will review all developments proposed and constructed within the City for consistency with
Citywide land use controls and development standards during the course of the project review
and approval process. Given these circumstances, cumulative land use impacts associated with
the Specific Plan and future development allowed by the General Plan would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Physical Division of a Community: The Initial Study (IS) prepared for this project determined
that Land Use and Planning, Physical Division of a Community, did not need to be analyzed in
the EIR. The APU Specific Plan is an integral part of the current campuses. As such, it will not
divide a community and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is
necessary. (Initial Study, p. 22.)
Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation
Plans (NCCPs): The IS prepared for this project determined that Land Use and Planning,
2
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Consistency with HCPs and NCCPs, did not need to be analyzed in the EIR. No HCPs or
NCCPs apply to the Project site. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any applicable
HCP or NCCP, and no mitigation is necessary. (Initial Study, p. 22.)
B. Air Quality - Operation Emissions
Implementation of the APU Specific Plan could generate operation -related pollutant emissions
which could exceed thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) for nitrogen oxides (NO.), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate matter greater than 10
microns in diameter (PM10). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-21.) The Specific Plan at buildout and in full
operation would not generate total summertime or wintertime emissions that would exceed the
SCAQMD recommended thresholds. As the amount of emissions would not exceed the
recommended thresholds, air quality impacts associated with operation of the proposed Specific
Plan would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22.)
The Specific Plan implementation would be consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) and, therefore, would not jeopardize the long-term attainment of the air quality
standards defined in the 2003 AQMP. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-22 to 4.5-24). Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not cause a CO hotspot at locations of sensitive receptors in the Specific
Plan Area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-24.) , The project also does not exceed the additional indicators of
potential air quality impacts, including create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people through the accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely hazardous materials;
emit a toxic air contaminant regulated by SCAQMD rules or that is on a federal or state air toxics
list; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or emit carcinogenic or
toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer
risk of ten in one million. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-25 to 4.5-26). Because operation -related
construction emissions would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Cumulative impacts were assessed using three SCAQMD methods based on performance
standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain the federal and state air quality
standards identified in the 2003 AQMP. The Draft EIR evaluated the following methods: (1) the
SCAQMD method of whether the project shows a one percent per year reduction in project
emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SO., and PM10, (2) the SCAQMD method of whether the rate of
growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in population, and (3) whether or not the
project is consistent with 2003 AQMP and, thus, would jeopardize attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards in the East San Gabriel Valley area or the Basin. (Draft EK pp.
4.5-29 to 4.5-31.) Because the project's operational emissions were found to be less than
significant, there is no need to meet the annual emission reduction target of one percent pursuant
to the SCAQMD's recommended approach. Because the growth of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) or average daily traffic (ADT) is less than the population growth, the project is not
considered to have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. As this criterion has been
met, the project would not be considered to contribute to significant adverse cumulative impacts.
The project is considered to be consistent with the 2003 AQMP, indicating that it would not
jeopardize attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Basin. Based on
5
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
the results of the latter two approaches discussed above, the project would not cause significant
cumulative adverse impacts on air quality. As such, no mitigation for cumulative impacts is
required. (Ibid.)
There will be significant adverse impacts to air quality resulting from construction -related
emissions. Those impacts are discussed in Section V of this Resolution.
C. Public Services - Police Protection
The Azusa Police Department provides police protection services to the City of Azusa, including
APU. The APU Department of Campus Safety provides on -campus security. Additional APU
student housing will increase the population on the campuses. The increase in students and staff
resulting from the APU Specific Plan will lead to increased calls for service to the City of Azusa
Police Department and the associated need for additional resources.
A draft fiscal impact study was prepared in October 2003 and revised in June 2005. This study
included an assessment of the impact of the Specific Plan on the City of Azusa Police
Department. The Campus Safety Office is the primary responder to non-violent crimes and
provides the Azusa Police Department with the information it needs to document most incidents
of crime on the campuses. In the most recent year for which data were available, the Campus
Safety Office answered 10,313 calls for service on and around the campuses, filed 1,975 incident
reports and made eight arrests. In the same year, the Azusa Police Department dispatched
officers to the APU campus 112 times. This compares to approximately 51,000 dispatches in the
whole City for that year. Based on this number of calls, the calls for City police services to the
APU campuses represented 0.22 percent of the total City dispatches. The majority of the
criminal activity associated with the presence of APU is theft from vehicles, thefts from other
locations around the campuses, building burglaries and vehicle theft. Violent crimes and crimes
against persons are very rare on the APU campuses.
The increase in students and staff resulting from the APU Specific Plan will lead to increased
calls for service to the City of Azusa Police Department and the associated need for additional
resources. However, based on the information presented above, the additional APU-related calls
for service would not represent a substantial increase in calls for service, and the impact is
considered less than significant for this reason. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.2-6
and Final EIR; p. 3.0-6.)
D. Population and Housing
Population: Buildout of the Specific Plan would accommodate an increase of 3,424 students,
180 faculty and 326 staff at the East and West Campuses. APU currently accommodates an on -
campus residential population of 1,679 students. At Specific Plan buildout, this population
would increase to 3,562 students, resulting in. a net increase of 1,883 students. Population
growth at APU would not exceed the projected population growth anticipated in the SGVCOG
subregion or the City of Azusa Thus, implementation of the Specific Plan would not induce
D
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
population growth and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EK p. 4.11-5.) No
mitigation is required.
Housing: The increase in student enrollment is anticipated to result in an increased demand for,
and use of, campus housing. Implementation of the Specific Plan would provide a net increase
of 1,883 student beds. No displacement of persons would occur from the demolition of Shire
Mods because students would be accommodated in other on -campus housing. For the analysis,
if the net increase of 1,883 student beds were considered "households" by SCAG,
implementation of the Specific Plan would still not exceed the growth forecasts for the
SGVCOG subregion of 138,936 households or the City of Azusa projected increase in
households of 2,630 between 2005 and 2025. Thus, implementation of the Specific Plan would
not displace existing housing and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.11-5 to 4.11-6). No mitigation is required.
Employment: Implementation of the Specific Plan would provide an additional 180 jobs for
faculty and 326 additional jobs for staff at the University. SCAG forecasts that an additional
166,309 jobs between 2005 and 2025 will be created in the SGVCOG subregion, making the
increase in jobs attributable to the Specific Plan approximately 0.30 percent of the total. In the
City of Azusa, employment is projected to increase by 3,565 jobs making the increase in jobs
attributable to the Specific Plan approximately 14 percent of the total. Because growth
attributable to the Specific Plan is included in the SCAG forecasts for the SGVCOG subregion, it
will not result in employment growth in excess of SCAG projects, and a less than significant
impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-6.) No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative increases in population, housing and employment opportunities
are within SCAG's demographic projections for the year 2025. (Draft EB2, p. 4.11-8.)
Cumulative development would result in 100 more housing units than those projected by SCAG
for the City of Azusa by 2025 and 1,983 if the beds within dorms as a result of the Specific Plan
are considered "households." However, the SCAG projections indicate that employment growth
will outpace housing growth in the City of Azusa. Therefore, the City would have less housing
than jobs. The provision of an additional 1,983 households above the projections would have a
beneficial impact to the City in terms of balancing housing and employment. Based on the
above, no significant, adverse, cumulative, population, housing or employment impacts are
expected to occur with Specific Plan implementation.
E. Agriculture Resources
The IS prepared for this project determined that Agricultural Resources did not need to be
analyzed in the FIR. (Initial Study, p. 11.) The APU campuses are completely developed and is
surrounded by urban uses. No farmland, agricultural land or related uses are found in the area.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to agricultural resources as a result of the project and no
mitigation is necessary.
F. Biological Resources
VA
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
The IS prepared for this project determined that Biological Resources did not need to be
analyzed in the EIR. (Initial Study, p. 14.) The campuses are completely developed and is
within an urban area; therefore, there is limited habitat value present. The existing trees and
lawns may provide habitat to birds and mammals that occur in urban areas, such as pigeons and
starlings. The campuses have no natural areas, and the existing ornamental landscaping does not
provide suitable habitat for special status species. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not have
any impacts on such species. The campuses are not identified in any adopted plan as having
sensitive natural communities or any HCP and there are no wetlands on the campuses. No
known biological resources occur on the site that are considered to be of special status or defined
as sensitive by any recognized state or federal agency. Therefore, there is no potential for this
project to significantly impact biological resources. No mitigation is necessary.
G. Hvdrolo¢y
The IS prepared for this project determined that Hydrology did not need to be analyzed in the
EIR. (Initial Study, pp. 20 to 21.) The site is located in a developed area, which contains an
existing storm water collection and conveyance system. Development of the site would result in
a land use that continues the existence of impermeable surfaces, thereby requiring storm water to
be collected and drained into the adjacent storm drains. Therefore, there would be no significant
increase in impervious surfaces that would substantially increase surface runoff. In addition, the
drainage system would be designed to accommodate the proposed new level of development and
would be connected to the City storm drain system. As part of the proposed project, stormwater
drainage plans will be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the
development of any drainage improvements. These plans must meet all design requirements for
detention and release of runoff so that no impact to downstream facilities would occur.
Therefore, there would be no substantial alteration of current drainage patterns that would result
in flooding on or off the project site.
Development of the Specific Plan could result in declining quality of stormwater runoff due to
non -point source urban pollutants (from increased traffic on area streets, for example) and
increased soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during project -related construction. The
project would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit during both construction and operation. As part of this permit process,
the applicant is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
applicant is required to comply with the permit requirements through incorporation of design
features and use of best management practices (BMPs) appropriate and applicable to the project.
Implementation of required (BMPs) would substantially reduce erosion, deposition and related
effects. The uses anticipated within the campuses would not create effluent discharges from
point sources, and thus would not violate any waste discharge requirements. The City of Azusa
will review all proposed project plans for compliance with NPDES requirements as part of the
project review and approval process. Such systems will be implemented in phases as part of the
master development plan. When completed, the new storm drainage system will be an
improvement over the existing system.
0
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
The existing campuses are already developed with impervious surfaces such that it is not a
source of groundwater recharge. The proposed land uses would be similar to existing uses;
therefore, there would be no impacts to groundwater recharge. There are no streams or rivers on
or near the campuses. Therefore, there would be no substantial alteration of current drainage
patterns that would result in erosion or siltation. Mudflows or related natural disasters do not
occur in the project area. The University is not within a 100 -year or 500 -year flood plain.
Further, flooding has not been an issue on the campus and the proposed project would not impact
this situation.
Provided BMPs are implemented, impacts to people and structures, as related to hydrology and
water quality, would not be significant.
H. Mineral Resources
The IS prepared for this project determined that Mineral Resources did not need to be analyzed
in the EIR. (Initial Study, p. 23.) According to the City's General Plan, the project site is
located in MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 zones. The MRZ-2 zone is defined as an "area where adequate
information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a
high likelihood exists for their presence" and a MRZ-3 zone is considered as an "area containing
mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data." The
proposed project would not result in any substantial loss of known mineral resources that would
be of value to the region or state because the campus is already developed and thus, is not
available for extraction of mineral resources. Further development of the campuses will not
result in the additional loss of important mineral resource recovery. Therefore, there is no
impact.
I. Recreation
The IS prepared for this project determined that Recreation did not need to be analyzed in the
EIR. (Initial Study, p. 27.) The project will provide additional recreation space with the addition
of tennis courts and an aquatic center, which will be a positive impact on recreational
opportunities for area residents and, thus, no further analysis 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 adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan to a less than significant level. The
potentially significant adverse impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a
less then significant level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics
W
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: The short-term visual effects of grading and
construction operations could result in a short-term adverse impact on views from adjacent
residential uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.) The project has the potential to adversely affect existing
off-site views of the campuses' facilities that are available from the surrounding streets and
adjacent land uses to the north, south, east and west. In addition, the 1983 City of Azusa General
Plan Scenic Highways Element, The Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends Document,
Azusa General Plan Update, and the City of Azusa General Plan & Development Code Draft
EIR all mention Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue and Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard
to the Dhammakaya Retreat corridors as potential "Designated Scenic Routes." (Draft EIR, pp.
4.3-15 to 4.346.) Finally, new development under the Specific Plan, which could include
locations near the perimeter of the East and West Campuses, as well as areas that are currently
undeveloped, could create new sources of light from exterior building illumination, lighted
recreation/athletic facilities, and parking lots or structures, as well as glare from reflective
building surfaces or the headlights of vehicular traffic. These new sources of light or glare could
affect day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses and result in a potentially significant
adverse impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-3-23.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce adverse
impacts to aesthetics resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level:
AES -1 The campuses shall be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the
Design, Architectural, and Landscape Guidelines proposed as part of the Specific
Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24.)
AES -2 Light sources shall be designed, constructed, and operated such that light is
directed downward to minimize light and glare impacts to the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. (Ibid.)
AES -3 The campuses shall have a landscape buffer around its perimeter that includes
dense plantings of trees intended to screen the campuses from adjacent activities,
properties and vehicular corridors and to provide a defined edge. This landscape
buffer shall be implemented in conjunction with each project that is developed as
part of the Specific Plan. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: The short-term visual effects of grading and construction
operations would be unavoidable, because little can be done to improve the aesthetics of a
construction area. Short-term visual impacts are considered to be adverse, but less than
significant, because the impacts would be temporary. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.)
The Specific Plan includes modernization and new construction of buildings, site improvements
and infrastructure. The proposed facilities, infrastructure and landscaping would be similar in
type and scale to the existing University facilities. In addition, most trees in and around the
campuses would be preserved and additional landscaping would be planted to screen the
campuses from residential neighbors. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-19.) The Specific Plan contains
Development Standards and Design Guidelines intended to guide the future development of the
10
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
campuses as individual components of the Specific Plan are implemented. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-
16.) The Development Standards address eight design issue areas: Land Use, Building
Envelopes, Open Space, Landscape, Fences and Walls, Circulation and Parking; Service and
Mechanical Equipment Areas; Lighting; and Signage. (Ibid.) In association with the
Development Standards, the Design Guidelines would assure that the design of future buildings,
grounds, landscape and infrastructure projects would realize APU's goals for attractive and
unified campuses that physically represents, supports and furthers APU's educational mission,
goals, values and aspirations. The General Guidelines address the goals and unique design
characteristics of each of the five land use districts on the campuses: residential/recreation,
academic/administrative, physical education/athletic, open space and circulation/parking and
service areas. Within each of these districts, the General Guidelines provide site planning and
architecture guidelines. Site planning guidelines include an overall concept for the land use
district, general site design, and building setback and orientation. The architectural guidelines
provide building design, building form, entry, materials, color, fenestration, roof and massing. In
addition to the General Guidelines, the Design Guidelines provide for landscape design, grading,
site furnishings, walls and fences, service areas, irrigation and signage specifications to ensure
that the design of future buildings, grounds, landscape and infrastructure projects would meet
APU's objectives. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-16 and 4.3-18.)
All proposed buildings and open space areas would adhere to the Development Standards and
Design Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan. Although some buildings proposed would be
an increase in height from the current uses, the site is currently developed and proposed changes
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the existing APU
campuses or their surroundings, including the City's proposed "Designated Scenic Routes" on
Foothill Boulevard, Alosta Avenue and North Palm Drive. Existing views of the San Gabriel
Mountains to the north would still be available. Adherence to the Specific Plan Design
Guidelines would ensure that the existing visual quality of the campuses are maintained and that
new development will be designed to complement existing architectural styles; thereby, creating
a visually compatible environment. Adherence to Development Standards and Design
Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan and implementation of mitigation measure AES -1
would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 to 4.3-23.)
Lighting for construction purposes, if necessary, would be limited to low-level lighting for safety
and security purposes. Because this lighting would be directed towards the ground and shielded,
a significant adverse impact would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.)
There is currently substantial nighttime lighting on campus, as well as in much of the area
surrounding the campuses, and the addition of new sources of light and glare as a result of
implementation of the Specific Plan would increase ambient lighting on the campuses and at the
periphery. However, due to the developed urban nature of the Azusa community, there is a
substantial existing amount of ambient light both on the campuses and in the immediately
surrounding area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.)
The Specific Plan Design Guidelines provide exterior lighting design standards for each campus
zone. Adherence to the Specific Plan Design Guidelines would reduce impacts from light and
11
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
glare to a less than significant level by eliminating or minimizing increased glare by the use of
non -reflective glass and non -reflective textured surfaces in all future development, reducing or
preventing light spill, and providing barriers to shield vehicle headlights from off -campus uses.
The continued provision of landscaped buffers along the edges of the campuses would shield and
screen light and/or glare on adjacent off -campuses residential uses (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-23.)
Adherence to Development Standards and Design Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan and
implementation of mitigation measures AES -2 and AES -3 would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels. (Ibid.)
Potential visual impacts of the Specific Plan relate only to impacts to the immediate vicinity of
the campuses. The area in the immediate vicinity of the campuses is currently developed, with
the exception of the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan site. Increased development associated
with buildout of the pending projects in the area would alter the visual image of each area
surrounding those project sites. As a requirement in the City of Azusa, the project design for
each project would be reviewed for consistency with applicable City codes and regulations prior
to final approval. Impacts associated with light and glare issues are typically limited to the
project site and immediate off-site area and are not considered to be cumulatively significant or
adverse. Given that cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity of the APU campuses would
contribute to a change in visual character of the area, cumulative projects would be required to
comply with City of Azusa codes and regulations, and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24.)
B. Noise - Operational Phase
1. Potential Si¢nificant Adverse Impacts: The proposed project will generate additional
vehicle trips on local roads. These additional trips will generate additional noise on area roads,
and will result in potentially significant adverse mobile source noise impacts at sensitive
receptors off the project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.) Noise levels projected to occur under the
Year 2022 with the project could have an impact on the student dormitories proposed along area
roads on the school campuses. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.) Noise sources at the athletic facilities
proposed for the northwestern part of the West Campus will generate new noise sources that
have the potential to impact residents of a multi -family residential area west of those planned
facilities. Two sources that could cause adverse effects to nearby residents are crowd cheering
and the use of a public address system. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-20.) The nearby BNSF railway
alignment was purchased by the Blue Line Construction Authority and has been identified as the
Phase II extension of the Gold Line light rail system from Pasadena to Claremont. Noise from
rail operations could adversely impact residential uses on the campuses. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to
4.4-24.)
There will be significant adverse noise impacts resulting from construction activities. Those
impacts are discussed in Section V of this Resolution.
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
noise impacts for the operational phase of the proposed project to a less than significant level:
12
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
N-3 All use of public address systems shall cease at 10:00 PM on weekdays, and
10:30 PM on weekends. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.)
N-4 For the softball and baseball fields, speakers for public address systems shall be
mounted in such a fashion that they face the intended audience (away from the
residential neighborhoods, and the settings shall be fixed by the manufacturer's
representative to ensure that sound levels from the systems not exceed 50 dB(A)
Ldn at the closest residence, which is located 100 feet to the west of the proposed
softball field). (Ibid.)
These mitigation measures are applicable to both the softball and baseball fields located along
the northwestern perimeter of the West Campus.
3. Sporting Explanation: The noise levels that would be generated by traffic volumes
adjacent to noise sensitive land uses would increase a maximum of 1.2 dB(A) CNEL. Noise level
increases of less than 3 dB(A) are not perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, a 1.2 dB(A)
CNEL increase would not be audible. Based on this information, the proposed project will not
result in a significant adverse mobile source noise impact upon buildout. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-17
to 4.4-19.)
Under project conditions in the Year 2022, road noise levels for the segments of Alosta Avenue
and Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the proposed dormitories are anticipated to be 65.4 and 61.7
dB(A) CNEL, respectively. These noise levels would be "conditionally acceptable" for the
proposed campus residential uses. All residential dwelling units are required to comply with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) for the conservation of energy associated with building design
and construction. Consequently, buildings will be constructed with insulated walls, glazed
windows, and weather stripping on all doors and windows opening to the exterior. The proposed
project must comply with Title 24 building requirements; thus the residential units are expected
to experience a reduction in exterior noise levels estimated between 23 dB(A) to 31 dB(A). As
such, interior noise levels experienced in the proposed dormitory buildings adjacent to Alosta
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard will remain below the 45 dB(A) threshold required by Title 24
requirements. As such, road noise impacts at these buildings are considered to be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.)
No significant ground borne vibration impacts from the BNSF railway are anticipated, as
buildings proposed on the project site are located at least 500 feet from the BNSF tracks. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-20.)
On the northwestern part of the West Campus, a number of physical education and athletic
facilities are proposed. Noise sources at these athletic facilities would consist primarily of two
sources that could cause adverse effects to nearby residents, (1) crowd cheering and (2) the use
of a public address system. Crowd cheering is considered the loudest noise source at an athletic
field with sound levels that can range from 60 to 65 dB(A) at 100 feet for non -amplified sounds.
These levels are usually highly random in distribution and frequency. The impact analysis in the
Draft EIR assumed a sound level from a public address system at 80 dB(A) at 50 feet. The
13
RESOLUTIONNO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
minimum distance between the proposed ball field bleachers (the greatest noise source) and the
closest residences west of the fields would be approximately 100 feet. Given that sound
generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of six dB(A) for each
doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically "hard" sites and 7.5 dB(A) at
acoustically "soft" sites, the sound level at the residences from non -amplified activities, such as
crowd cheering at the ball fields, would range from 54 to 59 dB(A). Under a worst case
scenario, an .amplified public address system at this ball field would generate random and
intermittent sound levels of up to 74 dB(A) at the nearest residence. As temporary noise
increases associated with the use of the public address system could be found to be inconsistent
with the noise standards of the Municipal Code, temporary and intermittent noise increases
associated with the athletic fields are determined to be significant and adverse in the absence of
mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measures N-3 and N-4 would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-20 to 4.4-21.)
Cumulative noise impacts will primarily occur as a result of increased traffic volumes on' local
roads due to ambient growth and other development in the vicinity of the project site. The Draft
EIR compared the existing and future (year 2022) noise levels with the proposed project. Future
noise levels in 2022 with the proposed project, other developments and ambient growth are
expected increase between 0.3 and 2.3 dB(A) above existing conditions. As the cumulative
incremental noise increases on the local roads in the project vicinity will not exceed 3 dB(A), no
significant cumulative adverse noise increases will result. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-21 to 4.4-22.)
The BNSF railway alignment was purchased by the Blue Line Construction Authority and has
been identified as the Phase II extension of the Gold Line light rail system from Pasadena to
Claremont. Combined commuter and freight operations along with noise generated at rail
crossings would generate CNEL levels of up to 76.2 dB(A) at reference distances of 100 feet.
The closest sensitive receptors proposed in the Specific Plan are located approximately 500 feet
away (academic buildings/athletic facilities) while proposed dormitories are located
approximately 750 feet away. Given that sound generated by a line source typically diminishes
(attenuates) at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at
acoustically "hard" sites and 4.5 dB(A) at acoustically "soft" sites, future railway operations
associated with the Phase II extension of the Gold Line at the closest sensitive receptors
(dormitories) to the railway would experience noise levels of between 63.1 to 67.4 dB(A) CNEL.
Title 24 requires that all residential buildings have a maximum interior noise level of 45 dB(A)
Ldn. As previously identified, each dormitory building that is constructed would be required to
comply with Title 24 building requirements as adopted by the City of Azusa As such, the new
dormitories are expected to experience an exterior to interior noise level reduction of between 23
dB(A) to 31 dB(A). Given that exterior noise standards would not be exceeded at the
dormitories from future train operations and that the new dormitories would be built in
compliance with Title 24 building requirements, no cumulative impacts would occur. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.4-23 to 4.4-24 No cumulative traffic or rail noise impacts to on-site dormitories would
occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22 to 4.4-24.
14
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
C. Geology and Soils
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: The project site would be subject to severe
seismic hazards if a major earthquake occurs in the region. Strong ground shaking can result in
serious damage to structures, personal injuries, including loss of life, damage to property, and
economic and social dislocations. The proposed Specific Plan would result in the construction
and occupancy of educational and residential uses and, therefore, has the inherent potential to
subject persons to ground shaking -related hazards. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-9 to 4.6-10. The West
Campus is located within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction as shown on the
Liquefaction Potential Map in the City of Azusa, General Plan Update Analysis of Existing
Conditions and Trends Document (December 2001). (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.) Seismically -
induced settlement could occur on the project site. (Ibid.) On-site alluvial materials are
susceptible to erosion by wind and running water. (Ibid.) On-site soils on the West Campus are
moderately compressible. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the. following mitigation measures will reduce potentially
significant adverse project impacts related to geologic resources and hazards to a less than
significant level:
GS -1 Structural design for buildings and other improvements constructed as part of the
Specific Plan shall comply with the current version of the Uniform Building Code
and the California Building Code (California standards for seismic risk). (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
GS -2 As part of design development for any new structures, a geotechnical
investigation shall be conducted by a certified civil engineer or registered
engineering geologist to investigate potential faulting, ground motion
characteristics, settlement, expansive/collapsible. soils, and liquefaction potential
for review and approval by the City of Azusa prior to the issuance of grading and
building permits. All approved construction measures shall be implemented.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
GS -3 To prevent soil erosion, prior to construction of any project that would result in
grading or disturbance of 1 acre or greater, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan shall be, prepared. During each individual project, construction personnel
shall implement all relevant measures of the plan during earthmoving and other
construction activities. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following
measures:
a) To the extent possible, no earthmoving shall take place during the rainy
season (between November 1 and April 1). Erosion control measures for
individual projects that span the rainy season shall be in place before it begins.
b) Specific soil stockpile areas shall be designated within proposed development
(or other construction) areas, and soils shall not be stockpiled outside of the
15
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
designated areas. Soils and other materials shall not be stockpiled near on-site
drainage inlets.
c) Tarps shall be used to cover any excavated soils during the rainy period.
d) After completion of grading, erosion protection shall be provided. Re -
vegetation shall be accomplished by mulching, hydroseeding, or other
appropriate methods, and shall be initiated as soon as possible after
completion of grading, and before November 1. Selection of plant materials
shall consider native plantings and shall encourage shrubs and trees as a long-
term erosion control feature, consistent with the campuses' Landscaping Plan.
e) Implement all dust control measures identified in Mitigation Measure AQ -2.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 to 4.6-12.)
3. Supporting Explanation: All geological impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and
compliance with the requirements of the UBC and the California Building Code. By
incorporating recommendations of the geotechnical engineering study (mitigation measures GS -
1 and GS -2) and complying with the UBC and State of California standards, project impacts
related to ground shaking would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.) Site-specific
preparation techniques and building design standards are available to feasibly mitigate potential
liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level. Such methods may include digging of deep
foundation systems below the zone of liquefaction or ground modifications that densify the
potentially liquefiable zones. The most suitable methods can only be determined through site-
specific studies completed at the time individual buildings and facilities are designed. (Ibid.)
No substantial natural slopes are present on or adjacent to the Specific Plan site and surficial or
deep-seated landsliding is not a hazard. No impact would occur. (Ibid.) Implementation of site-
specific preparation techniques and building design standards will feasibly mitigate potential
settlement impacts to a less than significant level. Such methods may include digging of deep
foundations below the level of compressible layers or overexcavation and recompaction of near
surface layers. The most suitable methods can only be determined through site-specific studies
completed at the time individual buildings and facilities are designed. (Ibid.) The project site is
not located within or immediately adjacent to a 100 -year or 500 -year flood zone as designated by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The site is also not located near large
water storage facilities. Therefore, the potential for seismically induced flooding is less than
significant. (Draft FIR, p. 4.6-11.)
On-site alluvial materials are susceptible to erosion by wind and running water. Implementation
of mitigation measure GS -3 would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant
level. (lbid.) Implementation of site-specific preparation techniques and building design
standards would feasibly mitigate potential impacts from expansive/collapsible soils to a less
than significant impact. Such methods may include digging deep foundations below the level of
compressible layers or overexcavation and recompaction of near surface layers. The most
16
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
suitable methods can only be determined through site-specific studies completed at the time
individual buildings and facilities are designed. (Ibid.)
Geologic and soils impacts are generally considered site-specific. With the exception of soil
erosion, the site-specific impacts are not cumulative because the impacts on each site would not
be common to or contribute to (or be shared with, in the additive sense) the impacts on other
sites. Soil erosion is a potentially cumulative impact that could increase turbidity and siltation in
surface water bodies. Project specific mitigation measures would reduce contributions of the
project to any cumulative adverse impacts due to erosion to less than significant levels. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-12.) The Specific Plan site would be ,subject to uniform site development and
construction standards relative to seismic risk, erosion potential and other geologic conditions
that are prevalent within the region. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to site-specific
conditions would be less than significant, given known geologic conditions. (Ibid.)
D. Hazardous Materials
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: The current and historical operations and
equipment employed at the facility maintenance area on the East Campus represents a
Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) due to the potential for leaks of petroleum
hydrocarbons or hazardous waste into the subsurface. As such, potential impacts to the public or
environment from the release of hazardous wastes are considered potentially significant and
adverse. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.) Two potential RECs were identified on the site of the Former
Drive-in Theater Property. One REC was described as the potential presence of asbestos
containing materials inside and outside of the buildings on site. The second potential REC was
described as the presence of a solid waste landfill located nearby that may have led to the
contamination of the area groundwater. The possibility exists that the groundwater
contamination generated by the landfill may extend beneath the subject site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-
9.) Asbestos containing building materials (ACBMs) were identified in Building 1
(phone/electrical room). The tile was in good condition and, unless the tile is damaged, removal
is not required until the building is renovated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9.)
There are a number of structures on the campuses that were constructed prior to the ban on lead -
containing paints in 1979. Potential impacts to the public or environment from lead materials are
considered to be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
Activities on the Specific Plan site would include the delivery and disposal of hazardous
materials such as fuels, oils, solvents and other materials. Land uses allowed by the Specific
Plan might store and use hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, chemicals and other
materials. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potentially
significant adverse impacts of the project related to hazardous materials to a less than significant
level:
17
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
HM -1 All hazardous materials delivered and hazardous waste removed from the project
site shall be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
HM -2 An annual inventory of hazardous materials in use on the Specific Plan site, as
well as an emergency plan, shall be submitted by APU for an annual review to the
Health Hazardous Materials Division of the LACFD, as required by SARA Title
III and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. (Ibid.)
104-3 All buildings constructed prior to 1981 proposed to be demolished shall be
surveyed and sampled for asbestos -containing building materials by a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor. If asbestos -containing building materials is
determined to be present in the structures to be demolished, all asbestos -
containing materials shall be removed under acceptable engineering methods and
work practices by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition.
These practices include, but are not limited to, containment of the area by plastic,
negative air filtration, wet removal techniques and personal respiratory protection
and decontamination. The process shall be designed and monitored by a
California Certified Asbestos Consultant. The abatement and monitoring plan
shall be developed and submitted for review and approval by the appropriate
regulatory agencies (currently the City Building Official and South Coast Air
Quality Management District) and shall include all on-site structures with
ACBMs. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-15 to 4.7-16.)
HM4 All on-site fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers that are not
marked "No PCBs" shall be assumed to contain PCBs and shall be removed prior
to demolition activities.and disposed of by a licensed and certified PCB removal
contractor, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. (Draft EIR, p.
4.7-16.)
HM -5 Prior to the demolition of any building constructed prior to 1979, the contractor
shall be informed of the potential presence of lead-based paints and instructed to
retain a certified lead paint removal contractor to remove and dispose. of all loose
and peeling paint in accordance with federal, state and local regulations, unless
prior testing confirms the absence of lead-based paints. The contractor shall also
be instructed to take appropriate precautions to protect workers, the campuses and
the surrounding community, and to dispose of construction waste containing lead
paint in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. (Ibid.)
HM -6 A Phase H ESA shall be completed at the facility maintenance area by an
environmental hazardous materials professional during the demolition. The Phase
II ESA at a minimum shall include the completion of soil borings for the
collection of soil samples in the vicinity of the USTs, clarifiers, hydraulic lift,
hazardous waste storage area, and vehicle maintenance area. If the materials are
determined to pose a risk to the public or construction workers, the construction
18
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
contractor shall prepare and submit a remediation plan to the appropriate agency
and comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Soil remediation methods
could include excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment
or disposal/treatment without excavation. Remediation alternatives for cleanup of
contaminated groundwater could include in-situ treatment, extraction and on-site
treatment, or extraction and off-site treatment/disposal. Construction plans shall
be modified or postponed to ensure construction will not inhibit remediation
activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to hazardous
conditions. (ibid.)
3. importing Explanation: Activities on the APU campuses would include the
delivery and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents and other materials.
Existing federal and state laws adequately address risks associated with the transport of
hazardous materials. Any transport of hazardous materials to the Specific Plan site would be
subject to the applicable federal and state regulations. Potential impacts are considered to be less
than significant through the implementation of standard state and federal requirements. (Draft
EK p. 4.7-12.) Land uses allowed by the Specific Plan might store and use hazardous materials
such as fuels, oils, solvents, chemicals and other materials. These materials would be stored on
site in small quantities. A variety of state and federal laws govern the generation, treating or
disposing of hazardous wastes. These requirements would be mandated according to state and
federal law. As such, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant with the
implementation of these standard state and federal requirements. (Ibid.)
The current and historical operations and equipment employed at the facility maintenance area
on the East Campus represent a REC due to the potential for leaks of petroleum hydrocarbons or
hazardous waste into the subsurface. Although there are no confirmed or identified releases of
petroleum hydrocarbons or hazardous waste from these facilities, there is the potential that
release(s) may have occurred. As such, potential impacts to the public or environment from the
release of hazardous wastes are considered potentially significant and adverse. Implementation
of mitigation measure HM -6 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
(Draft EK p. 4.7-13.)
No RECs were identified on the West Campus during the completion the Phase I ESA with the
exception of the potential presence of asbestos containing materials in the buildings on the drive-
in theater property and the potential presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) -containing
fluids in the electrical transformer on the drive-in theater property. Implementation of
mitigation measures HM -3 and HM -4 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant
level. (Ibid.)
Structures constructed or remodeled between 1930 and 1981 have the potential of ACBMs.
Some of the campuses' buildings were initially developed prior to the ban on ACBMs; therefore,
the likelihood that some campuses' buildings contain these materials is high. As such, potential
impacts to the public or environment from ACBMs are considered to be potentially significant
and adverse. Implementation of mitigation measure HM -3 would mitigate potential impacts to a
less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-14.)
19
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Within the construction settings, workers can be exposed to PCBs in light ballasts during
demolition work. Repeated or sustained exposure to considerable quantities can cause adverse
health effects. As such, potential impacts to the public or environment from PCBs are
considered to be potentially significant and adverse. Implementation of mitigation measure HM -
4 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
There are a number of structures on the campuses that were constructed prior to the ban on lead -
containing paints in 1979. Exposure to lead from older, vintage paint is possible when the paint
is in poor condition or during its removal. As such, potential impacts to the public or
environment from lead materials are considered to be potentially significant and adverse.
Implementation of mitigation measure HM -5 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
Based on a review of the listings for surrounding properties as listed above and other listings in
the database that were located between 0.25 and one mile of the APU campuses, no RECs were
identified that have the potential to impact the Specific Plan site with the exception of the San
Gabriel Valley National Priority List (NPL) list of regional groundwater contamination.
However, this investigatiori/remediation is being conducted with oversight by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The investigation includes the identification of
potential sources of groundwater impact. APU has not been named as a contributor of the
regional groundwater contamination. No impacts would occur as a result of the Specific Plan
site oi\the surrounding properties being listed on a hazardous materials site list. (Draft EIR, p.
4.7-15.)
It is anticipated that each cumulative project would adhere to applicable federal, state and local
requirements that regulate worker and public safety regarding hazardous materials and wastes.
Consequently, the Specific Plan impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17.)
E. Public Services - Fire Protection
1. Potential Sienificant Adverse Impacts: Development of the Specific Plan would result in
an increase in demand for fire prevention and suppression services from the Los Angeles
County Fire Department due to the major structures planned and the corresponding daytime
population/transient occupants and additional traffic generated by the Specific Plan (Draft EK
p. 4.8.1-7). Fire Department areas of concern for the Specific Plan development include
adequate access, proper fire, flow, hydrant locations and overall site plan layout (Draft EIR, p.
4.8.1-7). In addition, construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan
are anticipated to occur in a variety of locations on the campuses over a minimum of 15 to 20
years. Although rare, fires do occur at construction sites. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-5.)
20
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts of the construction and operation of the Specific Plan related to fire protection services
to a less than significant level:
PS -1 APU shall comply with applicable fire and life safety standards and code
requirements such as fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, fire flow, adequate fire
lane turning -radius, access and design to meet the needs of the Fire Department's
fire protection requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-8.)
PS -2 The Specific Plan shall require the installation of sprinkler systems in both new
and refurbished buildings. (Ibid.)
PS -3 The development of the Specific Plan shall comply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and
hydrants. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will
be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life
safety requirements during this time. (Ibid.)
PS -4 Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by
way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than the
prescribed width, unobstructed, clear -to -sky. The roadway shall be extended to
within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an
unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. (Ibid.)
PS -5 Final fire flows shall be determined by the Fire Department at final building plan
check, based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures,
property lines, and types of construction used. (fbid.)
PS -6 Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements.
• No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access
from a public fire hydrant.
• No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a
properly spaced public fire hydrant.
• Additional hydrants shall be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified
distances. (Ibid.)
PS -7 Turning radii for new on -campus roadways shall not be less than 32 feet. This
measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department
approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in
length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. All on-site driveways shall provide a
minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to
be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wails of the first story of any
21
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
building. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased
when any of the following conditions will exist:
• Provide 28 feet in width, when a building has three or more stories, or is more
than 35 feet in height above access level. Also, for using fire truck ladders,
the centerline of the access roadway shall be located parallel to, and within 30
feet of, the exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure;
• Provide 34 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the
access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to
the structure;
• Provide 42 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the
access roadway/driveway;
• "Fire Lanes" are any ingress/egress, roadway/driveway with paving less than
34 feet in width, and will be clear -to -sky. All "Fire Lanes" will be depicted
.on the final building plans; and
• For streets with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and
intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire
Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in 3 -inch
high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire
Department use. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-9.)
PS -8 Development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds
per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration. Final fire flows
will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures,
property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300
feet and shall meet the following requirements:
• No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access
from a public fire hydrant.
• No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a
properly spaced fire hydrant.
When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet, hydrants will be required at the
comer and mid -block.
• Additional hydrants will he required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified
distances. (Ibid.)
PS -9 Turning radii for new on -campus roadways shall not be less than 32 feet. This
measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department
22
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in
length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs.
PS -10 All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet,
clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the
exterior walls of the first story of any building. The 26 feet width does not allow
for parking, and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane," and have appropriate
signage. The 26 feet in width shall be increased to:
• Provide 34 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the
access way;
• Provide 36 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the
access way;
• Any access way less than 34 feet in width shall he labeled "Fire Lane" on the
final recording map, and final building plans; and
• For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the
street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted
with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE"
in 3 -inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire
Department use. (Ibid.)
PS -11 All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements:
• Any single gate used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in
width, clear -to -sky.
• Any gate used for a single direction of travel, used in conjunction with another
gate, used for travel in the opposite direction, (split gates) shall have a
minimum width of 20 feet each, clear -to -sky.
• Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a
public right-of-way, and shall be provided with a turnaround having a
minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used, the 50
feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device.
• All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department.
• Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to installation.
These plans shall show all locations, widths, and details of the proposed gates.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.8.1-10 to 4.8.1-11.)
23
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
PS -12 All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humpsibumps, traffic circles,
roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to
implementation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-11.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Construction sites are subject to the Azusa Light and Water
Department standards relative to Fire Department fire fighting equipment, accessibility standards
and water availability. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will
be addressed at the building fire plan check phase, and additional fire and life safety
requirements may be required at that time. Adherence to the above noted standards and
requirements during construction and implementation of mitigation measure PS -3 would result in
less than significant fire hazards during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-5.)
The Fire Department works with the City of Azusa to review plans for new development. APU
will comply with applicable fire and life safety standards and code requirements such as fire
hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, adequate fire lane turning -radius, access and design to comply
with the Fire Department's fire protection requirements. The Fire Department maintains
ultimate review and approval authority over aspects of the proposed development that relate to
fire protection, and may identify further recommendations and/or requirements. Water supply
infrastructure will be upgraded as necessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8.1-6 to 4.8.1-7.) Impacts
resulting from Specific Plan development will be mitigated by compliance with applicable fire
and life safety codes, standards and guidelines, and incorporation of project -specific mitigation
measures to reduce fire protection impacts. With the addition of Fire Department resources
(facilities, equipment and/or staffing) and implementation of mitigation measures PS -1
through PS -12, the Specific Plan impacts related to fire protection services will be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8.1-7.)
Finally, the proposed project may incrementally contribute to a cumulative increase in the
demand for fire protection services from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD).
(Draft EK p. 4.8.1-11.) Increases in development in the Fire Department's jurisdictional area,
including the Specific Plan area, will result in an increase in calls for service and in the average
response time for fire protection and life safety services. Impacts resulting from new
development will be reduced by compliance with applicable fire and life safety codes, standards
and guidelines, and incorporation of project -specific mitigation measures to reduce fire
protection impacts. With the addition of Fire Department resources (facilities, equipment
and/or staffing), cumulative impacts will be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.8.1-11.)
F. Utilities and Service Systems - Sewer
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan will
increase the demand for wastewater collection and treatment services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-6.)
Based on an analysis of the existing City sewer system downstream of the West Campus, two
deficiencies will occur off site as a result of increased flows from the Specific Plan
implementation, if system upgrades are not made. The first is the existing 8 -inch pipe in Cerritos
Avenue from Foothill Boulevard immediately downstream of the West Campus. This segment
24
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
of the pipe will need to be replaced with a 10 -inch pipe to accommodate existing and the
Specific Plan flows. If other planned and cumulative projects in the City are tributary to this
line, then a line larger than 10 inches is anticipated to be necessary. The second off-site
deficiency is just upstream of the City connection to the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts' (LACSD's) trunk sewer. A segment of the existing 12 -inch sewer line will need to be
replaced with a 15- to 18 -inch -diameter line in Alameda Avenue from the LACSD trunk in Base
Line Road to the alley north of Base Line Road. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-9.)
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts of the
proposed Specific Plan related to sewer service to a less than significant level:
U-1 Implementation of the Specific Plan shall comply with all water conservation
measures required by applicable City and state regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-
10.)
U-2 APU shall be required to submit the Sewer Master Plan prepared for the Specific
Plan to the City of Azusa for review. APU shall also be required to pay plan
check and inspection fees as required by the City of Azusa. (Ibid.)
U-3 APU shall be required to pay the connection fees imposed by the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Construction -related wastewater will not have a significant
adverse impact on existing disposal/treatment facilities due to expected low volumes of waste
water generated during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-5.) According to the Master Sewer
Plan prepared for the APU Specific Plan, the total average sewer generation flows during
operations will be 444,585 gallons per day (gpd), which is 503 acre-feet per year. This
represents a total net increase of 273,993 gpd for the site, or a net increase of 310 acre-feet per
year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-6.)
A Sewer Master Plan was prepared for the Specific Plan and will be submitted for review by the
City. APU will also be required to pay plan check and inspection fees. Provided required
upgrades are met and fees are paid, the City's sewer system will be able to accommodate the
proposed Specific Plan. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.9.1-9.)
Development of the Specific Plan will be phased over a minimum of 15 to 20 years. The
availability of capacity within the LACSD's sewerage system will be verified as the proposed
project develops to ensure that adequate capacity to serve the project is available. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9.1-9, Final EIR, p. 3.0-9.). On-site infrastructure improvements will need to be made
including the construction of several new 8 -inch sewers on the East Campus and a new 8 -inch
sewer main to be extended to the existing City main in Foothill Boulevard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-
6.) Payment of a connection fee to the LACSD is required before a permit to connect to the
sewer is issued. This fee mitigates the impact of a project on the present sewerage system.
Provided required upgrades are met and plan check and inspection fees are paid, the LACSD's
25
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
sewerage system will be able to accommodate the'waste water generated by the operation of the
proposed Specific Plan. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation measures
U-1 through U-3. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-9.)
Future development will require expansion of the City sewer system. Cumulative development
will generate 585,190 gallons of wastewater per day, which is 662 acre-feet per year. Buildout
of the Specific Plan will generate 273,993 net gallons of wastewater per day, a net increase of
310 acre-feet per year. This represents a total increase of 859,193 net gallons of wastewater
generated per day, which is 972 net acre-feet per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-10.) The applicants
for future development will be required to pay plan check and inspection fees. Provided
required upgrades are made and fees are paid, cumulative impacts to the City's sewer system
would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-11.) In addition, the LACSD require a connection fee to
construct an incremental expansion of the sewerage system to accommodate a proposed Specific
Plan. Payment of a connection fee is required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued.
This fee mitigates the impact of a project on the present sewerage system. Therefore, impacts
from implementation of cumulative development projects, including the Specific Plan, are
considered less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.1-11.)
G. Utilities and Service Systems - Water Service
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan will
increase the demand for water services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-8.) Specific Plan implementation
will require expansion of and connection to the water supply system in order to meet domestic
and fire flow water requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-7 to 4.9.2-8.)
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of
the Specific Plan related to water service to a less than significant level:
U4 Each project implemented under the Specific Plan shall be required to comply
with all water conservation measures required by applicable City and state
regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-11.)
U-5 Each project implemented under the Specific Plan shall be required to pay for the
requisite infrastructure improvements identified by the Azusa Light and Water
Department through the existing water system development fee requirements.
(Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: The amount of water that will be consumed during construction
of the Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the water supply system due to
expected low volumes of water consumed during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-7.)
According to the Master Water Plan prepared for the APU Specific Plan, the total average annual
proposed water demand will be 504,060 gpd, which is 564 acre-feet per year. The total demand
on the East and West Campuses will be 287,261 gpd, which is 325 acre-feet per year and
216,799 gpd, which is 245 acre-feet per year, respectively. This represents a total net increase of
299,850 gpd, which is 339 acre-feet per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-8.)
26
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Specific Plan implementation will require expansion of and connection to the water supply
system in order to meet domestic and fire flow water requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-8 to
4.9.2-8.) The Water Master Plan prepared for the Specific Plan will be submitted for review by
the City. The APU will also be required to pay plan check, inspection and development fees.
Currently, the Azusa Light and Water Department has the facilities, equipment and source of
water supply to adequately provide water services to the City of Azusa. Provided required
upgrades are made and fees are paid, the City's water system will be able to accommodate the
proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9.2-11.)
Future cumulative development will require expansion of the water system. Cumulative
development will consume 1,234,137 gallons of water per day, which is 1,379 acre-feet per year.
Buildout of the Specific Plan will consume a net additional 299,850 gallons of water per day,
which is 339 net acre-feet per year. This will result in a total cumulative demand of 1,533,987
gallons of water per day, which is 1,736 acre-feet per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.2-11.) Currently,
the Azusa Light and Water Department has the facilities, equipment and source of water supply
to adequately provide water services to the City of Azusa, including forecasted and planned
development such as the Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, P. 4.9.2-11.) Cumulative development
projects will be required to pay for Water Upgrade Plans and to pay for needed system upgrades
and fees. Cumulative development impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9.2-12.)
H. Cultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impactss
Archaeological Resources: Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist
on the Specific Plan site or within the local area. In addition, the campus sites have already been
subject to extensive disruption and contain fill materials. Any archaeological resources, which
may have existed at one time, have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, construction
activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth previously
undocumented resources and, therefore, potentially result in a significant adverse impact on
archeological resources. (Draft EK pp. 4.10-15 to 4.10-16.)
Paleontological Resources: The campus sites have already been subject to extensive disruption
and are extensively developed. Any superficial paleontological resources, which may have
existed at one time, have likely been previously unearthed by past development activities.
Nonetheless, there is a possibility that paleontological resources may exist at deep levels and,
therefore, construction for the Specific Plan could potentially result in significant adverse
impacts on paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-16.)
Human Remains: No known traditional human burial sites exist within the project area or
surrounding area, nor have any resources been identified. Nonetheless, is it possible that human
27
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
remains could be encountered during excavation and grading activities for the Specific Plan.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.10-16.)
There will be significant adverse impacts to three historical resources as part of the Specific
Plan: the Azusa Drive -In Theater, the APU Quad and the APU Admissions/Student Financial
Services buildings. Those impacts are discussed in Section V of this Resolution.
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to
cultural resources to a less than significant level:
Archaeological Resources:
CR -4 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface
activities, all earth disturbing work within a 200 -meter radius must be temporarily
suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and
significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in
the area may resume. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18.)
Paleontological Resources:
CR -5 In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface
activities, all earth disturbing work within 100 -meter radius must be temporarily
suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and
significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in
the area may resume. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19.)
Human Remains:
CR -6 If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant
of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant on how to
proceed with the remains (i.e., avoid, rebury). (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation.
Archaeological Resources: Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist
on the Specific Plan site or within the local area. In addition, the campus sites have already been
subject to extensive disruption and contain fill materials. Any archaeological resources, which
may have existed at one time, have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, construction
activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth previously
undocumented resources and potentially result in a significant adverse impact on archeological
28
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
resources. Implementation of mitigation measure CR -4 would reduce potential impacts of the
Specific Plan related to archeological resources to a level that is less than significant. (Draft
EK pp. 4.10-15 to 4.10-16.)
Paleontological Resources: The City of Azusa General Plan indicates that a certain rock units
are present within the City. These include Mesozoic plutonic rocks, Quaternary terrestrial
sediments, and Tertiary marine sediments. These rock units include formations of Pliocene
Fernando and Miocene Topanga that have been known to contain fossiliferous materials,
including remains of marine mammals. The campus sites have already been subject to extensive
disruption and are extensively developed. Any superficial paleontological resources, which may
have existed at one time, have likely been previously unearthed by past development activities.
Nonetheless, there is a possibility that paleontological resources may exist at deep levels and the
construction of the Specific Plan could potentially result in a significant adverse impact related to
paleontological resources. Implementation of mitigation measure CR -5 would reduce potential
impacts of the Specific Plan related to paleontological resources to a level that is less than
significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-16.)
Human Remains: The project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of
the urban landscape and include residential, institutional and retail -commercial uses. No known
traditional human burial sites exist on the project site or in the surrounding area, nor have any
such resources been identified on the project site. Nonetheless, if human remains are
encountered during excavation and grading activities, any discovery of such remains would be
treated in accordance with state and federal regulations guidelines for disclosure, recovery and
preservation, as appropriate. Implementation of mitigation measure CR -6 would reduce
potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Development of the cumulative projects. in the Specific Plan Area would require grading and
excavation that could potentially affect archaeological andpaleontological resources, or human
remains. The cumulative effect of these projects would contribute to the loss of cultural
resources, if these resources are not protected on discovery. CEQA requirements for protecting
archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains are applicable to development
in the City of Azusa, as are local, state, and federal historical resource protection regulations and
ordinances. Because cultural resources are protected on discovery as required by law, the
cumulative impact to those resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19.)
I. Transportation and Traffic
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: The proposed project is estimated to generate
8,149 average daily trips, with 720 trips during the morning peak hour and 720 trips during the
evening peak hour. Of the 720 morning peak hour trips, the East Campus will generate 184 trips
and the West Campus will generate 536 trips. Of the 720 evening peak hour trips, the East
Campus will generate 184 trips and the West Campus will generate 536 trips. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-
20.)
29
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
significant adverse impacts to transportation and traffic at all other studied intersections as a
result of the proposed Specific Plan to a less than significant level:
T-1 The main entry off Citrus Avenue to the East Campus will be signalized to
operate more efficiently. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-29.)
T-2 The parkin¢ requirement for APU in fiscal vear 2022-2023 based on the Ci
of Azusa parking code is 3,088 spaces. The parking plan in the APU Specific
Plan provides a total of 4,657 spaces. Of these 2.767 will be on the East
Campus and 1,890 will be on the West Campus. This parking plan would
result in a surplus supply of over 1,500 spaces over the projected
requirement. The university is prepared to construct sufficient parking
supply to ensure that upon completion of the planned development the total
number of parking spaces exceeds the city requirement of 3,088 up to a total
of 4,657 spaces. (Ibid.)
T-3 Calera Avenue and Alosta Avenue — The project applicant shall pay the project's
fair share to modify the intersection to provide an eastbound left -tum lane. This
improvement will require striping modifications and modifications to the existing
raised median. (Ibid.)
01111.1~111.1 1
T-5 Citrus Avenue and Foothill Boulevard — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to adjust the signal phasing to allow for a protected eastbound
left turn phase. This improvement will require modifications to the existing
traffic signal equipment at the intersection. (Ibid.)
T-6 Citrus Avenue and Alosta Avenue — The project applicant shall pay the project's
fair share to adjust the signal phasing to allow for a permitted southbound left
turn phase. This improvement will require modifications to the existing traffic
signal equipment at the intersection. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-29 to 4.2-30.)
T-7 Citrus Avenue and Mauna Loa Avenue — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to convert the existing unsignalized intersection into a
signalized intersection. This improvement will require the addition of traffic
signal equipment at the intersection. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-30.)
T-8 Citrus Avenue and Baseline Road — The project applicant shall pay the project's
fair share to modify the intersection to provide an additional northbound left -tum
We
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
lane. This improvement will require striping modifications and modifications to
the existing raised median. (Ibid.)
T-9 Cerritos Avenue and Foothill Boulevard — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to modify the intersection to provide a southbound left -tum
lane, through lane, and two right -tum lanes and a northbound left -turn lane,
shared-through/left-tum lane and a right -tum lane. This improvement will require
striping modifications and modifications to the existing raised median. (Ibid.)
T-10 Pasadena Avenue and Foothill Boulevard — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to adjust the signal phasing to allow for a protected
northbound left turn phase. This improvement will require modifications to the
existing traffic signal equipment at the intersection. (Ibid.)
T-12 Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to modify the intersection to provide a northbound right -tum
lane. This improvement will require striping modifications and the removal of
some on -street parking. (Ibid.)
T-13 Azusa Avenue and 1st Street — The project applicant shall pay the project's fair
share to adjust the signal phasing to allow for a protected/permitted northbound
left tura phase and permitted southbound left turn phase. This improvement will
require modifications to the existing traffic signal equipment at the intersection.
(Ibid.)
T-14 San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard — The project applicant shall pay the
project's fair share to modify the intersection to provide an additional westbound
left -tum lane. This improvement will require striping modifications and
modifications to the existing raised median. (Draft EK pp. 4.2-30 to 4.2-31.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Twenty-seven intersections in the project study area were
analyzed for potentially significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed APU Specific
Plan. Five of the intersections currently operate at an unacceptable LOS. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13.)
The Draft EIR analysis shows that using the City of Azusa's impact criteria, project -generated
31
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
traffic will produce V/C increases large enough to result in significant adverse impacts at 14 of
the 27 study intersections during one or both of the peak hours. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-21.) Under
future cumulative base conditions (i.e., year 2022 conditions without the addition of the proposed
project), 12 of the 27 intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18.)
Under future Cumulative Plus Project conditions, 14 of the 27 intersections would operate at an
unacceptable LOS, resulting in a significant adverse traffic impact at these intersections. (Draft
EK p. 4.2-21.)
Mitigation measures are recommended for impacts to 4-3 11 of the 14 intersections that would be
significantly adversely impacted by the proposed Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31.) With
mitigation, there would be no unavoidable significant adverse project or cumulative project
impacts to these 14 11 intersections. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33.)
The intersections of Azusa Avenue/Foothill Boulevard and San Gabriel Avenue/Foothill
Boulevard were analyzed using the Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology and
criteria for the weekday AM and PM peak periods. The results of the analysis show that with
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact at these locations under the CMP guidelines. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-26.)
The circulation plan for the project does not demonstrate design features, such as sharp curves or
dangerous intersections that will increase traffic hazards. No incompatible uses are proposed on
either campus that will cause traffic hazards. Therefore, no significant adverse impact will
occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-28.)
No areas of inadequate emergency access are readily apparent in the proposed Specific Plan.
The City's Department of Community Development, Police Department, and County of Los
Angeles Fire Department will review the Specific Plan and final site plans prior to approval to
ensure that individual projects implemented under the Specific Plan will not result in inadequate
emergency access. If necessary, these Departments will specify conditions of approval that will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
Future on-site parking demands for the Specific Plan are forecast at approximately 4,242 spaces.
The Specific Plan would provide 4;$33 4,657 spaces, which would more than accommodate the
projected on-site demand. No parking demand impact will occur as a result of the Specific Plan.
(Ibid.)
The Specific Plan will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation, and impacts relative to this criterion will be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-29.)
The traffic analysis in the Specific Plan EIR is cumulative in nature and takes into account
ambient traffic growth as well as the effect of future planned and proposed projects. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.2-5.) Thus, cumulative traffic impacts were addressed in the Cumulative Plus Project
Scenario. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31.) The traffic impact analysis revealed that cumulative traffic
increases, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in significant adverse
32
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
impacts with one exception: a significant adverse impact could occur at the intersection of Stein
Lane and Foothill Boulevard during both the AM and PM peak hours (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18.) As
noted above, no feasible mitigation for this intersection is recommended. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31.)
SECTION 4: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS TITAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures described in
the Draft EIR, the following significant adverse impacts of the proposed Specific Plan cannot be
fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
therefore included herein:
A. Transportation and Traffic
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: The Draft EIR analysis shows that using the City
of Azusa's impact criteria, project -generated traffic will produce volume to capacity (V/Q
increases large enough to result in significant adverse impacts at 14 of the 27 study intersections
during one or both of the peak hours. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-21.) Under future cumulative base
conditions (i.e., year 2022 conditions without the addition of the proposed project), 12 of the 27
intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS). (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18.)
Under future Cumulative Plus Project conditions, 14 of the 27 intersections would operate at an
unacceptable LOS, resulting in a significant adverse traffic impact at these intersections. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.2-21.)
2. Findine: The unsignalized intersection of Stein Lane and Foothill Boulevard is
forecasted to have the minor approach leg operate at LOS F; however, no feasible mitigation is
available for this intersection.
3. Supporting Explanation: The intersection of Stein Lane and Foothill Boulevard currently
operates at LOS E during the morning peak hour and LOS F during the afternoon peak hour.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13.) Under the City of Azusa's significant impact criteria, it was determined
that a significant adverse impact would occur at the intersection of Stein Lane and Foothill
Boulevard during both the AM and PM peak hours without the addition of project traffic (Draft
EIR, p. 4.2-14) and with the addition of project traffic. (Draft EK p. 4.2-18.) The intersection is
currently not signalized, and is forecasted to have the minor approach leg operate at LOS F.
None of the proposed project traffic is assigned to this minor approach and extensive delays will
be minimal when considering the overall operation of the intersection. Signalizing the
intersection would reduce the impact at the intersection, but at the expense of the major approach
legs. Given the close proximity of this intersection to already signalized intersections along
Foothill Boulevard, such as Cerritos Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, it is the determination of
Kaku Associates, Inc., the traffic consultant for the EIR, that mitigation of the intersection
through the addition of a traffic signal will result in an increase in delay along the major
approaches, and a reduction of intersection capacity and overall efficiency along the Foothill
33
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Boulevard corridor. Therefore, no feasible mitigation for this intersection is recommended.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31.)
B. Noise - Construction Phase
1. Potential Siynificant Adverse Impacts: Construction activities associated with
implementation of the Specific Plan are anticipated to occur in a variety of locations on the
campuses over the minimum 15 to 20 year construction period. The development of the project
site is anticipated to occur over three phases. During this time frame, the construction of
individual building projects is projected to occur periodically based on need and funding
available to the University. Construction equipment would generate both steady state and
episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the project site. Construction noise, for both
on and off site locations, that would occur during the buildout of all new buildings and facilities
associated with the construction of the Specific Plan could exceed City noise standards. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.4-15 to 4.4-16.)
2. Findine: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts
related to the construction phase of the proposed Specific Plan to the extent feasible:
N-1 The applicant shall submit a noise control plan to the satisfaction of the City of
Azusa Planning Department. All requirements of the noise control plan shall be
implemented for any construction actions that occur associated with the
development of the Specific Plan. The noise control plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
• Excavation, grading, and other construction activities related to the proposed
project shall be restricted to the hours of operation allowed under Municipal
Code Section 88-675(c)(3), which limits the hours of construction activities to
between 7 AM to 6 PM.
• Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from
occupied residences and on-site dormitories as possible, and screened from
these uses by a solid noise attenuation barrier.
• Solid noise attenuation barriers with a sound transmission coefficient (STC) of
at least 20 shall be used along all project boundaries during the construction
phases associated with the development of the project.
• All stationary construction equipment (e.g., air compressor, generators, etc.)
shall be operated as far away occupied residences and on-site dormitories as
possible. If this is not possible the equipment shall be shielded with
temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins.
• To the extent feasible, haul routes for removing excavated materials from the
site shall be designed to avoid residential areas, and areas occupied by noise
34
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, etc.). (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-21)
N-2 For each construction activity conducted as a part of the development of the
Specific Plan, a construction relations officer shall be appointed by the project
applicant to inform residents adjacent to the project site of the proposed
construction activities, types of construction equipment used, length of
construction, and measures taken to shield their residences from excessive
construction noise. The construction relations officer shall also inform the
residents of measures they can take to reduce the impact of the noise within their
homes, such as keeping doors and windows closed during warm weather, turning
on air conditioning in warm weather, and using earplugs. (Draft EIR, P. 4.4-22.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Most of the construction noise generated by the development
of, or modifications to, the buildings located on the APU campuses, will not generate noise
levels that exceed City standards due to their distance from off site land uses and direct line -of -
sight obstruction by existing campuses buildings, topography and landscaping. However, the
Draft EIR analysis describes the potential worst-case construction noise, for both on and off site
locations, that could occur during the construction of buildings and facilities associated with the
development of the Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-16.)
The closest sensitive noise receptors to the project site, at distances as close as 100 feet, will
experience varying noise levels depending on the type of construction activity. Peak
construction noise levels that would be generated on the project site will range from 61 to 77
dB(A) at distances of 100 feet from the source. This constitutes a worst-case analysis for nearby
sensitive uses, since the predominant construction noise will almost always be more than 100
feet from sensitive receptors. As the worst-case construction noise levels at off site locations
will not exceed the 85 dB(A) within a 100 -foot radius threshold as regulated by Municipal Code
Section 88-675(c)(3), construction noise impacts for most of the Specific Plan are considered
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 to 4.4-17.)
In some cases, development of individual buildings on the project site will occur in close
proximity to existing buildings, or buildings constructed in earlier phases associated with the
Specific Plan. Construction activities associated with the dormitory proposed in the third phase
could occur as close as 30 feet from the dormitories constructed in the second phase. At this
distance, intermittent noise levels of up to 87.4 dB(A) will occur within a 100 -foot radius and,
although dormitory buildings will comply with Title 24 requirements and the construction
activities will comply with mitigation measures N-1 and N-2, this short term construction noise
impact of the Specific Plan is considered significant and adverse, even with mitigation. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
In addition to equipment noise associated with construction activities, construction traffic will
generate noise along access routes to the proposed development areas from the movement of
equipment and workers onto the development locations on the campuses. However, given that
35
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
this traffic will not be a substantial percentage of daily volumes in the area and will not increase
levels by more than three dB(A), potential impacts are less than significant. (Ibid.)
Implementation of mitigation measures N-1 and N-2 will reduce noise impacts related to the
construction phase of the proposed Specific Plan to the extent feasible. However, construction
noise levels are still anticipated to potentially exceed the noise thresholds identified in the City of
Azusa Municipal Code Section 88-675(c)(3). This impact is considered an unavoidable
significant adverse impact of the proposed Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-25.)
C. Air Quality - Construction Emissions
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts:. Implementation of the APU Specific Plan could
generate construction -related pollutant emissions. Construction -related emissions could exceed
thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for NOx, SOx, CO, VOC and PMI().
(Draft EIR, p. 4.5-17.)
2. Findine. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the Specific
Plan air quality impacts related to construction emissions to the extent feasible:
AQ1 To the maximum extent feasible, develop and implement a construction
management plan, as approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit,
which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or
equivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD:
a. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
b. Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction
activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person).
C. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial
system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable.
d. Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets.
e. . Consolidate truck deliveries when possible.
f. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and
equipment on and off site.
g. Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper
tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to
minimize exhaust emissions.
h. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage
smog alerts. Contact the SCAQMD at 800/242-4022 for daily forecasts.
kri
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
i. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline -
powered generators.
j. Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers
instead of diesel if readily available at competitive prices.
k. Use propane- or butane -powered on-site mobile equipment instead of
gasoline if readily available at competitive prices. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-26
to 4.5-27.)
AQ -2 To the maximum extent feasible, develop and implement a dust control plan, as
approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, which includes the
measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures
approved by the SCAQMD, as provided in Rules 403 and 1186 regarding fugitive
dust from construction activities.
AQ -3 Comply with Title 24 of the UBC energy conservation requirements.
AQ -4 All on- and off-road construction equipment shall to the extent feasible, as
determined by the City of Azusa use, emulsified diesel fuel.
3. Supporting Explanation. The project was conservatively assumed to occur over three
phases as identified in the APU Specific Plan: Phase L• From 2005 to 2010; Phase II: From
2010 to 2020, (Phase II was further divided into two equal five-year phases for the EIR analysis);
and Phase III: From 2020 to 2025. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18.) Actual construction of individual
buildings or groups of buildings would tend to occur over shorter periods, probably on the order
of 18 to 24 months, rather than one long construction period of five years. (Ibid.)
During construction, emissions of VOC and NOx would exceed thresholds of significance
recommended by the SCAQMD. Emissions of NO., S%, CO, VOC and PM10 would not exceed
the recommended thresholds. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20.)
Because the maximum Specific Plan construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's VOC
and NO. thresholds of significance during the project construction period, the emission levels are
considered potentially significant and adverse and feasible mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.
4.2-20.) Although mitigation measures AQ -1 to AQ -4, which are feasible, would reduce the
magnitude of construction -related emissions to some extent, no feasible mitigation currently
exists that would reduce all these emissions to below the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance.
The Specific Plan's construction -related emissions of VOC and NO, are considered unavoidably
significant and adverse, even with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-31.)
37
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
D. Utilities and Service Systems - Solid Waste
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts: Demolition of existing APU buildings would
produce 11,125 cubic yards of demolition material over the minimum 15- to 20 -year Specific
Plan buildout. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9.3-6.) Buildout of the Specific Plan is estimated to require a
minimum of 15 to 20 years. At buildout, the Specific Plan will generate a net increase of 3,182
pounds of solid waste per day. (Ibid.) This quantity represents the Specific Plan's solid waste
generation under a worst-case scenario without any diversion (recycling) activities in place. This
additional waste will incrementally reduce the life expectancy of landfills serving the site. Given
the size of the project and the amount of waste to be generated, and given the fact than landfill
space is in increasingly short supply, project solid waste generation is considered a potentially
significant adverse impact of the proposed Specific Plan.
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce the potentially
significant adverse impacts of the proposed Specific Plan related to the solid waste disposal
service system to the extent feasible:
U-5 To the extent feasible, demolition debris and construction wastes shall be
recycled. The APU shall facilitate recycling of materials in these wastes through
coordination with Athens Disposal Services and the Puente Hills Landfill. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.9.3-7)
U-6 All building construction specifications shall encourage contractors to use
recycled content building materials. (Ibid.)
U-7 Development of the Specific Plan shall meet the requirements of all applicable
solid waste diversion, storage, and disposal regulations that may be in effect at the
time of building permit application. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Many programs are in place at local and Countywide levels to
reduce solid waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites).
(Draft EK pp. 4.9.3.1 to 4.9.3-3.), In response to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 939
(the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989), the City of Azusa adopted Source Reduction
and Recycling, Household Hazardous Waste and Non -Disposal Facilities Elements. In 2001 and
2002, the preliminary reports prepared by the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) indicate that the City's diversion rates were 57 and 51 percent, respectively. (Ibid.)
The City's records indicate that the City's diversion rates were 53 and 55 percent in 2001 and
2002, respectively. (Ibid.) Based on these figures, the City is in compliance with the 50 percent
waste diversion (recycling) requirement mandated by AB 939. The City's success in meeting the
AB 939 goal of 50 percent diversion and implementation of the above mitigation measure will
reduce solid waste impacts of the proposed Specific Plan to the extent feasible.
Until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the
foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource, the proposed Specific
Plan and cumulative construction -related and operational solid and hazardous waste impacts are
38
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
considered unavoidably significant and adverse, even with compliance with AB 939 and the
project mitigation measures. Even though the Specific Plan will comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste, it is not clear that the landfill(s) serving
the Project will have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs over time.
E. Cultural Resources - Azusa Drive -In Theater, APU Quad and APU Admissions/Student
Financial Services Buildings
1. Potential Significant Adverse Impacts. The Azusa Drive -In Theater site on the West
Campus of APU is considered eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). In addition, the marquee of the Azusa Drive -In Theater is currently
designated as an historical resource under the City of Azusa Historical Preservation Ordinance.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.10-14.) Both the APU Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings appear to meet the
requirements under Criterion 1 of the City of Azusa Historical Preservation Ordinance. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.10-15.) Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant adverse
impact to these potential historic landmarks.
2. Findine. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts of the
Specific Plan to the three historical resources identified above to the extent feasible:
CR -1 The applicant shall be required to place a plaque or other form of marker(s) or
displays on the subject property, in an appropriate public location, which will
provide historic information about the founding and early history of Azusa Pacific
University and the Azusa Drive -In. Historic and/or contemporary photographs
should be included on the plaque. The content, format and location of the marker
shall be subject to the approval by the City of Azusa. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18.)
CR -2 The applicant shall produce a documentation report consisting of black and white
archival, quality photographs and measured drawings of the buildings and
structures to be demolished or relocated and the Historic Resources Report
prepared for this property. Copies of the documentation report shall be submitted
to the Azusa Historical Society archives and the Azusa Library. (Ibid.)
CR -3 All efforts to feleeate-,-restore, rehabilitate, or reconstruct the drive-in marquee
shall be undertaken in conformance with a plan approved by the City of Azusa.
This plan shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and be prepared by a qualified and experienced
historic preservation professional. The new ',.eation sha" be an h:sterie lly
(Ibid.)
CR -4 All efforts to relocate, restore, rehabilitate, or reconstruct the eastern wing of the
Quad building shall be undertaken in conformance with a plan approved by the
City of Azusa. This plan shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's
39
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and be prepared by a qualified
and experienced historic preservation professional. The applicant shall be
required to place a plaque or other form of marker(s) or displays on the subject
property, in an appropriate public location, which will provide historic
information about the founding and early history of Azusa Pacific University, and
the Quad building. Historic and/or contemporary photographs should be included
on the plaque. The content, format, and location of the marker shall be subject to
the approval by the City of Azusa.
3. Supporting Explanation. As proposed in the Specific Plan and analyzed in the Draft EIR,
APU would consider donating the Azusa Drive -In marquee to the City of Azusa and contribute
up to $25,000 to the restoration and reconstruction of the marquee and would also pay the
expense of moving the marquee to property owned by the City of Azusa. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-15.)
Any efforts to relocate, restore, rehabilitate or reconstruct the drive-in marquee would be
undertaken in conformance with a plan approved by the City of Azusa. The plan would conform
to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and be
prepared by a qualified and experience historic preservation professional. (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR indicated that the Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings are currently located in the
central part of the East Campus. The Quad building currently houses the Departments of
Communication Studies and English, and the Institute for Outreach Ministries. Implementation
of the Specific Plan would replace the Quad building, in part, with a "Campus Forming Open
Space" plaza intended to provide integration of the academic and residential land uses on the
East Campus by way of pedestrian walkways. The Admissions/SFS buildings currently hold the
Office of Undergraduate Admissions and the Office of Undergraduate Student Financial
Services. Implementation of the Specific Plan would replace both of these buildings with a new
academic building. (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR determined that given that both the Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings appear to
meet the requirements under Criterion 1 of the City of Azusa Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Therefore, , these buildings were considered as historic resources for purposes of environmental
review under CEQA. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant adverse
impact to these historic resources. (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR stated that with regard to the mitigation of significant impacts to historic
resources, Section 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project which treats
historic resources in a manner consistent with Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
is generally considered to have mitigated impacts below a level of significance. The CEQA.
Guidelines also address historic documentation as a mitigation measure. However, the CEQA
Guidelines specifically state that in some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource,
by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects
of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
adverse effect on the environment would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-20.)
EN
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
The Draft EIR determined that because implementation of the Specific Plan would result in
demolition of the historical resources on the project site, with the exception of the Azusa Foothill
Drive -In Theater marquee, for which relocation is proposed, historical documentation will not
mitigate the impact to a point where clearly no significant adverse effect on the environment
would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-20.)
Since the Draft EIR was prepared, the applicant, APU acknowledges that some members of the
Azusa community value the marquee of the former Foothill Drive -In Theater. As part of its
Specific Plan, the University has agreed to maintain the marquee in its current location and spend
up to $50,000 to reconstruct the sign. APU will also cooperate with the Azusa Historical Society
in raising any additional funds necessary to reconstruct and maintain the marquee.
In addition, the University will retain the eastern wing of the Faculty Quad building on the East
Campus. This is because, according to the City's historical resources consultants, this wing was
likely a small residence build on the property circa 1910.
Impacts on historical resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site -by -site basis.
Where resources exist, implementation of cumulative development in the region would represent
an incremental adverse impact to historical resources. However, provided that proper mitigation,
as defined by CEQA, is implemented in conjunction with development of cumulative projects,
no significant cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19.)
SECTION 5: RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines states that use of nonrenewable resources during the
initial and continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible if a large commitment of
these resources makes their removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. The Specific Plan would
involve an irreversible commitment to the use of non-renewable resources during the
construction and operation phases in the form of refined petroleum-based fuels, natural gas for
space and water heating, and mineral resources used in construction materials. The demand for
all such resources is expected to increase whether or not the proposed Specific Plan is developed
because these resources would likely be committed to other projects in the region intended to
meet this demand if the proposed project was not developed. Further, the investment of
resources in the proposed Specific Plan would be typical of the level of investment normally
required for a university of this scale. Provided that all mitigation measures provided in the
Draft EIR are implemented, and that all standard building codes, including energy conservation
standards, are followed, no wasteful use of energy or construction resources is anticipated as a
result of the construction and operation of the proposed Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6.0-1 to
6.0-4.)
SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to address the ways in which the proposed Specific
Plan could be growth -inducing. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines
41
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
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." CEQA emphasizes that growth in an area should not
be considered beneficial, detrimental or of little significance. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
The Specific Plan Area is currently developed and the surrounding areas are completely
developed or planned for development and would not involve the development of open space or
of land adjacent to open space and, thus, are not considered growth inducing from this
perspective. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
No off-site road or water line extensions would be required to support the proposed Specific
Plan. An increase in the size of off-site City sewer lines would be required as a result of the
Specific Plan implementation. However, according to the City of Azusa General Plan Update
Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends (December 2001), any future development would
require expansion of the City sewer system. Consequently, the Specific Plan would not induce
growth due to the extension of infrastructure (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-2).
Implementation of the Specific Plan would generate both short and long term employment
opportunities that could indirectly foster additional economic growth. Additionally, the increase
in short term construction jobs and long term faculty and employees could induce people to
move into the area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan could be considered growth from this
perspective. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-3.)
Because the proposed Specific Plan area consists of the existing APU East and West Campuses
and land located directly adjacent to the existing APU Specific Plan, site development would not
represent a precedent setting action and many development impediments, such as land use plans
and policies remain that restrict or direct local growth in the greater area. Consequently, the
project is not considered to represent a precedent for approval of other development proposals on
surrounding property. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
SECTION 7: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires than 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.
42
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of
alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of detail of analysis that should be provided
for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant adverse impacts of the
proposed project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant adverse impacts
associated with the project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the basic objectives of the
project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-1.)
APU developed design goals for the campuses in addition to a statement of goals and objectives
included within each subsection of the Specific Plan. These goals and objectives are listed
below.
Campus Design Goals and Objectives
• The East and West Campuses will support a balanced allocation of students between the
two sites. Classrooms, libraries, research and study areas, chapel facilities, student
housing, dining, recreational opportunities, athletics and parking will be developed on
each site.
• Seventy percent of the undergraduate student population will be accommodated in
University -sponsored housing; eighty percent of the freshman shall live in traditional
dormitory -style residences. This policy remains a critical component of the APU
experience and is significant in developing campus community.
• Student -oriented open spaces are a necessary balance to buildings. A significant
component of both the East and West Campuses will be both indoor and outdoor informal
gathering spaces and areas for intramural athletics.
• APU aspires to develop physical campuses with an aesthetic quality that includes
significant open spaces and mature landscaping commensurate with the nation's finest
institution of higher learning.
Land Use Goals and Objectives
• Delineate and place land use areas and zones so as to maximize compatibility with
adjacent and abutting land uses within the campuses and as the campuses interface with
surrounding properties.
• Accommodate future growth of the University, and design and develop the campuses to
create a unified and distinct place that supports the educational mission of the University.
Circulation Goals and Objectives
• Move students, faculty, staff and visitors to, from and within the campuses as efficiently
as possible.
43
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic on City streets and maximize the ease of
movement within the East and West Campuses and between the campuses.
Provide for safe access to and from the campuses by all modes of transportation - private
vehicle, public transit, bicycle and walking.
• Minimize the amount of land devoted to parking and vehicular roadways.
The alternatives selected for analysis in the Draft EIR were developed with the aim of avoiding
or lessening the significant environmental impacts of the Specific Plan as identified in Section
4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The analysis in the Draft EIR determined
that implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in unavoidable significant
adverse air quality, cultural resources, noise (construction), transportation and solid waste
impacts.
The City of Azusa identified several alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan. The alternatives examined in the Draft EIR
were the No Project — No Development Alternative, Avoidance of Historical Resources
Alternative and Reduced Project Alternative. A matrix comparing the alternatives, a description
of each alternative, a comparative summary of the alternative to the Specific Plan, and findings
for each alternative are presented below.
Alternative Comparison Matrix
KEY.-
(Level
EY.(Level of Impact):
L = Less than Project;
S = Similar to Project.
G = Greater than Project.
A. Alternative 1 — No Project - No Development
1. Description: Under the No Project — No Development Alternative to the proposed
Specific Plan, none of the proposed new facilities would be built, no buildings on the campuses
M.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Environmental Topic
No Project
Historical Resource Avoidance
Reduced Project
Aesthetics
L
S
S
Air Quality
L
S
S
Cultural Resources
L
L
S
Geology
L
S
s
Hazards
S
G
S
Land Use
L
S
S
Noise/Vibration
L
L
S
Population and Housing
L
G
S
Public Services/Utilities
S
S
S
Transportation and Circulation
S
G
S
KEY.-
(Level
EY.(Level of Impact):
L = Less than Project;
S = Similar to Project.
G = Greater than Project.
A. Alternative 1 — No Project - No Development
1. Description: Under the No Project — No Development Alternative to the proposed
Specific Plan, none of the proposed new facilities would be built, no buildings on the campuses
M.
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
would be renovated, the campuses' circulation and access would not be modified, no new sports
fields or athletic facilities would be built, additional parking would not be provided, campus
infrastructure would not be changed, additional residential facilities would not be built, and
campus landscaping would not be implemented or renovated.
2. Impact Analysis: Under this Alternative, the visual character of the campuses
would remain the same. No buildings would be renovated or built, no new parking lots would be
built, no lights would be added, and landscaping would remain as it presently exists. As there
would be no new development on the campuses, there would be no impacts with respect to
construction or operational air emissions, demolition of historical resources, increases in noise,
erosion, soil strength, seismic shaking or expansive soils. (Draft FIR, p. 5.0-4.)
Although no new construction would occur on the campuses, at least some of projected
enrollment growth is likely to occur without the Specific Plan. Increased enrollment would place
an increased demand on public services such as fire and police protection in addition to increased
water consumption and wastewater generation. Depending on the number of additional students,
there could still be impacts to transportation and circulation. Without the proposed parking
facilities and roadway and circulation improvements, there could be impacts related to unmet
parking demand and greater spillover into nearby neighborhoods. There could also be continued
difficulty for pedestrians to travel between parts of the campuses and within these areas (Ib
3. Findine: Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the proposed Specific Plan.
However, CEQA excludes the No Project Alternative from consideration as the environmentally
superior alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Specific Plan
goals and objectives for the project.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 1, although environmentally
superior, fails to meet Project objectives and is therefore infeasible. On this basis, the City
Council rejects Alternative 1.
B. Alternative 2 — Historical Resource Avoidance
1. Description: Implementation of this Alternative would result in the Azusa Drive -
In Theater, the Quad and the Admissions/SFS buildings not being demolished. Implementation
of this Alternative would reduce the area available for development on the West Campus by 17
acres. As a result, three dormitories, a parking garage, swimming pool, academic building,
student center/cafeteria, and baseball fields would not be built. On the East Campus,
implementation of this Alternative would result in one of the largest academic buildings
proposed for the East Campus and one of the central campus forming open space areas that
forms a connection of pedestrian walkways between core buildings not being built. (Draft EIR,
p. 5.0-5.)
2. Impact Analysis% Avoidance of the historical resources would result in the visual
characteristics of the Azusa Drive -In Theater and the Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings
remaining as they currently exist. However, Specific Plan development would occur around
45
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
these historical resources and views of the campus in other areas proposed for Specific Plan
development would be the same as the proposed project. Thus, aesthetic impacts would be
similar under this Alternative to those associated with the proposed project because development
on other parts of the East and West Campuses would still occur; however, the views of the
historic resources would not be lost under this Alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-5.)
Implementation of this Alternative would result in less construction air emissions than the
proposed project, primarily because on the East Campus a large academic building would not be
built and on the West Campus four dormitories and various athletic facilities would not be built.
However, it is unlikely that construction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level
with implementation of this Alternative. In addition, at least some of the projected enrollment
and, consequently, vehicle emissions would occur with implementation of this Alternative. For
this reason, the operational air emissions of this Alternative would be similar to the emissions
under the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-6.)
Implementation of this Alternative would result in the Azusa Drive -In Theater and the
Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings not being demolished. Thus, this Alternative would avoid
the proposed project's impact on cultural resources. (Ibid.
This Alternative would involve less construction than the proposed project and
consequently, a lesser amount of disturbance to existing terrain would result. However, other
improvements outside of the Azusa Drive -In Theater site and the Quad and Admissions/SFS
building footprints would still be developed. Consequently, improvements constructed outside
of the historical resource areas on the campuses would still be subjected to the forces of ground
movement during seismic events similar to the proposed project, and would also be subject to the
same construction requirements as the proposed project. (Ib
Implementation of this Alternative would require remediation of asbestos containing
materials in on -campus buildings. However, current hazards in buildings on the East Campus,
including asbestos -containing materials and lead-based paints in the Quad and Admissions/SFS
buildings and PCB -containing fluids in the electrical transformer located on.the Azusa Foothill
Drive-in Theater property would not be addressed as these areas would not be developed.
Consequently, implementation of this Alternative would result in a greater impact than the
proposed project because some existing hazardous conditions on the project site would not be
remediated. (Ibid.)
Under this Alternative, the same land uses would be constructed as under the proposed
project with the exception of proposed uses on the Azusa Drive -In Theater site. Because the
proposed project is not inconsistent with regional or local plans designed to guide development
of the project site and surrounding areas, this Alternative would be similar to the proposed
project with respect to land use. (Draft EK p.5.0-7.)
This Alternative would reduce the off-site construction and operational noise, in
particular, to residents along the West Campus boundary because development on the Azusa
Drive -In Theater site would not occur. However, construction noise impacts to on-site uses
M
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
would remain similar to the proposed project, as construction would occur on other parts of the
campuses in close proximity to existing buildings. Noise impacts under this Alternative would be
less than the proposed project. (Ibid.
Although implementation of this Alternative would result in less new construction on the
campuses, at least some increase in enrollment is likely to occur even with avoidance of the
historic resources on the campuses. Increased enrollment would place an increased demand on
dormitory housing needs and this Alternative would result in four less dormitories.
Consequently, impacts to population and housing would be greater under this Alternative than
with the proposed project. (Ib
Although less new construction would occur on the campuses, at least some increase in
enrollment is likely to occur even with avoidance of the historic resources on the campuses.
Increased enrollment would place an increased demand on public services such as fire and police
protection in addition to increased water consumption and wastewater generation. In addition,
project impacts were found to be significant and adverse for solid waste. Implementation of this
Alternative would not reduce solid waste impacts to below a significant level because at least
some increase in student enrollment would occur with this Alternative. Therefore, impacts to
public services under this Alternative would result in impacts similar to the proposed project.
(mom
Avoidance of the historic resources on the campuses would not necessarily preclude the
projected enrollment increase over the next 15 to 20 years at the APU campus. Implementation
of this Alternative would, in part, result in the construction of one less parking structure on the
West Campus. As a result, increased parking congestion could result if projected enrollment
occurs without corresponding facilities development. In addition, the proposed project found an
unavoidable significant impact with respect to the Stein Lane and Foothill Boulevard
intersection. This impact could still occur with implementation of this Alternative because at
least some of the projected student enrollment and traffic would occur under this Alternative.
(Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8.)
3. Finding: Alternative 2 would reduce the significant and unavoidable short-term
adverse construction air quality and noise impacts, and would eliminate the significant and
unavoidable adverse cultural resource impacts associated with the project. However, this
Alternative would result in greater impacts associated with hazards, population and housing, and
transportation and circulation. In addition, the Alternative does not fully attain many of the basic
project objectives.
As indicated in State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c), "...among factors that may be used
to eliminate alternatives from consideration are (i) failure to meet most of the project objectives,
(ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts." While Alternative
2 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable adverse cultural resources impact of the
proposed project, it would increase the severity of impacts for several other resource areas and
would not meet many of the project objectives. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council
rejects Alternative 2.
47
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
C. Alternative 3 - Reduced Project Alternative
1. Description: Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the number of dormitory
rooms, parking spaces and academic building square footage, which would be constructed on the
proposed Specific Plan Area, would be reduced by 30 percent compared to the level of
development under the proposed project. Additionally, the total projected student enrollment
would be reduced by 30 percent compared to the proposed project. The additional area within
the Specific Plan Area, which would not be developed under this Alternative, would be left as
open space. This Alternative would be designed to provide similar amenities to the proposed
project. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8.)
2. Impact Analysis: Aesthetic impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the
proposed project because this Alternative would still allow for development to occur and views
from the surrounding area on to the campuses would change (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8).
Both the Reduced Project Alternative and the proposed project would generate emissions
during the construction phase. Because the amount of construction and site preparation would be
reduced by 30 percent under this Alternative, the level of air emissions occurring during the
construction period under this Alternative would be less, but not substantially less, than under the
proposed project and construction air quality impacts would remain significant and adverse.
Operational air quality emissions will be less under this Alternative than the proposed project
because a corresponding reduction in traffic generation could occur under this Alternative.
However, at least some of the projected APU enrollment over the next 15 to 20 years could still
occur under this Alternative even with the 30 percent development reduction and enrollment cap.
Under this Alternative, similar construction requirements and equipment mix, along with
proximity to sensitive residential receptors would occur as with the proposed project.
Operational noise impacts of this Alternative would be lower, but not substantially lower than
the proposed project. Therefore, noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Operational noise impacts would not be significant and construction noise impacts would remain
significant. (Draft EIR. p. 5.0-9.)
Impacts to cultural resources under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed
project. Although development would be reduced by 30 percent, the Azusa Drive -In Theater site
or the Quad and Admissions/SFS buildings would not necessarily be avoided under this
Alternative. (n Lid.)
Implementation of this Alternative would result in similar geological impacts as the
proposed project. A 30 percent reduction in building development would occur with this
Alternative, but all structures would still be subjected to the forces of ground movement during
seismic events similar to the proposed project, and would also be subject to the same
construction requirements as the proposed project. I( bid.)
Implementation of this Alternative would result in similar hazard impacts as the proposed
project. A 30 percent reduction in building development would occur with this Alternative, but
H.
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
this Alternative does not necessarily avoid development of the Azusa Drive -In Theater site or
any of the buildings which may contain lead-based paints and asbestos containing building
materials.I( bid.)
Under this Alternative, the same types of land uses would be constructed as under the
proposed project, although at a total amount approximately 30 percent less than under the
proposed project. Because the proposed project is not inconsistent with regional or local plans
designed to guide development of the project site and surrounding areas, this Alternative would
be similar to the proposed project with respect to land use. (Ibid.)
Under this Alternative, 30 percent less housing would be built on the campuses.
Although implementation of this Alternative would result in a corresponding 30 percent cap on
projected student enrollment, at least some of the enrollment is likely to occur, which would
place an increased demand on dormitory housing needs. Consequently, impacts to population
and housing would be similar under this Alternative to with the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p.
5.0-10.)
Although 30 percent less development would occur on the campuses, at least some of the
projected Specific Plan enrollment would occur despite the decrease in development and cap in
projected student enrollment. Increased enrollment would place an increased demand on public
services such as fire and police protection in addition to increased water consumption and
wastewater generation. In addition, project impacts were found to be significant and adverse for
solid waste. At least some of the projected enrollment would still occur with implementation of
this Alternative and solid waste impacts would not be reduced to a less than significant level.
Therefore, impacts to public services under this Alternative would result in impacts similar to the
proposed project
A reduction of 30 percent of development and projected student enrollment would, in
part, result in the construction of 30 percent less parking spaces. Provided that the number of
parking spaces is adequate to accommodate the projected 30 percent reduction in student
enrollment, impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. However,
the proposed project found an unavoidable significant adverse impact with respect to intersection
level of service at one intersection. The impact to this intersection would be lessened under this
Alternative, but because the Alternative would still increase the number of vehicles traveling
through the intersection, the impact would not be substantially lessened. (Ibid.)
3. Findin : Alternative 3 would result in the same amount of significant adverse
unavoidable impacts as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would not meet any of the Specific
Plan goals and objectives.
As indicated in State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c), "...among factors that may
be used to eliminate alternatives from consideration are (i) failure to meet most of the project
objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts." For the
foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 results is similar impacts as the
LL
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
proposed project and fails to meet Project objectives and is, therefore, infeasible. On this basis,
the City Council rejects Alternative 3.
SECTION 8: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City
Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Project. If the benefits of the
Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be
considered "acceptable."
The City Council declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant adverse 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 declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potentially significant adverse impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR
and/or Specific Plan 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 adverse
impacts of the project.
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 some or all of the Project
objectives and/or specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds
outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.
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 following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the
potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based on the following overriding considerations:
A high quality university development that enhances the existing surrounding
neighborhoods.
• Contribution to the regional economy by as much as $570 million per year.
• Additional well paid jobs in the City of Azusa.
50
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
• Increased sales tax revenues from campuses sales, including ticket sales from the new
performing arts facility.
• Cultural, athletic and learning opportunities that contribute to the quality of life for the
community.
• Increased sales for local businesses from faculty, staff and students.
• Meet demands for trained professionals in the fields of teaching, nursing, business, social
work and other critical areas. .
• Community service to the City, including up to 157,000 hours of services from students,
programs to support healthy families, such as the university's Child and Family Development
Center and its Neighborhood Wellness Center, programs to provide educational and
recreational opportunities for children, and programs to provide expert assistance from the
university's faculty and staff to city and community leaders.
• Provide educational opportunities to local residents including more than 40 areas of
undergraduate study, 21 master's degree programs, five doctoral programs, continuing
education programs, accelerated degree programs for nontraditional students, and executive
seminars. The University is consistently ranked in the top tier of universities and colleges in
the nation.
• Additional student housing to reduce pressure on the local rental market.
• Adequate parking to keep cars on the campuses and off city streets.
• Beautiful open spaces and mature landscaping to provide aesthetically pleasing vistas that are
welcoming to the Azusa community.
• A balanced allocation of facilities between the East and West campuses to reduce the need
for students to travel on city streets.
The City Council 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 to below a level of significance. 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 9: 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
51
RESOLUTION NO. • •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
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 adverse 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 certifies the EIR based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings. The following significant adverse 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 below a level of significance: Air Quality (Construction Emissions);
Cultural Resources (Historic); Noise (Construction Impacts) and Solid Waste.
B. Conclusions.
1. All significant adverse environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed Project have been identified in the 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.
SECTION 10: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "F". In the event of any
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall control.
52
RESOLUTION NO. •
APU SP EIR
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
SECTION 11: 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 Economic and Community Development
Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6.
SECTION 12. 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 1 q_ , day of September , 2005.
Diane Chagnon, Mayor
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 05—C 7 7was adopted by the City
Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the19,th day of September,
2005, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: HARDISON, CARRILLO, ROCHA, HANKS, CHAGNON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT:NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
,J6t,-;P C iba--
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit "F" — Mitigation Monitoring Program
53