HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 08-C067RESOLUTION NO. 08-C67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TARGET DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Target Development Project (the "Project") is proposing the
development of 159,000 square feet of retail space with 420 parking spaces in a two-level
structure with parking on the lower level and the Target retail department store on the top level,
to be located at 809 N. Azusa Avenue; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and the City
of Azusa's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Azusa (the "City") is the lead agency for the
Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on January
16, 2008 and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of
the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility,
as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures
that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, approximately 35 comment letters/emails and verbal comments 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 February 7, 2008 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
RV PUB\FAVILA\751945.1
0 0
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on June 5, 2008
and the City initiated a 45 -day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and
Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also provided a
Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously
requested such notice and published the Notice of Completion on June 4, 2008 in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Project area. Pursuant to City of Azusa Local CEQA Guidelines, the
Notice of Completion was mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the
Project. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to interested public agencies, organizations and
individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in the City Clerk's office, at the
City of Azusa Planning Department counter and the public library, and posted the Draft EIR on
the City's Internet website; 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 3 written'comments and 11 verbal comments, and the City responded to all of
these comments in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa, gave notice thereof as
required by law and held public hearings on June 25, 2008 and July 23, 2008 on the application
of the Target Corporation with respect to the requested application for a certification of the
EIR for the proposed Target department store, located at 809 N. Azusa Avenue. On July 23,
2008, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final EIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21.092.5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting persons and
agencies; and
WHEREAS, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if the Project will cause
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Consideration prior to approving the Project. A Statement of Overriding Consideration states
that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and
RVPUBTAVII.A1751945.1 2
0 0
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, at its regularly scheduled public
meeting on August 4, 2008 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
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing
these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to
this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not
based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, 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, the City Council, having considered and weighed the economic, planning,
social, aesthetic, and environmental benefits of the Project against the Project's unavoidable
adverse impacts, has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts, and desires to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see
Exhibit A) for the Project; and
R V PU B\FA V I LA\ 751945.1
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact (see Exhibit A) for the Project conclude that the
proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superceded or withdrawn. The Findings of Fact are not merely informational or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the
EIR. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIR (see Exhibit B), are expressed as conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with the Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project; 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 CERTIFY, FIND, AND DECLARE:
Section 1. That the Target Project EIR consists of the following:
1. Draft and Final EIR for the Target Project.
2. Comments and Responses to Comments.
3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration (Exhibit A)
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B)
Section 2. That the EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California
Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq.).
Section 3. That the EIR, prepared for the Target development Project, was received and
considered by the City Council prior to approval of the Project.
Section 4. That the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the
City of Azusa.
Section 5. That the attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (see Exhibit A) are hereby approved by the City Council, and the contents and
findings of which are hereby incorporated by this reference as if wholly set forward in this
Resolution and are adopted in full by the City Council.
RVPUB\FAVILA\751945.1 4
0 0
Section 6. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was prepared for
the project, was considered by the City Council prior to its adoption. The City Council hereby
finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
that the mitigation measures described in the above -referenced documents are feasible and will
become binding upon the entity assigned thereby to implement the same.
Section 7. That pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
15091, alternatives to the Project, which were identified in the EIR, were not found to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level and/or meet Project objectives and/or were found to be
infeasible based on specific economic, social, or other considerations.
Section 8. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to this
document as Exhibit B, is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City and
any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation
measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Section 9. That 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 E. 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 11. That staff are directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of
Los Angeles within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
RVPOB\FAVILA\751945.1 5
0
ADOPTED, SIGNED, AND APPROVED this e day of August, 2008.
ATTEST:
/Iosep R. Rocha, Mayor
Vera Mendoza, City Clerk —6—
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 08-C67, was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4s' day of August,
2008, by the -following vote of the City Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, CARRILLO, MACIAS, HANKS, ROCHA
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
Vera Mendoza, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A – Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration
Attachment: Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
RVPUBTAV ILA1751945.1
Target Store Redevelopment Prot
I. INTRODUCTION
Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
The City of Azusa is located in northeastern Los Angeles County in Southern California and has a
population of 47,120 persons. In 2003, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Azusa (Agency) approved and adopted the Merged Project Area Redevelopment Plan, which amended
and restated two previous redevelopment plans: the Central Business District and West End
Redevelopment Plans. The project site is located within the Merged Project Area, which includes
numerous parcels located along Azusa and San Gabriel Avenues, from approximately West 9° Street in
the north, past the Foothill Freeway (I-210), to Arrow Highway in the south.
In December of 2007, the Agency received a development proposal from Target Corporation for a retail
project to be constructed on an approximately 180,533 -square -foot, or 4.1 -acre, site. The project site is
centrally located within the City of Azusa in the northwestern portion of the downtown area. Located on
the southwest comer of Azusa Avenue and 91h Street, the project site is bounded by 9'" Street on the north,
Azusa Avenue on the east, the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension right-of-way on the south, and San
Gabriel Avenue on the west. The proposed project would contribute to reversing the trend of declining
economic activity and physical decay in the downtown area by developing underutilized parcels,
providing employment, retail, and other services and enhancing the economic development of the City.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION BACKGROUND
The proposed project was reviewed by the Agency in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Resources Code § 21000 et seq; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et
seq). The Agency determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for the proposed
project and an Initial Study was prepared in order to assess the scope of the EIR. In compliance with
Public Resources Section 21080.4, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was circulated
on January 16, 2008, starting a 30 -day public review period. Subsequent to the NOP public review
period, a Draft EIR was prepared. The Draft EIR for the proposed project (SCH#2008011046),
incorporated herein by reference in full, was prepared pursuant to CEQA and State and Agency CEQA
Guidelines (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq). In compliance
with CEQA Guidelines sections 15085 and 15087, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was circulated from
June 5, 2008 through July 20, 2008. During the same period, the Draft EIR was circulated and made
available for public review and comment, in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. One public hearing was held during the public review period on June 25, 2008 before the
City of Azusa Planning Commission. A second public hearing was held after the public review period on
July 23, 2008 before the City of Azusa Planning Commission. All of the written comments received
during the Draft EIR public review period, as well as the verbal comments received at both of the Citybf
Azusa Planning Commission Hearings, were responded to in the Final EIR. Insofar as the City of Azusa
City Council will act first on the proposed project, the City of Azusa has more general jursidiction over
the Project, and City staff have been responsible for the CEQA compliance. of the proposed project from
the outset, the City of Azusa has assumed the lead agency role.
The Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision -makers and
the general public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed project pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). The Final EIR
includes the Draft EIR (by refrerence), corrections and additions to the Draft EIR, comments made
regarding the Draft EIR, and the responses preapred by the City to those comments. The information
rine zoos-oss I
Exhibit A of CEQA Resolution
CEQA Findings & Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Target Store Redevelopment Proo Findings of Fact and State9t of Overriding Considerations
presented in the Final EIR superceds the information presented in the original Draft EIR. Draft comments
on the Final EIR were sent to all public agencies and members of the public that made comments on the
Draft EIR, at least 10 days prior to scheduled certification of the Final EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15088(b).
The Final EIR is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A) for the proposed project. Environmental
impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. In accordance with
the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), if a lead agency approves a project that has
significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., unavoidable significant impacts), the agency
shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project based on the final CEQA documents
and any other information in the public record for the project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093, subd. (b)).
This is called a "statement of overriding considerations" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093). These findings, as
well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations, have been prepared to comply with
CEQA.
The documents and other materials that constitute the whole record of proceedings on which the CEQA
findings are based are located at the City of Azusa City Hall, 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa,
California 91702. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Economic and
Community Development of the City of Azusa. This information is provided in compliance with Pub.
Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2).
III. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require a public agency (City
of Azusa City Council), prior to approving a proposed project, to identify significant impacts of the
proposed project and make one or more of three allowable findings for each of the significant impacts.
The first allowable finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)).
The second allowable finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (State
CEQA Guidelines' r§ 15091, subd. (a)(2)).
The third allowable finding is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final environmental
impact report" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 (a)(3)).
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions of the environmental
impacts that are found to be significant in the EIR for the proposed project as fully set forth therein.
Although Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require findings to address environmental
impacts that an FIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will, nevertheless, fully
account for all such effects identified in the EIR. For each of the significant impacts associated with the
proposed project, the following sections are provided:
Description of Significant Effects — A specific description of the environmental effects identified in the
FIR, including a conclusion regarding the significance of the impact, is provided.
Wha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Prot, Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures — Mitigation measures or actions that are required as part of the proposed project are
identified.
Finding — One or more of the three specific, possible findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are
provided here.
Reference — A citation to the specific section in the EIR that includes the evidence and discussion of the
identified impact is provided.
For the environmental impacts identified in the EIR to be less than significant, a statement explaining
why the impacts are less than significant is provided.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As discussed in detail in Section 3.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR and Section 1.0 Introduction of
the Final EIR, the proposed project would construct a Target retail store on a 4.1 -acre site in the
northwestern portion of downtown Azusa. The proposed project entails the development of a two-story
Target store, including 168,000 square feet of retail and storage space. The proposed project would also
include 420 ground floor parking spaces beneath the retail and storage space. Approximately 21 angled
street parking spaces would be constructed along San Gabriel Avenue adjacent to new landscaped islands,
resulting in the removal of one through traffic lane on San Gabriel Avenue. The proposed project would
necessitate the re -striping of the six existing angled parking spaces along Azusa Avenue.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City staff determined that the proposed project would not cause significant impacts in the following
environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics: Views and Vistas and Scenic Resources
Air Quality: Operational Localized Emissions, Odors, Toxic Air Contaminants, and Consistency
with the Air Quality Management Plan
• Biological Resources: Sensitive Species, Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community,
Protected Wetlands, and Habitat or Community Conservation Plans
• Geology and Seismicity: Landslides
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Subsidence/Methane Gas, Transport and Disposal of
Hazardous Materials, and Other Hazards
• Land Use and Planning: Division of Established Community, Land Use Compatibility, and
Consistency with Land Use Plans
Noise and Vibration: Construction Noise and Vibration, Operational Mobile, Parking, and
Mechanical Equipment Noise, and Operational Vibration
• Population, Housing, and Employment
Public Services: Fire Department and Emergency Services and Other Public Services
• Traffic and Parking: Congestion Management Program, Driveways and Access, Public Transit,
and Traffic Hazards
• Utilities and Service Systems: Natural Gas.
The rationale for the conclusions that no significant impacts would occur with regard to these issue areas
are summarized below:
lAa 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Proot Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
A. Aesthetics
1. Views and Vistas (Draft EIR pp. 4.1-18).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
on views and vistas. As stated in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, the primary view of interest
from the project area consists of the San Gabriel Mountains located 1.7 miles north of the project site.
The existing view corridors of the San Gabriel Mountains are located along Azusa and San Gabriel
Avenues in the project area. A significant change to the view corridors would not occur because the most
valued view from the corridors is the motorists view looking directly north on the tree -lined Azusa and
San Gabriel Avenues. The proposed project would not interrupt these direct views of the San Gabriel
Mountains. In addition, the existing view corridors of the San Gabriel Mountains from the project area
are not officially designated and are not protected by City ordinance.
2. Scenic Resources (Draft EIR pp. 4.1-18 to 4.1-19).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts on a scenic
resource within a State scenic highway, or other scenic resources. As stated in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of
the Draft EIR, the nearest designated scenic highway to the project site is State Route 2, north of State
Route 210 in La Canada Flintridge, located approximately 17 miles northwest of the project site. This
facility would not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is bounded by Azusa Avenue
(State Highway 39) on the east, and San Gabriel Avenue on the west. This section of Azusa Avenue is
eligible to become a State scenic highway but has not yet been officially designated. There are no scenic
elements along Azusa Avenue that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. In compliance
with City requirements, existing landscaped islands and street furniture elements along this section of
Azusa Avenue, adjacent to the project site, would be replaced with the proposed project.
The existing Coast Live Oak trees located on the east side of San Gabriel Avenue, between the Metro
Gold Line Foothill Extension right-of-way and 9th Street, would be removed with the proposed project.
The City's Urban Forester has concurred that these trees could not be successfully relocated. In
compliance with City requirements, replacement tree species are proposed for this segment of San Gabriel
Avenue, adjacent to the project site. The City of Azusa City Council finds in that the replacement
landscaping is sufficient in terms of the number of replacement trees and other landscaping elements, to
maintain scenic resource impacts at a less than significant level.
B. Air Quality
1. Local Operational Emissions (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-20 to 4.2-21).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to local operational air quality emissions (carbon monoxide emissions). The analysis presented in
Section 4.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR found two locations where changes in traffic volumes as a result
of the proposed project would potentially create carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots. These potential hot
spot locations were the intersections of Foothill Boulevard/Azusa Avenue and I" Street/Azusa Avenue
during the PM peak hour. However, detailed analysis presented in the Draft EIR also indicated that, for
the project build -out date of 2010, and the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension light rail transit line
opening date in 2012, neither CO levels during the one-hour or eight-hour periods would exceed State
Standards.
One-hour 2010 CO concentrations under "project" conditions would be approximately 3 ppm to 4 ppm at
worst-case sidewalk receptors. Eight-hour 2010 CO concentrations under "project" conditions would be
taha 2007-058 4
Target Store Redevelopment Pro Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
approximately 2.4 ppm and 2.5 ppm. One-hour 2012 CO concentrations under "project' conditions
would be approximately 3 ppm at worst-case sidewalk receptors. Eight-hour 2012 CO concentrations
under "project' conditions would be approximately 2.1 ppm and 2.2 ppm. The State one- and eight-hour
standards of 20 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively, would not be exceeded at the two study intersections.
2. Odors (Draft EIR pg. 4.2-19 and 4.2-22).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
on construction and operational phase odors. As stated in Section 4.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR,
excessive odors (which is defined as an air contaminant by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District [SCAQMD]) are regulated by SCAQMD Rule 402 — Nuisance: Potential odors emitted from
construction equipment would be localized and generally confined to the project site. Uses that are
typically considered by the SCAQMD to be a source of odor complaints include agricultural uses, food
processing and chemical plants, composting refineries, and landfills. With the proposed project, the
project site would be developed with a retail use and would not include land uses that have been identified
by the SCAQMD as having potential odor impacts.
3. Toxic Air Contaminants (Draft EIR pg. 4.2-19 to 4.2-22).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
on construction and operations phase Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and human health. The greatest
potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions associated with
heavy equipment operations. Construction activity would utilize standard construction practices with
typical construction equipment that do not emit unusually high levels of TACs. In addition, the short-
term construction schedule of approximately 14 months would not expose sensitive receptors to long-term
TAC emissions and residual emissions would not occur after construction.
The primary source of potential TACs associated with proposed project operations is diesel particulate
from local carrier and vendor vehicles, as well as Target distribution center and grocery trucks (e.g., truck
traffic on local streets and on-site truck idling). Approximately 8 to 12 local carrier and vendor trucks,
vans, and delivery trucks would access the project site per day. While truck deliveries would occur as a
part of operations at the project site, the number of heavy-duty diesel trucks accessing the project site on a
daily basis would range from approximately one to three trucks. Consistent with the State regulation to
limit commercial motor vehicle idling, the trucks that do visit the site would not idle on-site for more than
five minutes. This low level of diesel truck activity would not typically constitute a health risk.
Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes
and automotive repair facilities. The proposed project would not include any of these potential sources,
although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products (e.g., aerosol sprays). As
such, the proposed project would not release substantial amounts of TACs, and no significant impact on
human health would occur.
4. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan (Draft EIR pg. 4.2-21).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to consistency with Consistency Criterion No. 1 and Criterion No. 2. As stated in Section 4.2 Air
Quality of the Draft EIR, there are two key indicators of consistency with the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP). These indicators are discussed below.
�ha2001-osa
Target Store Redevelopment Pro Findings of Fact andStatellt of Overriding Considerations
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or
delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified
in the AQMP.
Operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO and NOx. An
analysis was completed using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
SCREEN3 dispersion model to ascertain if project -related emissions would cause ambient CO
and NO2 concentrations at the Azusa Monitoring Station to exceed State standards. The
SCREEN3 analysis indicated that operational emissions would potentially increase ambient CO
and NOx concentrations by less than 0.1 ppm each. The highest one-hour CO and NOx
concentrations recorded at the Azusa Monitoring Station over the last three years are 3 and 0.11
ppm, respectively. When modeled concentrations were added to existing concentrations, the new
ambient CO and NOx concentrations would be less than 3.1 and 0.12 ppm, respectively. This
would be less than the State CO and NOx standards of 20 and 0.18 ppm, respectively. Therefore,
the proposed project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 1.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the
AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project build -out.
The second consistency criterion requires that the proposed project not exceed the assumptions in
the AQMP. A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population,
housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The
2007 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates, in part, the
Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) 2004 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The
2004 RTP is based on growth assumptions through 2030 developed by each of the cities and
counties in the SCAG region. According to the City of Azusa Development Code, the project site
is located in the Downtown -Transit Village (DTV) zone. The DTV zone is intended for transit -
oriented development adjacent to the planned Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension light rail
transit station. It is also intended to support retail, office, and entertainment uses. A general plan
amendment would not be required, and the proposed project would be consistent with the
employment projections completed by the City. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to
be consistent with growth assumptions included in the AQMP. Accordingly, the proposed project
complies with Consistency Criterion No. 2.
C. Biological Resources
1. Sensitive Species (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-5)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that. the proposed project would have no impacts related to
candidate, sensitive, or special status species. As stated in Section 4.3 Biological Resources, an urbanized
area surrounds the project site, which is currently developed with a surface parking lot, commercial and
industrial uses. The project site does not contain any natural habitat or species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or of special status. Due to the existing urbanized nature of the project site and surrounding
area, the proposed project would not affect any sensitive species.
2. Riparian Habitat or Natural Sensitive Community (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-5)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to riparian
habitats or other sensitive natural communities. As stated in Section 4.3 Biological Resources of the
c.h. 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Prop Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
Draft EIR, the project site is entirely developed, is surrounded by an urbanized area, and no riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities exist on the project site. The San Gabriel River is located
approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site, however, no bodies or courses of water that provide
habitat for fish exist within or adjacent to the project site. The project site is not in or adjacent to any
riparian area or designated County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Area (SEA) and, as such, the
proposed project would not affect any such areas or other sensitive natural communities.
3. Protected Wetlands (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-6)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to
wetlands. As stated in Section 4.3 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, the project site does not contain
and is not located adjacent to any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The project site is surrounded by an urbanized area and is currently developed with
commercial, industrial, and parking uses. The proposed project would not affect any federally protected
wetlands.
4. Habitat or Community Conservation Plans (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-3)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other conservation plan.
As previously stated, the project site and surrounding area are not located in or adjacent to an existing
SEA. Additionally, no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan is in place that includes the project site
or surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat
conservation plans.
D. Geology and Seismicity
1. Landslides (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-8 to 4.4-10).
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to
landslides. As stated in Section 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, the project site has a flat terrain and
is not located in close proximity to any hillside area. In addition, the project site is not located near or
within a City -designated slope stability area or a designated landslide area. According to the United
States Geological Survey (USGS), no landslide areas are mapped in the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, the project site is not subject to earthquake -induced landslides.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Subsidence/Methane Gas (Draft EIR pp. 4.5-6)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to
subsidence/methane gas. According to the environmental site assessments prepared for the project site,
the project area is not located in a State -designated oil field or in a major oil drilling area. Further, the
EDR Radius Map indicates that no oil or gas wells are located within a one -mile radius of the project
area. It is unlikely for subsidence or hazards associated with methane gas to occur where oil fields, oil
drilling areas, and oil or gas wells do not exist. In addition, there are no known gases in the project area
which could result in further subsidence risk. The proposed project would be constructed in an area
where the risk of subsidence/methane gas hazards is very low.
2. Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials (Draft EIR pp. 4.5-6)
laha 2007-058 7
Target Store Redevelopment Proo Findings of Fact and State0t of Overriding Considerations
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would replace two auto -related land uses, which routinely
use hazardous materials in regular operations, with a retail land use that would transport, use and dispose
of a minimal amount of hazardous materials. Operations associated with the proposed project may handle
small quantities of chemical substances, such as cleaners or solvents. However, the operation of the retail
facility would involve minimal, if any, use of petroleum products or hazardous materials, and these would
be transported, contained, and disposed of in accordance with applicable local and State regulations.
These operations would represent a significant reduction in the amount and frequency of use of any
hazardous materials compared to existing auto -related uses. The risk of exposure from accidental release
of hazardous materials from the project site would also be reduced. If there were a release of materials
related to the proposed project, the amount would be small and localized, and it is unlikely that it would
affect adjacent properties and residences.
3. Other Hazards (Draft EIR pp. 4.5-8)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to the
creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to a project's location on a hazardous
material site. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the project site
is not listed on the Cortese List, which is maintained by the State of California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA). The project site is not located within or adjacent to a designated hazardous materials
site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment due to the presence of a hazardous material site.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to hazardous emissions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a
school. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the proposed project
consists of a retail development that would not emit hazardous emissions and would handle limited
amounts of hazardous materials. Longfellow Elementary School is located approximately 750 feet north
of the project site. The project site has been extensively investigated and appropriate clean-up measures
to address the possibility of limited soil contamination have been identified. There is contaminated soil
containing soluble lead in the southern portion of the project site, which would be classified as hazardous
waste once removed from the soil. Soluble lead is dangerous because of its potential to infiltrate water as
opposed through the air. The removal of hazardous soil would be limited to activities on or directly
adjacent to the project site and would not create a risk at Longfellow Elementary School. In addition, the
release of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes is not reasonably anticipated during the operation of
the proposed project. As such, no significant exposure of any existing or proposed school within one-
quarter mile of the project site is reasonably expected.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to airport safety. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the
project site is not within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of an airport or airstrip. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in impacts related to creating a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the area.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to the circulation and accessibility of emergency response vehicles. As stated in Section 4.5
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not impair or interfere with any emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City's emergency response needs are served by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department. The traffic study prepared by for the proposed project identified two
intersections where significant impacts would occur during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measures TPI
through TP2, which would involve the reconfiguration or re -striping of the affected intersections, are
taha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Pro Findings of Fact and State9t of Overriding Considerations
provided and would fully mitigate project -related traffic intersection impacts. Because less -than -
significant traffic impacts after mitigation were identified, emergency response and evacuation plans
would not be affected by the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter
the configuration of, or access to, the major streets and highways in the project area, including designated
evacuation routes along Azusa and San Gabriel Avenues. Further, the proposed project design would
incorporate applicable, access emergency requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
which are further addressed during the building permit and building fire plan check stages or the project.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to wildland fires. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project
would not pose a substantial risk of wildfires. The project site is located in an urbanized area comprised
of primarily residential and commercial uses. The project site and surrounding uses are not located
adjacent to wildlands, which would likely increase fire hazards. The nearest identified wildlands are the
San Gabriel Mountains located approximately one mile to the north of the project site.
F. Land Use and Planning
1. Division of Established Community and Land Use Compatibility (Draft
EER pp. 4.6-9 to 4.6-10)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to the division of an established community and land use compatibility. As stated in Section 4.6
Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would involve the demolition of the
existing King Ranch Market, surface parking lot, and other commercial and industrial uses prior to the
development of a Target retail store and associated parking. Project site access would be provided from
91h Street, Azusa Avenue, and San Gabriel Avenue. The proposed project would be located north of the
planned Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension station. The proposed second -floor retail sales area would
cover most of the project site with the parking area located beneath, on the ground floor.
Residential uses are located to the north and west of the project site. Residential uses do not adjoin the
project site and are buffered from the project site by local roadways (San Gabriel Avenue and 9th Street).
Three-story multi -family residences (condominiums) are located directly north of the project site along 91h
Street. The condominiums have side entry from 9'h Street, opposite the project site. San Gabriel Avenue
is occupied by primarily one-story single-family residences with some multi -family residences adjacent to
the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension right-of-way. Residences in this area include driveways and
large trees providing a buffer from adjacent uses. Residential neighborhoods are also located north of 9'h
Street and west of San Gabriel Avenue.
As previously stated, the proposed project would involve the removal of existing commercial and
industrial uses prior to the development of a Target retail store. The project site preparation would not
create a permanent barrier. The project site is located on the perimeter of a residential area and would not
disrupt or divide an existing community.
As the project site is located in downtown Azusa, the area contains a mix of land uses. Various
commercial and retail uses are located in the surrounding area along Azusa Avenue and south of the
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension right-of-way in addition to the residential uses previously described.
Several institutional uses, including schools, churches, and municipal buildings, are also located in the
surrounding area. Several local and regional parks are also located nearby the project site.
The proposed project would be compatible with the mix of commercial, residential, and institutional land
uses located in the surrounding area. The proposed Target retail store would be developed after the
removal of existing commercial and industrial uses and would not interfere with the various residential
and commercial uses located in the surrounding area because it would provide a needed retail use in the
taha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and State*t of Overriding Considerations
downtown area. A landscaping plan, included as part of the proposed project would provide landscaping
along the borders of the project site, buffering adjacent residential uses.
2. Local Land Use Plans and Policies (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-10 to 4.6-13)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan
land use designation and associated policies, and would result in a less than significant impact. As stated
in Section 4.6 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the project site is located within the City of
Azusa's downtown area. The City of Azusa General Plan designates the land use for the project site as
Transit Center. This designation includes transit depot, commercial, residential and mixed uses. The
proposed project would be located immediately north of a planned Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
station, which would open in 2012. The proposed retail development would be compatible with and
allowed by the Transit Center land use designation; therefore, no amendment to the General Plan would
be required with the proposed project.
The proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan land use policies. Specifically,
the proposed development would assist in making the City of Azusa a retail destination, encouraging tax -
generating uses, and would assist in revitalizing and rebuilding the downtown Azusa area. The proposed
project would redevelop an underutilized parcel and foster commercial activity in the DTV zone. The
proposed project would be located near a planned Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension station, thereby
contributing to the City's transit -oriented development in the downtown area. The reduction of the width
of San Gabriel Avenue is consistent with the General Plan, The General Plan, Chapter 3 Built
Environment designates San Gabriel Avenue as a collector street with two traffic lanes, two parking
lanes, and two sidewalks. With the reduction in width, San Gabriel Avenue would still have at least two
traffic lanes, two parking lanes, and two sidewalks. Additionally, the proposed project would be
compatible with surrounding land uses and with the land use designation established by the General Plan.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have beneficial impacts on
consistency with the Merged Project Area Redevelopment Plan and the goals of the Agency. As stated in
Section 4.6 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the project site is located within the Agency's
Merged Project Area. The proposed retail development would be consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Merged Project Area Redevelopment Plan. The proposed project would help reverse a trend of
declining economic activity and physical decay in the City's commercial areas.
Implementation of the proposed project would assist the Agency in its goal to enhance the community's
job base and attract new businesses. The proposed project would be a positive investment in an
underutilized location in a prime and highly visible parcel located between two major arterial
thoroughfares in the City.
3. Regional Plans and Policies (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-13 to 4.6-17)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to
consistency with regional plans and policies. As presented in Table 4.6-3 "Comparison of Proposed
Project to SCAG Policies" in Section 4.6 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the proposed project
would be consistent with the goals of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and
RTP.
4. Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-17)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to
consistency with Habitat Conservation or natural Community Conservation Plans. The project site is
located in a completely developed area in downtown Azusa. The project site is paved and developed with
taha 2007-058 - 10
Target Store Redevelopment Pro Findings of Fact and State9t of Overriding Considerations
structures and parking areas. According to the City of Azusa General Plan, the project site is not located
within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
G. Noise
1. Construction Noise and Vibration (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-8 to 4.7-10)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to construction noise and vibration: As stated in Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR,
construction activities on the project site would likely increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity on an
intermittent, but temporary, basis. Maximum noise may temporarily increase ambient noise levels by as
much as 23 decibels. Noise levels during construction would fluctuate depending on the construction
phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptor, and the
presence or absence of barriers between the noise source and receptor. The City of Azusa controls
construction noise by limiting the allowable hours for construction activity. This ensures that sensitive
receptors are not disturbed by early morning or late night activities. Construction activity would not
occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or anytime on Sunday or
a national holiday.
The use of heavy equipment (e.g., a large bulldozer) generates vibration levels of 0.089 inches per second
PPV at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest residential structures to the project site would be approximately
70 feet from the occasional heavy equipment activity and could experience vibration levels of 0.02 inches
per second PPV. Vibration levels at these receptors would not exceed the FRA building damage
threshold of 0.5 inches per second PPV.
2. Operational Mobile, Parking, and Mechanical Equipment Noise (Draft EIR
pp. 4.7-11 to 4.7-13)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to mobile noise. As stated in Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR, the highest
project -related incremental increase in 2010 mobile noise levels would occur along San Gabriel Avenue
between 9`h Street and Foothill Boulevard and would increase noise levels by 0.5 dBA CNEL. The
highest project -related incremental increase in 2012 mobile noise levels would be 0.4 dBA CNEL. These
incremental increases are less than 3 dBA and are not considered to be discernible.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to parking lot noise. As stated in Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project would provide at -grade parking on the project site beneath the retail sales level. Various noise
events, including noise related to automobile movement near driveways, car alarms, car horns, door
slams, and tire squeals, may occur within the proposed parking areas. Parking activity would generate a
noise level of approximately 59.5 dBA Leg at the nearest sensitive receptor to the project site (i.e.,
approximately 70 feet to the north). When added to the existing ambient noise level of 62.9 dBA Ley,
parking lot activity would result in a new ambient noise level of 64.5 dBA Ley. The 1.6 dBA incremental
increase in noise would be less than the 3-dBA threshold and would not be considered to be discernible.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to mechanical equipment noise. As stated in Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR,
potential stationary noise sources related to the long-term operation of the proposed project include
mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning systems equipment). The proposed
mechanical equipment that would be located on the rooftop is expected to generate a noise level of
approximately 58 dBA at a distance of 15 feet. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are
Paha 2007-058 11
Target Store Redevelopment Prolpt Findings of Fact and State0t of Overriding Considerations
multi -family residences located approximately 70 feet north of the project site. At a distance of 70 feet,
the proposed mechanical equipment would generate a noise level of approximately 44.6 dBA. This noise
level would be less than the 50 dBA L,Q standard in the City of Azusa Municipal Code (AMC).
3. Operational Vibration (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-13)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to operational vibration and Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension vibration levels. As stated in
Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not include significant
stationary sources of ground -borne vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. Operational ground -
home vibration in the project site vicinity would be generated by vehicular traffic. Similar to existing
conditions, off-site traffic -related vibration levels would not be perceptible at sensitive receptors. Heavy-
duty vehicles do not typically generate perceptible vibration because of rubber tires and suspension
systems. Most problems with heavy-duty vehicle vibration are related to a pothole, bump, expansion
joint, or other discontinuities in the roadway surface. Assuming that the local roadways are in maintained
in good condition, vibration levels associated with heavy-duty truck activity at the loading docks would
not be perceptible at sensitive receptors.
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension light rail transit operations would be located adjacent and to the
south of the project site. According to the Metro Gold Line Draft Environmental Impact Report, transit
operations would generate a vibration level of approximately 83 Vdb at a distance of 50 feet. This would
be equivalent to 0.014 inches per second PPV. Vibration levels at the project site would not exceed the
FRA building damage threshold of 0.5 inches per second PPV.
H. Population, Housing, and Employment
Population (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-3)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to population growth or displacement. As stated in Section 4.8 Population, Housing, and
Employment of the Draft EIR, the proposed project does not include a housing element and, therefore,
would not induce direct substantial population growth in the project site and its vicinity or displace
population. The daytime population of the project site and its vicinity, which would include visitors and
employees, may increase with the proposed project, but this alone would not translate into the permanent
movement of population into this area as the visitors and employment that would be generated would be
drawn from the surrounding community.
2. Housing (Draft ETR pp. 4.8-3)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to housing growth or displacement. As stated in Section 4.8 Population, Housing, and
Employment of the Draft EIR, the project site is located on commercial parcels, and no housing exists on
the project site. The proposed project does not contain a housing element and, therefore, would not
generate any new residents and would not stimulate housing growth. Since the project site has no
existing housing, it would not displace any housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement
housing.
3. Employment (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-4 to 4.8-5)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to SCAG employment growth projections. As stated in Section 4.8 Population, Housing, and .
Employment of the Draft EIR, the proposed retail development would generate approximately 200 new
taha 2007-056 12
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and Staten of Overriding Considerations
jobs. However, as there are 71 existing jobs at the project site, the net result would be an addition of 129
jobs. The 129 new jobs generated by the proposed project comprise less than one percent of the San
Gabriel Valley Cities Council of Government (SGVCCG) subregion SCAG employment growth
projections (37,021) and approximately 17 percent of the City of Azusa SCAG employment growth
projections (761). The net proposed number of additional jobs generated by the proposed project would
not exceed SCAG employment growth projections. As such, the proposed project would not change the
SCAG projected jobs -housing ratio for either the City of Azusa or the SGVCCG.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to consistency with the City of Azusa General Plan Economic Development Element. As stated in
Section 4.8 Population, Housing, and Employment of the Draft FIR, the existing project site contains a
mixture of commercial and industrial businesses. As previously stated, there are approximately 71 jobs
existing on the project site. The proposed project would remove the existing industrial businesses from
the project site (10,036 square feet). However, the proposed project would increase the amount of retail
space from the existing 37,610 square feet to 168,000 square feet by replacing the existing retail uses with
a large retail store. The amount of retail space that would be added (129,390 square feet) would offer
more shopping opportunities for the population of the City of Azusa and, therefore, promote economic
vitality within the City. The increase in jobs, from 71 to 200, would benefit the residents of the City by
providing more jobs in closer proximity to places of residence. The increased amount of retail space is
consistent with the goals of the City of Azusa General Plan Economic Development Element.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to employment displacement. As stated in Section 4.8 Population, Housing, and Employment of
the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the loss of 71 jobs currently available on the project
site. The proposed project would offset this loss by creating jobs during construction, as well as provide
200 permanent jobs.
I. Public Services
1. Fire Protection and Emergency Services (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-12 to 4.8-14)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to fire protection and emergency services. As stated in Section 4.8 Public Services of the Draft
EIR, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACOFD) has determined that fire flow at the project site
would be adequate based on project compliance with all applicable fire codes. Development of the
proposed project would be required to meet current fire codes regarding building materials, circulation,
and access, fire flow requirements, and other aspects that would reduce the incidence of fire, and improve
the effectiveness of LACOFD services, including emergency response times. Further, LACOFD has
determined that the existing level of fire protection and emergency services is adequate and that the needs
of the proposed project would be determined through long-range planning. In addition, the fire flow
provisions of the proposed project would be expected to be in compliance with the Azusa Light and
Water Departments standards. The analysis presented in the Draft FIR also indicates that project -related
traffic would not impair LACOFD emergency response times.
2. Other Public Services
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to other public services. As stated in Section 4.8 Public Services of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project would not generate a demand for additional public services in the City. The proposed project does
not include a housing component would not increase population and the demand for services. Additional
employment provided by the proposed project is not anticipated to indirectly increase population -demand
for services as most employees are anticipated to live in Azusa.
[aha 2007-058 13
Target Store Redevelopment Prop Findings of Fact and States of Overriding Considerations
I. Traffic and Parking
1. Congestion Management Program (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-20 to 4.10-21)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to CMP monitoring locations. As stated in Section 4.10 Traffic and Parking of the Draft EIR, the
CMP traffic impact analysis guidelines require analyses of all CMP monitoring intersections where a
project could add a total of 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours. Additionally, all
freeway segments where a project could add 150 or more trips in either direction during the peak hours
must be analyzed. To address the requirements of the CMP, as series of monitoring locations are
established throughout Los Angeles County.
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring location intersections to the project site are San Gabriel
Avenue/Foothill Boulevard, Azusa Avenue/Foothill Boulevard, and Azusa Avenue/Arrow Highway. As
discussed in the Draft EIR, the Azusa Avenue/Arrow Highway location would receive less than 50
project -related trips and no CMP analysis is required. The remaining two intersections (San Gabriel
Avenue/Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue/Foothill Boulevard) do require CMP analysis. As
presented in the Draft EIR, neither location exceeds the traffic volume -to -capacity criteria established by
the CMP.
The impact analysis used the Los Angeles County CMP threshold of significance, which states that a
significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2
percent of capacity (V/C ratio increase of 0.02 or more), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is
already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a
CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (V/C) increase of 0.02 or more).
The significance threshold is not exceeded for either intersection. Additionally, the closest CMP freeway
monitoring station to the site is 1-210 west of I-605. The number of project trips at this location in either
peak hour (in either direction) would be 17 trips eastbound 17 trips westbound in the PM peak hour. This
location would not exceed the 150 peak hour trip threshold. As there are no CMP freeway monitoring
locations where the proposed project would add more than 150 peak hour trips, there would be no
required CMP freeway impact analysis.
2. Driveways and Access (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-23)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to driveways and access. As stated in Section 4.10 Traffic and Parking of the Draft EIR, under the
proposed project access/egress would be provided via three driveways — one on 9th Street mid -block
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue, one on Azusa Avenue, and one on San Gabriel Avenue.
All driveways would be two way. Truck access would be provide by an inbound driveway from San
Gabriel Avenue and an outbound driveway to Azusa Avenue, both at the southern edge of the project site.
The project design does not result in any sight distance hazards at driveway entrances. The driveway
level of service conditions are forecast to operate at good levels of service (LOS C or better) except for
the driveway at Azusa Avenue in the PM peak hour, where the outbound left turn out would operate at
LOS E.
3. Public Transit (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-23 to 4.10-24)
taha 2007-058 14
Target Store Redevelopment Project Findings of Fact and Statenet of Overriding Considerations
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
on public transit. As stated in Section 4.10 Traffic and Parking of the Draft EIR, an analysis of potential
project impacts on the transit system was performed, per the CMP requirements and guidelines.
Estimates of potential transit ridership were made according to the recommended CMP methodology. The
proposed project could generate approximately 220 daily transit trips and about 19 transit trips in the PM
peak hour. The number of net peak hour trips in the peak direction would be approximately 10 trips in
the PM peak hour.
The hourly capacity of the transit system serving the project site was estimated at approximately 480 trips
per direction. The estimated potential number of transit trips generated by the project in the peak
direction in the peak hour would therefore represent about 2.1 percent of total transit capacity. Therefore,
the proposed project would not cause the capacity of the transit system to be substantially exceeded.
4. Traffic Hazards (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-24)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have no impacts related to air
traffic patterns and less -than -significant impacts on design feature hazards and emergency access. As
stated in Section 4.10 Traffic and Parking of the Draft EIR, the project site is not located within an airport
land use plan area and does not include any structures that would change air traffic patterns or uses that
would generate air traffic. As such, safety risks associated with a change in air traffic patterns would not
occur.
There are no existing hazardous design features, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections,
associated with the proposed project or within the project site vicinity. The proposed project would not
require the creation of any such design hazards or include any uses that are incompatible with normal
traffic operations. The project design does not result in any sight distance hazards at driveway entrances.
The existing driveways on Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, and 91h Street would continue to provide
access to the project site. Since the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards or
introduce hazardous or incompatible uses, no significant impacts would occur.
The proposed project would not involve any activities that would interfere with or create an impediment
to the implementation of an emergency response plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would be
subject to the site plan review requirements of the City of Azusa Police Department to ensure that all
access roads, driveways and parking areas would remain accessible to emergency service vehicles.
J. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Storm Water and Drains (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-7 to 4.11-8)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
on storm water and drains. As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was developed as part of the municipal storm
water program to address storm water pollution from new development and redevelopment by the private
sector. With over 100,000 square feet of retail development, the proposed project fits SUSMP criteria for
adoption and would comply with the SUSMP policies and suggested Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to reduce urban runoff s potential to pollute water quality.
The proposed project would be constructed on highly developed land and the net increase of impermeable
surfaces or urban runoff into the existing drainage system would be minimal. Urban runoff would
continue to be collected by the existing storm water collection system, The proposed project would use
existing storm water drainage facilities and would not require construction or expansion of new storm
wha 2007-058 15
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and Stated of Overriding Considerations
water infrastructure. The project site is entirely paved and would not contribute to an increased amount of
storm water runoff.
2. Electricity (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-9)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to electricity. As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, the
proposed project would result in an electricity consumption of 2,276,400 kiloWatt-hours (kWh) per year.
In addition, the net proposed project would result in less electricity consumption, at approximately
1,630,797 kWh per year. Currently, the Azusa Light and Water Department supplies the City with
281,000 MWh of electricity per year. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in
electricity use of less than one percent. The project site is in an urban areawith extensive existing
electrical infrastructure. Currently, the existing commercial and industrial uses on the project site using
existing infrastructure. No new facilities or expansion of existing facilities related to electrical
infrastructure would be required to serve the project site.
3. Natural Gas (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-10)
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to natural gas. As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, the
project site is in an urban area with extensive existing natural gas infrastructure. Currently, the existing
commercial and industrial uses on the project site utilize existing infrastructure. The proposed project
would consume an estimated 487,200 cubic feet of natural gas per month, which represents less than 0.1
percent of the design capacity for Southern California Gas Company's (SCG's) Southern California
service region. Similarly, the net proposed project would consume approximately 349,027 cubic feet of
natural gas per month. The existing supply of natural gas would be sufficient to accommodate the
demand of the proposed project and no new natural gas facilities would be required.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AFTER
MITIGATION
A. Aesthetics
Visual Character
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, a potentially significant impact was identified related
to the visual consistency of the proposed project with the existing single-family residences. Craftsman -
style and other single-family residences reaching one-story or approximately 20 feet in height are located
west of the project site along San Gabriel Avenue. Each single-family residence includes an
approximately 20 -foot landscaped setback or front yard area. Some of the single-family residences are
considered to be medium scale as the buildings cover a relatively large amount of their total lot areas.
In addition, the proposed project would result in an approximately 20-. to 27 -foot height difference with
the existing single-family residences. The proposed project's visual contrast related to height is less with
the multi -family residential buildings due to their increased height. The visual contrast between the
proposed project and the existing single-family residences would occur due to the height and massing of
the proposed project and the removal of several mature Coast Live Oak trees potentially with smaller
Coast Live Oak trees. The proposed landscaped buffer along San Gabriel Avenue, the width of San
taha 2007-058 16
Target Store Redevelopment Project Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
Gabriel Avenue, as well as the fact that the existing project site buildings are up to 25 feet in height and
abut the western property line, contribute to the visual consistency of the proposed project with the
existing neighborhood.
b) Mitigation Measures
Al The proposed project shall incorporate design features to lessen the visual contrast with existing
residences on San Gabriel Avenue. The design features to be implemented include, but are not
limited to, varying building height, sloped roof design, and landscaping as approved by the
director of the Public Works Department, all of which shall be consistent with the proposed
project elevations and perspectives shown in Section 3.0 Project Description, as well as
previously in the current section (Section 4.1 Aesthetics). These features shall be coordinated
between the project applicant and the City of Azusa during the design review approval process
before the Planning Commission and shall provide for a development that is more consistent with
the visual character of the neighborhood.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts on visual character. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Al would ensure
that the proposed project's potential visual contrast related to scale and massing with the single-family
residences located on the west side of San Gabriel Avenue would be less than significant by
implementing design features that would result in reduced visual contrast between the proposed project
and the,existing single-family residences.
The City of Azusa Public Works Department, Planning Commission, and City Council are the appropriate
entities that could make an informed and detailed review of consistency with the visual character of the
project area. The implementation of design features with the proposed project, in conjunction with the
approval and requests of the City of Azusa Public Works Department, Planning Commission, and City
Council would reduce the visual contrast between the proposed project and the existing single-family
residential neighborhood along San Gabriel Avenue.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of the existing visual character of the Target Store Redevelopment Project, see
Section 4. 1, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-16, of the Draft EIR.
2. Light and Glare
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, a potentially significant impact was identified related
to light and glare. Lighting for the proposed project would be in compliance with local lighting standards,
including security, surface parking, and parking structure lighting. With implementation of all applicable
local requirements related to exterior lighting, any potential lighting impacts would be reduced to less -
than -significant levels. However, to ensure that the proposed project would comply with local lighting
standards and that potential impacts would further reduced to less -than -significant levels, a mitigation
measure was provided.
It is anticipated that exterior building materials, such as concrete and plaster, would be used in the
construction of the proposed project. Exterior building materials associated with proposed project would
[aha 2007-058 17
Target Store Redevelopment Project Findings of Fact and State*t of Overriding Considerations
be installed in compliance with all applicable local standards related to the use of non -reflective materials.
With implementation of all applicable local requirements related to the use of non -reflective exterior
building materials, any potential glare impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. However,
to ensure that potential impacts are further reduced to less -than -significant levels, a mitigation measure
was recommended, as presented below.
b) Mitigation Measures
A2 All exterior lighting shall be shielded in a manner to focus illumination onto entrances, the
loading dock, the covered surface parking, or onto the building itself and not be directed in a
manner to cause spillover lighting on residences located along San Gabriel Avenue and 9i° Street.
A3 The determination of exterior building materials to be installed with the proposed project shall be
coordinated between the project applicant and the City of Azusa to ensure that light and glare
impacts would not occur. The following exterior building materials shall be used with the
proposed project: buckskin and prairie clay (or similar colors) paint, plaster, concrete, and all
non -reflective windows and other materials, such as clay tile roof, ceramic wall tile, decorative
ventilator brick panels, and wall trellises.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to light and glare. After the implementation of Mitigation Measures A2
and A3, along with the proposed project's compliance with applicable local requirements for exterior
lighting and building materials, impacts related to spillover lighting and glare would be reduced to less -
than -significant levels by shielding and focusing all exterior lighting and installing exterior building
materials in coordination with the City.
The City of Azusa Planning Commission and City Council are the appropriate entities that could make an
informed and detailed review of consistency with the design elements that would create light or glare
nuisance in the project area. These decisionmaking bodies are familiar with the types of shielding
available to reduce spillover light and the current type of materials utilized for construction a retail
commercial development and have urban planning principles that address reduction of glare by choosing
adequate architectural textures and materials. The review of the preliminary design of the proposed
project would permit the timely opportunity to revise it (should it be necessary) to include glare reduction
measures, such as architectural materials and textures.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of lighting and glare, see Section 4.1, pp. 4.1-19 of the Draft EIR.
B. Air Quality
1. Construction
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, daily construction regional emissions would not
exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, and, as such, regional construction emissions would result in a
less -than -significant impact. However, the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQI through AQ9,
would ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 related to fugitive dust emissions, daily PM2.5 and
taha 2007-058 18
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and States of Overriding Considerations
PMIO emissions, VOC, NOx, CO, and SOx emissions and further reduce the project's less than significant
impact.
b) Mitigation Measures
AQl Water or a stabilizing agent shall be applied to exposed surfaces in sufficient quantity to prevent
generation of dust plumes.
AQ2 Track -out shall not extend 25 feet or more from an active operation, and track -out shall be
removed at the conclusion of each workday.
AQ3 A wheel washing system shall be installed and used to remove bulk material from tires and
vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site.
AQ4 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall maintain at least six inches of
freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
AQ5 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or
other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).
AQ6 Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
AQ7 Operations on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
AQ8 Heavy equipment operations shall be suspended during first and second stage smog alerts.
AQ9 On-site stock piles of debris, dirt, or rusty materials shall be covered or watered at least twice per
day.
C) Findine
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to construction air quality emissions. After the implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ1 through AQ9, fugitive dust emissions would be reduced by approximately 61
percent. Consequently, daily PM2,5 and PMID emissions would be less than the SCAQMD threshold of
150 pounds per day. Construction emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, and SOX would also be less than the
SCAQMD significance thresholds.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of air quality construction impacts, see Section 4.2, pp. 4.2-17 to 4.2-19 of the
Draft EIR.
C. Biological Resources
1. Resident or Migratory Wildlife Species
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.3 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, the removal and replacement of the Coast
Live Oak trees located adjacent to the project site, on the east side of San Gabriel Avenue, would result in
paha 2007-058 19
Target Store Redevelopment Pro• Findings of Fact and Staist of Overriding Considerations
a potentially significant impact related to raptor and/or migratory nesting bird that may reside in the
existing Coast Live Oak trees.
b) Mitigation Measures
BR1 If the Coast Live Oak trees along the east side of San Gabriel Avenue are to be removed, prior to
construction of the proposed project, the presence of raptor or migratory nesting birds in the trees
shall be evaluated. If the presence of raptor or migratory nesting birds is determined, the
construction of the proposed project shall avoid removing the identified trees until the young have
fledged.
c) Findine
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to resident or migratory wildlife species. After the implementation of
Mitigation Measure BRI, potentially significant impacts related to raptor or migratory nesting birds
potentially located in the Coast Live Oak trees would be reduced.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to resident or migratory wildlife species, see Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-6
of the Draft EIR.
2. Local Policies and Ordinances
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.3 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, the removal and replacement of the Coast
Live Oak trees located on the east side of San Gabriel Avenue, adjacent to the project site, would result in
a potentially significant impact. The proposed project building footprint would span the entire project site
and would require the removal of all the existing trees and bushes that currently exist on the project site.
The existing protected Coast Live Oak trees located along the east side of San Gabriel Avenue, as well as
Coast Live Oak tree located on the project site, would either be removed and replaced in compliance with
the City of Azusa Tree Preservation Ordinance. The removal of these Coast Live Oak trees would be
necessary due to the placement of the structural footings for the proposed project building.
Any -removal or replacement of the existing Coast Live Oak trees would contribute to a change in visual
character. In addition, this protected biological resource, which is highly valued by the adjacent
residential community, may be removed and replaced by a combination of younger and smaller Coast
Live Oak trees along with specimen -sized Coast Live Oak trees, and potentially other species of trees.
Although the proposed project would be required to remove and replace the protected Coast Live Oak
trees and plant all other landscaping in compliance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, a
mitigation measure was provided to ensure that impacts are reduced.
b) Mitigation Measures
BR2 During the final design phase of the proposed project, and prior to the start of the
demolition/construction phase, the project applicant shall submit a final landscape plan to the City
of Azusa for approval by the City's Urban Forester and the Director of the Department of Public
Works. The final landscape plan shall include provisions to either protect in place the existing
Coast Live Oak trees in the parkway or replace them, per the requirements of the City of Azusa
Tree Preservation Ordinance, with the condition that any replaced Coast Live Oak tree would
attain at least 30 -feet in height, along the east side of San Gabriel Avenue within the new
paha 2007-058 20
Target Store Redevelopment Project Findings of Fact and Stateot of Overriding Considerations
parkway, within a 20 -year period. The replaced Coast Live Oak trees shall be placed in the
appropriate box size to accommodate the ultimate height the tree would reach within a 20 -year
period.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to local policies and ordinances. After the implementation of Mitigation
Measure BR2 potential impacts to the protected Coast Live Oak trees, would be reduced in compliance
with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance by requiring the project applicant to replace the Coast Live
Oak trees with new oak trees that would reach maturity in 20 years.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to local policies and ordinances pertaining to biological resources,
see Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-6 of the Draft EIR.
C. Geology and Hydrology
1. Geologic Materials and Soils
a) Significant Environmental Effects
Potential for Soil Erosion. As stated in Section 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity of the Draft EIR, a
potentially significant impact was identified related to soil erosion. The project site is located in a flat,
highly urbanized area, with an extensive drainage system and impervious surfaces. The project area is not
subject to high levels of wind or rain, factors that may contribute to soil erosion. However, a mitigation
measure was provided to ensure that impacts are reduced.
Loss of Topsoil. As stated in Section 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity of the Draft EIR, a potentially
significant impact was identified related to the loss of topsoil. During construction of the proposed
project, the potential exists for the release of fugitive dust, resulting in a small, temporary, loss of topsoil.
However, this loss would not be considered substantial with the implementation of BMPs, required as
part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and application of
SCAQMD Rule 403. A mitigation measure was provided to ensure implementation of BMPs and
compliance with applicable regulations.
b) Mitigation Measures
GS1 Best Management Practices (BMPs), required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and application of South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, shall be implemented for the proposed project to reduce potential
soil erosion due to grading and excavation activities. BMPs would comply with applicable UBCs
and include, but are not limited to, scheduling excavation and grading activities during dry
weather, covering stockpiles of excavated soils with tarps or plastic sheeting, and debris traps on
drains.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts on geologic materials and soils related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
[aha 2007-058 21
Target Store Redevelopment Project Findings of Fact and Siateet of Overriding Considerations
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GSl would ensure the reduction of soil erosion and loss of topsoil
from grading and excavation associated with the construction of the proposed project by ensuring the
implementation of BMPs as required by the NPDES and SCAQMD.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of geologic materials and soils, see Section 4.4, pp. 4.4-7 of the Draft EIR.
2. Seismicity
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity of the Draft EIR, a potentially significant impact
was identified related to liquefaction. The project site is within a liquefaction zone and the proposed
project could consequently be subject to liquefaction impacts. Groundwater depths near the project site
have been found from approximately 50 to 150 feet bgs. The relatively high water table combined with
the alluvium soil composition in the area makes the potential for damage caused by liquefaction high.
The City of Azusa's General Plan contains implementation programs that would minimize the impacts
associated with liquefaction. With the implementation of all applicable building and design
specifications, and compliance with applicable building codes and current engineering practices, potential
liquefaction impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. However, to ensure that potential
impacts are further reduced to less -than -significant levels, an additional mitigation measure was provided.
b) Mitigation Measures
GS2 A liquefaction assessment shall be preformed by a certified engineering geologist or registered
civil engineer, as specified in Division of Mines and Geology's Special Publication 117
Guidelines, and its recommendations shall be incorporated into the foundation design of the
proposed project.
C) Findin
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts on seismicity related to liquefaction. The proposed project would comply with
seismic standards and criteria set forth by the California Building Code and the Structural Engineers
Association, reducing impacts related to fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction. After
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS2, liquefaction impacts would be reduced by determining the
extent of liquefaction and the potential consequences of depth and lateral extent affecting the proposed
project. Liquefaction impacts would be reduced when all requirements of the liquefaction assessment are
incorporated into the design foundation element of the proposed project.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to seismicity, see Section 4.4, pp. 4.4-9 of the Draft EIR.
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Hazardous Wastes and Materials
a) Significant Environmental Effects
t ha 2007-058 22
Target Store Redevelopment Proopt Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
Asbestos -Containing Materials and Lead -Based Paint. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, significant impacts were identified related to asbestos -containing
materials (ACMs) and lead-based paints. Given the age of some of the buildings on the project site, it is
likely that ACMs and lead-based paint are present on-site. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the
proposed project, the likely presence of ACMs and lead-based paint associated with the existing buildings
on the project site may potentially have a significant impact on the redevelopment of the project site.
There is a risk of exposure to construction workers, future building occupants, and visitors.
Poly -Chlorinated Biphenyl. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR,
significant impacts were identified related to poly -chlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Implementation of the
proposed project would likely result in the removal of electrical transformers and lighting ballasts that
contain PCBs. The removal of PCB -containing equipment may pose a significant impact due to the risk
of exposure of construction workers, future building occupants, and visitors in the area.
Arsenic. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, significant impacts
were identified related to the contamination of soil with arsenic. According to the Phase II Environmental
Site Assessments (Phase II ESAs) and soil sampling reports, the southwestern, northern, and southeastern
portions of the project site contain elevated levels of arsenic. Therefore, a significant impact related to
arsenic contamination would occur on the project site without the incorporation of mitigation.
Hazardous Wastes and Contamination. As stated in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of
the Draft EIR, potentially significant impacts were identified related diesel hydrocarbons and soluble lead
in the southeastern section of the project site. The southeastern portion of the project site contains
elevated levels of diesel hydrocarbons, heavy hydrocarbons, lead, and chromium in surface soils. If
surface soils are removed for off-site disposal, the soil would be classified as hazardous waste. Therefore,
a potentially significant impact related to diesel hydrocarbons and soluble lead in the southeastern section
of the project site would occur.
b) Mitigation Measures
HMI Consistent with the 1994 Federal Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Standards, a Licensed
Asbestos Inspector shall be retained to determine the presence of asbestos and asbestos -
containing materials (ACMs) within structures to be demolished on the project site. If asbestos is
discovered, a Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor shall be retained to safely remove all
asbestos from the site prior to demolition activities.
HM2 For existing structures to be demolished on the project site, lead-based paint testing shall be
conducted due to the deteriorating condition of many painted surfaces. All materials identified as
containing lead shall be removed by a licensed lead-based paint/materials abatement contractor.
14M3 On-site fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers that are not marked "No PCBs" shall
be removed prior to demolition activities and shall be disposed of by a licensed and certified PCB
removal contractor, in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations.
HM4 195 tons of contaminated soil in the southeastern portion of the project site containing diesel
hydrocarbons, arsenic, and soluble lead shall be removed and disposed of as hazardous waste per
the specifications of the LARWQCB or other agencies overseeing the cleanup of the proposed
project. Removed soil shall be excavated at a depth of two feet in the southeastern portion of the
project site adjacent to contaminated soil samples found at TPH2, TPH3, and SS2 of the 809
North Azusa Avenue Soil Sample Report found in Appendix E.
paha 2007-058 23
Target Store Redevelopment Pro* Findings of Fact and Stateot of Overriding Considerations
Soil removal was calculated as a 50 -foot by 25 -foot area surrounding the three contaminated soil samples
(TPH2, TPH3, and SS2 of the 809 Azusa Soil Sampling Report) at a depth of two feet. Due to the
imprecise nature of soil removal, a factor of 150 percent was used for soil estimation as prescribed by
SCS Engineers, who administered the soil sampling.
HM5 175 tons of contaminated soil in the southwestern and northern portions of the project site
containing arsenic shall be disposed of at a permitted landfill per the specifications of the
LARWQCB or other agencies overseeing the cleanup of the proposed project. Removed soil
shall be excavated at a depth of two feet adjacent to arsenic contaminated soil samples found at
KRSS 13 and 14 of the 110-190 East Ninth Street Soil Sample Report and EASSIO, EASS15,
and EASS23 of the 800-802 North Azusa Avenue Soil Sample Report, both found in Appendix E.
Soil removal was calculated as the following four circular areas surrounding the five contaminated soil
samples at a depth of two feet:
1. A 15 -foot radius circle surrounding KRSS13 and KRSS14 of the 110-190 East Ninth Street
Soil Sample Report;
2. A 15 -foot radius circle surrounding EASS15 of the 800-802 North Azusa Soil Sampling
Report;
3. A 10 -foot radius circles containing and EASS 10 of the 800-802 North Azusa Soil Sampling
Report; and
4. A 10 -foot radius circles containing EASS23 of the 800-802 North Azusa Soil Sampling
Report.
Due to the imprecise nature of soil removal, a factor of 150 percent was used for soil estimation as
prescribed by SCS Engineers, who administered the soil sampling.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts on exposure to hazardous materials from construction or operation, as well as
exposure to hazardous wastes and contamination from construction or operation. After implementation of
Mitigation Measures HMI through HM3, the prescribed inspections and remediation would be
performed and the proposed project would be in compliance with the methods and cleanup levels of the
LARWQCB or other selected regulatory agency. Additionally, the completion of various inspections and
contaminated soil removal required by Mitigation Measures HM1 through HM5 would remove all
hazardous risks from the project site. The building inspections and contaminated soil removal would
reduce the potential for persons to be exposed to hazardous substances during proposed project
construction and operations.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of hazardous waste and materials impacts, see Section 4.5, pp. 4.5-6 to 4.5-7 of
the Draft EIR.
D. Land Use and Planning
1. Local Land Use Plans and Policies
a) Significant Environmental Effects
taha 2007-058 24
Target Store Redevelopment Proot Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
Zoning. As stated in Section 4.6 Land Use and Planning of the Draft ETR, due to the proposed height and
parking stall size proposed, the proposed project would require the implementation of an overlay zone and
a potentially significant impact would result related to consistency with existing zoning.
The DTV zone is intended to support retail and office uses among other uses. The DTV zone requires 2.5
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of development. According to Article 2 of the City of Azusa
Development Code, a single use located in the DTV zone is permitted to have a maximum height of three
stories or 35 feet. In addition, parking stalls are required to be at least 9 feet by 20 feet in size.
The proposed retail building would have a maximum height of 47 feet, however, the Target sign on the
east side of the building facing Azusa Avenue would reach 69 feet in height. The Downtown North
Overlay II Zone would allow for a greater maximum height than the DTV zone, a change in building
orientation, and a reduced parking stall size at approximately 9 feet by 18 feet. The reduced length of the
parking stalls allowed under the overlay zone provides for additional surface area in the proposed ground
floor parking area, allowing for more parking spaces to be accommodated in the ground floor parking
area. The establishment of the Downtown North Overlay 11 Zone would require an amendment to the
City of Azusa Development Code and to the City of Azusa Zoning Map. The proposed project, prior to
the implementation of these Development Code Amendments, would result in a potentially significant
impact related to consistency with existing zoning.
b) Mitigation Measures
LU1 The City of Azusa Development Code shall be amended to include the Downtown North Overlay
II Zone. Additionally, the City of Azusa Zoning Map shall be amended to reflect the Downtown
North Overlay II Zone. The proposed project shall be required to comply with the newly
implemented standards of the Downtown North Overlay II Zone, which would allow for a greater
maximum height than the DTV zone, a change in building orientation, and a reduced parking stall
size. The reduced length of the parking stalls allowed under the overlay zone provides for
additional surface area in the proposed ground floor parking area, allowing for more parking
spaces to be accommodated in the ground floor parking area.
c) Findin
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to local land use plans and policies (City of Azusa Development Code).
After the implementation of Mitigation Measure LUl, impacts to local land use plans and policies,
specifically the City's Development Code, would be reduced to less -than -significant levels.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to local land use plans and policies, see Section 4.6, pp. 4.6-13 of
the Draft EIR.
E. Noise and Vibration
1. Operational Noise
a) Significant Environmental Effects
Loading Dock Noise. As stated in Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR, operational loading
dock noise from the proposed project would result in a significant impact without implementation of
taha 2007-058 25
Target Store Redevelopment PAR Findings of Fact and Stat*nt of Overriding Considerations
mitigation. Local carrier vehicles, 'vendor vehicles, and Target distribution center trucks accessing the
project site have the potential to increase ambient noise levels on the project site and in its vicinity.
Approximately eight to 12 local carrier and vendor trucks, vans, and delivery trucks would access the
project site per day. These vehicles would access the proposed loading docks between 8:00 a.m. and
noon, Mondays through Fridays. Additionally, approximately eight to 11 distribution trucks would
access the project site per week. These trucks would access the proposed loading docks between 4:00
a:m. to 12:00 a.m., Mondays through Sunday.
The City of Azusa controls nighttime truck delivery noise by
commercial parcel adjacent to residential uses to between 7:00 a.m
would be outside the allowable timeframe stated in the AMC an
result in a significant impact without implementation of mitigation.
b) Mitigation Measures
limiting the hours of deliveries to a
. and 7:00 p.m. Target delivery hours
d, as such, loading dock noise would
N1 The City of Azusa Development Code shall be amended to include the Downtown North Overlay
II Zone. The new Overlay Zone shall allow for truck deliveries to occur between the hours of
4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Mondays through Sunday.
C) Findin
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to operational loading dock noise. Implementation of the Downtown
North Overlay II Zone would allow for a change in truck delivery hours, which would allow proposed
project truck deliveries for a longer duration of the day.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to operational loading dock noise, see Section 4.7, pp. 4.7-12 to 4.7-
13 of the Draft EIR.
F. Public Services
1. Police Protection
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.8 Public Services of the Draft EIR, the potential increase in non -emergency calls
during the construction of the proposed project would potentially reduce the City of Azusa Police
Department's (APD's) ability to provide police services. The proposed project would include security
features, such as video surveillance cameras and on-site security, which would potentially reduce the need
for police service. However, during the construction of the proposed project, the APD anticipates that the
number of non -emergency calls would increase in the short-term due to expected complaints of neighbors
regarding construction operations,. increased traffic flow, and commercial use of the alley and side streets.
This increase. in non -emergency calls would potentially reduce APD's ability to provide police services.
b) Mitigation Measures
PSI Vandal -resistant lighting systems shall be installed that provide uniform white light that
minimizes glare, light pollution, and light trespass, which provide nighttime vision for motorists,
taha 2007-058 26
Target Store Redevelopment Pro* Findings of Fact and State9t of Overriding Considerations
pedestrians, homeowners and business people, and enhance police ability for surveillance, patrol
and pursuit.
PS2 Clear signs shall be posted where parking is limited (e.g., street parking), handicapped parking
stalls shall be marked in compliance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22511.8, and fire lanes
shall be marked in compliance with CVC 22500.1. The property owner shall post signs in
compliance with CVC 22658 stating that illegally parked cars shall be towed.
PS3 At a minimum, strategically placed surveillance cameras shall be installed at parking garage
entrances/exits, entry/exit points of the store, and along the south side of the building (including
the loading dock area) that shall be digitally recorded and stored for at least 30 days for
investigative purposes. As requested, Target employees shall provide digitally captured video
and images to the APD in a timely manner, preferably within 60 minutes of the crime being
reported and/or investigated. Warning signs of such recordings shall be conspicuously posted as
a crime deterrent. The store shall be equipped with an audible or silent burglary alarm at all
entry/exit points and monitored by a reputable alarm company and be in compliance with
pertinent requirements -for alarm systems.
PS4 All containers in trash enclosure areas shall have a lid, be kept closed, and the containers and/or
enclosures shall be lockable to deter illegal dumping. All planters shall utilize materials and/or
finishes on top caps that discourage skateboarding. All landscape material shall not have
canopies lower than six feet in height and shrubbery higher than two feet in height to maximize
pedestrian visibility. The use of approved graffiti resistant finishes shall be used wherever
possible.
PS5 Two designated on -street police parking spaces (non -compact) shall be provided near a store
entrance for arrest/investigative purposes, and a designated room shall be made available to law
enforcement for investigative and custody purposes (e.g. shop lifters and other criminal offenders
apprehended by store security/personnel). In addition, Target store private security or other store
personnel shall be required to frequently patrol the parking area and monitor video surveillance
monitors.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to police protection. After the implementation of Mitigation Measures
PS1 through PS5, lighting, parking, and security designs provided on the project site would increase
security and reduce impacts associated with police protection. The implementation of Mitigation
Measures PSI through PS5 would increase the level of security on the project site and reduce demands on
police protection.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to police protection, see Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-8 of the Draft EIR.
2. Public Schools
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.8 Public Services of the Draft EIR, a potentially significant impact would occur
related to public schools. Currently, most of the schools within the AUSD are at or near capacity. Senate
[aha 2007-058 27
Target Store Redevelopment Prop Findings of Fact and StatAt of Overriding Considerations
Bill 50 (SB 50), passed in 1998, authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new
residential and commercial/industrial building space. The proposed project would be subject to
applicable fees in compliance with SB 50. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur with the
payment of applicable school fees identified as mitigation below.
b) Mitigation Measures
PS6 The proposed project shall be required to pay school impact fees.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to public schools. After the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS6,
impacts associated with public school services would be reduced to less than significant. The payment of
school development fees would ensure compliance with SB 50.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to public schools, see Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-89 to 4.9-9 of the Draft
EIR.
4. Recreation and Parks
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.8 Public Services of the Draft EIR, a potentially significant impact would occur
related to recreation and parks. The proposed commercial project would not result in an additional need
for recreation and park space in the City. Further, as part of the permitting process, the payment of park
impact fees (in accordance with the most current rate schedule) would be required as part of the proposed
project to assist the City in meeting the incremental cost associated with increased park demand.
Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur for recreation and parks with payment of applicable
fees identified as mitigation.
b) Mitigation Measures
PS7 The proposed project shall pay applicable park impact fees as part of the permitting process.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to recreation and parks. After implementation of Mitigation Measure
PS7, impacts associated with recreation and park services would be reduced to less than significant. The
payment of applicable park impact fees would assist in supporting the City's efforts in providing more
open space and would reduce impacts to parks and recreation.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts to parks and recreation, see Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-9 of the Draft EIR.
F. Traffic and Parking
(aha 2007-058 29
Target Store Redevelopment Prool
1. Intersection Analysis
Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.10 Trak and Parking of the Draft EIR, significant traffic impacts would result at
two study intersections in the PM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, all intersections would continue to
operate at level of service (LOS) C or better except two intersections. At the intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and Azusa Avenue the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio would increase from 0.861 (LOS D) to
0.935 (LOS E), and at the intersection of la' Street and Azusa Avenue the V/C ratio would increase from
0.906 to 0.937 but the level of service would remain at LOS E.
b) Mitigation Measures
TPI One eastbound left turn lane on Foothill Boulevard shall be added to modify the eastbound
approach on Foothill Boulevard to Azusa Avenue from the existing configuration of one left turn
lane and two through lanes to two left turn lanes and two through lanes.
TP2 One westbound left turn lane on lot Street at Azusa Avenue shall be added. The westbound
approach on I" Street shall be restriped from one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane.
Additionally, the eastbound approach on la' Street shall be restriped from one left turn lane, one
through lane, and one right turn lane to one left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane.
C) Findine
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to intersection level of service. After the implementation of Mitigation
Measures TP1 and TP2 impacts to intersections would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures TP1 and TP2 would reduce PM peak hour impacts at the
intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue, and at the intersection of la' Street and Azusa
Avenue. The V/C ratio and LOS at these intersections would be reduced to comply with City of Azusa
thresholds.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of intersection analysis, see Section 4.10, pp. 4.10-11 to 4.10-20 of the Draft
EIR. Mitigation Measures TP1 and TP2 were revised in Section 3.0, pp. 3-1 of the Final EIR.
2. Parking
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.10 Traffic and Parking of the Draft EIR, significant impacts were identified for
peak month parking conditions. During the weekday of the peak month of the year (December), the peak
demand would be 547 spaces or 127 more spaces than the 420 spaces provided on-site. Including the
available spaces in the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension parking lot and other downtown lots, there
would be total shortfall for about three hours of the day, of up to about 21 spaces at the peak hour of the
day. However, there would be 27 on -street spaces immediately adjacent to the project site, which could
eliminate this on-site shortfall. During the weekend, the peak demand would be about 552 spaces or 132
more spaces than the 420 spaces provided on-site. However, there would be 27 on -street spaces located
immediately adjacent to the site.
paha 2007-058 29
Target Store Redevelopment Prfkt Findings of Fact and StateOnt of Overriding Considerations
Therefore, during the peak month, the parking demand on a weekday would exceed the on-site parking
supply, and for three hours would slightly exceed the total available spaces in the downtown area (by up
to about 21 spaces).
The parking analysis considered the likely parking demands for the Target Store and compared these to
the overall parking supply in the immediate area of the store, taking into account the efficient sharing of
parking resources. The analysis used data from a Target Store in the nearby city of Duarte as being the
most representative of local conditions. This was supplemented by local data from parking surveys of
parking lots in Downtown Azusa and the nearby Metrolink rail stations.
Employee parking could take in the range of 110 to 135 total spaces at peak times. By adopting on off-
site employee parking strategy during peak times in December, there would be no parking supply shortfall
during weekdays even in this peak month. Such an off-site strategy could identify parking for employees
at locations outside the immediate area of the store and provide shuttle bus transportation from the remote
location(s) to the Target store. This would be considered a less than significant impact with mitigation
incorporation.
b) Mitigation Measures
TP3 Because some of the parking demand would be met by other nearby parking lots at certain times,
signage shall be installed to identify such parking locations. Two types of signage shall be
installed. Firstly, appropriate informational signage shall be installed at the four nearby parking
lots indicating public parking that ,is also available for users of the Target Store. Secondly,
signage shall be installed in the Target parking lot, close to the main store entrance with a map
displaying the locations of the other nearby available public parking lots in the downtown area.
TP4 For the peak month of December, an off-site employee parking program shall be implemented.
Employee parking shall take in the range of 110 to 135 total parking spaces at peak times. By
adopting on off-site employee parking strategy during weekdays and weekends in December,
there would be no parking supply shortfall during weekdays or weekends even in this peak
month. Such an off-site strategy shall identify parking for employees at locations outside the
immediate area of the store and provide shuttle bus transportation from the remote location(s) to
the Target store.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to parking during the peak month. After the implementation of
Mitigation Measures TP3 and TP4 parking impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures TP3 and TP4 would reduce parking and traffic impacts related to
the peak month parking conditions.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts associated with peak parking, see Section 4.10, pp. 4.10-21 to 4.10-
23 of the Draft E1R.
G. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Water Supply
taha 200M58 30
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and Statont of Overriding Considerations
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, potentially significant impacts
were identified related to water supply. The water needs of the proposed project would be provided
according to the City of Azusa Light and Water Department, which uses SCAG projections. Further, the
proposed project is expected to incorporate water conservation guidelines in its design, such as selecting
landscape plants that do not require extensive watering.
The proposed project would increase the City's water use by approximately 16,128 gallons per day (gpd),
which represents less than 0.2 percent of the daily water consumption of the City of Azusa. The proposed
project's net water consumption would be approximately 11,554 gpd. The incremental increase in water
demand is not expected to result in a need for the Azusa Light and Water Department to expand their
existing facilities. The water supply demands of the proposed project are less than one percent of the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2010 projects for
retail land uses. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Azusa General Plan and
would also not result in a need to increase water supply infrastructure, such as water mains, because the
existing water infrastructure is adequate. All water connections to the proposed project would be subject
to the approval of Azusa Light and Water Department, who would issue a will -serve letter, indicating the
provision of water service to the project site. The proposed project would be required to comply with all
applicable local water conservation regulations associated with the City's Stage III water emergency.
Although the water supply impacts of the proposed project would not be significant, mitigation measures
are recommended to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
b) Mitigation Measures
Although water supply impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project are considered
to be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further ensure minimal
service disruption and water conservation, especially during drought conditions.
Ul Precise water system requirements shall be determined during specific project design review.
Water design requirements shall be subject to the provisions of site plan review by the City of
Azusa.
U2 Water conservation measures shall be implemented, including, but not limited to, the installation
of low water use toilets/urinals and drought -resistant landscaping, as required by the Metropolitan
Water Board and the City of Azusa Municipal Code.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to water supply. Although no significant impacts have been identified
related to water supply, after the implementation of Mitigation Measures Ul and U2 the increased water
demand from the proposed project would be consistent with existing conservation measures. The
measures to ensure reduction in water consumption as listed in Mitigation Measure Ul would
ensure that water consumption remains within what the Metropolitan Water Board has projected
for the area. The implementation of Mitigation Measures U1 and U2 would reduce the water
supply demands of the proposed project and would assist in the City's water conservation efforts
during this period of drought.
d) Reference
taha 2007-058 - 31
Target Stare Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and StatOnt of Overriding Considerations
For a complete discussion of impacts associated with water supply and regulation, see Section 4.11, pp.
4.11-5 to 4.11-7 of the Draft EIR.
2. Sewage and Wastewater
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, potentially significant impacts
were identified related to sewage and wastewater. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would
equal an estimated 13,440 gpd, which represents less than 0.2 percent of the remaining design capacity of
the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). The proposed project's net wastewater generation
would be less at approximately 9,628 gpd. Currently, there is a remaining treatment capacity of 10.9 mgd
at the San Jose Creek WRP. The proposed project would not require additional wastewater treatment
capacity or facilities because the existing system is adequate. Although the wastewater impacts of the
proposed project would not be significant, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that impacts
remain less than significant.
b) Mitigation Measures
Although no significant impacts have been identified related to wastewater, the recommended
infrastructure improvement projects identified in the City's Sewer Master Plan, as well as the following
recommended mitigation measures, will further ensure adequate wastewater facility capacity.
U3 Precise sewer system requirements shall be determined during specific project design review.
Sewer design requirements shall be subject to the provisions of site plan review by the City.
U4 At the time building permit applications are submitted, the proposed project shall demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the City, on-site measures to reduce wastewater loads.
U5 The proposed project shall be reviewed by the City's Engineering Division and the County of Los
Angeles Sanitation District to determine the adequacy of the existing trunk sewer capacity.
C) Findine
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to sewage and wastewater. Although no significant impacts have been
identified related to wastewater, after the implementation of Mitigation Measures U3 through U5
sufficient utility infrastructure would be available for the proposed project at the time of construction.
Requiring consultation with the City of Azusa and the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District would
ensure that the proposed project would be adequately served by the existing sewage and wastewater
infrastructure and capacity. These agencies would be the most experienced in making these types of
assessments.
C) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts associated with sewage and wastewater treatment, see Section 4.11,
pp. 4.11-7 of the Draft EIR.
3. Solid Waste Disposal
laha 2007-058 32
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and Statdl im of Overriding Considerations
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.11 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, potentially significant impact
were identified related to solid waste disposal. Construction of the proposed project would generate
waste from demolition activities, materials used to construct buildings, and from construction workers
(food waste).. Approximately 327 tons of solid waste would be generated during construction of the
proposed project. This represents 1.3 tons per day based on the assumption that construction would last
for 14 months (420 days divided by 327 tons). The calculated daily construction solid waste generation
of 1.3 tons is less than 0.3 percent of the total remaining daily intake of the Puente Hills Landfill (657
tons per day). As such, the calculated daily construction solid waste generation of the proposed project
would not be in exceedance of the permitted throughput capacity and daily intake of the Puente Hills
Landfill. In addition, the construction of the proposed project would be expected to comply with City
recycling programs. Although the solid waste impacts of the proposed project would not be significant,
mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
Operation of the proposed project and the 200 employees on the project site would generate 2,106 pounds
of solid waste per day. In 1989, AB 939 was signed into law requiring all local jurisdictions to divert 50
percent of its generated solid waste from landfills. As of 2005, the City of Azusa had a diversion rate of
56 percent. Because the City has already achieved a 56 percent solid waste diversion rate, this percentage
was used for this analysis. Currently, the City of Azusa produces 88,915 pounds of solid waste per day
with a diversion rate of 56 percent. The Puente Hills Landfill receives an average of 12,543 tons of solid
waste per day but is permitted to accept 13,200 tons per day.
The solid waste generated by the operation of the proposed project represents approximately 0.3 percent
of the remaining 657 -ton -per -day capacity of waste into the Puente Hills Landfill. The operation of the
net proposed project would generate 3,001 pounds of solid waste per day. Similar to the gross proposed
project, the net proposed project would generate approximately 0.2 percent of the remaining 657 -ton -per -
day solid waste capacity of the Puente Hills Landfill. As such, the solid waste from the proposed project
operations would not have a substantial affect on landfill capacity and would not negatively impact the
City's compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 939. Although the solid waste impacts of the proposed
project would not be significant, mitigation measures are provided to ensure that impacts remain less than
significant.
b) Mitigation Measures
Although solid waste disposal impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further
ensure that impacts on the local and regional solid waste disposal system are minimized.
U6 The demolition contractor for this project shall recycle all materials to the greatest extent
possible, especially all "inert" materials. If any inert materials, such as dirt, rock, concrete or
asphalt, require disposal, contractor shall deliver such materials to a reclamation pit such as Cal
Mat or Reliance Pit #2. That is, only inert pits or facilities that do not report "tons disposed"
through the "Disposal Reporting System" as defined by the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, shall be used for discarding inert materials. The demolition contractor
shall report all tons diverted from solid waste landfills by material type to the City of Azusa
following demolition, including all metal, inert materials, wood, plastics or other material types.
The demolition contractor shall also report tons disposed in solid waste landfills which could not
be safely recycled due to waste composition, material mixture, or economic infeasibility.
paha 2007-058 33
Target Store Redevelopment Prot
Findings of Fact and StaAnt of Overriding Considerations
U7 All construction contractors involved in building activities associated with proposed project shall
shall separate and recycle all materials to the greatest extent possible. If any inert materials, such
as dirt, rock, concrete or asphalt, require disposal, contractor shall deliver such materials to a
reclamation pit such as Cal Mat or Reliance Pit 42. That is, only inert pits or facilities that do not
report "tons disposed" through the "Disposal Reporting System" as defined by the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, shall be used for discarding inert materials. All
construction contractors shall report all tons diverted ("recycled") from solid waste landfills by
material type to the City of Azusa following construction completion, including all metal, inert
materials, wood, plastics or other material types. Construction contractors shall also report tons
disposed in solid waste landfills which could not be safely recycled due to waste composition,
material mixture, or economic infeasibility.
U8 Retailers occupying premises of proposed project shall comply with all recycling requirements of
the State of California, including those of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 and Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986.
U9 Retailers occupying premises of proposed project shall comply with all waste recycling programs
instituted by the City of Azusa to comply with State law or implement local ordinances.
C) Finding
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have less -
than -significant impacts related to solid waste disposal. Although no significant impacts have been
identified related to solid waste disposal, after the implementation of Mitigation Measures U6 through U9
reduced project -related solid waste generation would occur and the proposed project would be consistent
with the City of Azusa's 50 percent landfill diversion rate. Implementation of these mitigation measures
would also ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the permitted capacity or daily intake of the
Puente Hills Landfill and would reduce the amount of solid waste that the proposed project would
contribute to local landfills.
d) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts associated with solid waste, see Section 4.11, pp. 4.11-8 to 4.11-9 of
the Draft EIR.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Regional Operational Emissions
a) Significant Environmental Effects
As stated in Section 4.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, significant impacts were identified related to
regional operational mobile source emissions. Long-term proposed project daily regional operational
emissions would be generated by stationary sources (natural gas, consumer products, and landscaping)
and mobile sources (motor vehicles). However, motor vehicle trips generated from the proposed project
would be the overwhelming predominant source of long-term project operational emissions causing a
violation of SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Operational emissions are anticipated to exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, and CO. Thus, significant impacts would occur with these pollutants.
Sana 2007-058 34
Target Store Redevelopment Prot
b) Mitigation Measures
Findings of Fact and StateOnt of Overriding Considerations
Implementation of mitigation measures for mobile source emissions is technically infeasible on a project -
specific basis (i.e., emission control devices cannot legally be required to be installed on private vehicles)
and no measures can be implemented to mitigate these emissions.
C) Findin
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that the proposed project would have
significant and unavoidable impacts related to regional operational mobile source emissions. Significant
regional operational air quality impacts would remain for NOx and CO. These impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the
amount of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. In addition, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations identified in Section XI (Statement of
Overriding Considerations), make infeasible additional mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Draft EIR.
C) Reference
For a complete discussion of impacts associated with regional operational emissions, see Section 4.2, pp.
4.2-19 of the Draft EIR.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
In addition to the proposed project alternatives, the Draft FIR evaluated three alternatives, the No Project
alternative, the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative, and the Increased Building
Articulation/Step Back Alternative.
1. No Project Alternative
a) Description of Alternative
CEQA requires that environmental evaluations address, for comparative purposes, the No Project
Alternative. The project site is currently located within the Downtown -Transit Village zone (DTV zone).
The DTV zone is intended for transit -oriented development adjacent to the planned Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension light rail transit (LRT) station. It is also intended to support retail, office, and
entertainment uses. Permitted uses in the DTV zone include library, museum, park, playground, studio
(art, dance, martial arts), various residential uses (manager unit, duplex, triplex, fourplex, mixed-use
residential), general retail, groceries, neighborhood market, cafe, bank, medical services, office, hotel, and
public service facility. Parking requirements for the DTV zone include 2.5 off-street parking spaces per
1,000 square feet of development. A single use located in the DTV zone is permitted to be three stories or
include a maximum height of 35 feet. Retail or commercial uses similar to the uses currently located on
the project site, as permitted by existing zoning regulations, would be included under the No Project
Alternative. Because the No Project Alternative is located in a redevelopment area, it is possible that
future improvements to the existing building facades may occur.
b) . Impact Summary for Alternative
As stated in Section 5.0 Project Alternatives of the Draft EIR, under the No Project Alternative, most of
the Project -related impacts described throughout the EIR would not occur. The following are the
exceptions: land use (local and regional plans and policies); and population, housing, and employment.
„he 2007-058 35
Target Store Redevelopment Pro ct Findings of Fact and State7Rgnt of Overriding Considerations
Land use impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project because the
existing uses on the project site would remain and would not meet the goals and policies of the City of
Azusa General Plan and Merged Project Area Redevelopment Plan. The No Project Alternative would
not achieve the goals of these plans since the No Project Alternative would not stimulate employment
opportunities, increase business opportunities, and encourage development in areas that need
redevelopment. Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project
because the existing uses on the project site would remain and would not stimulate employment
opportunities, increase business opportunities, and contribute to the enhancement of the quality of life in
the region. Therefore, new impacts would occur.
Population, housing and employment impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the
proposed project because the existing commercial and industrial uses on the project site would remain on
the project site under the No Project Alternative. No housing component would be added to the project
site under the No Project Alternative. As such, no population growth would occur. However, the No
Project Alternative would not stimulate employment or growth in the area since the project site would
remain underutilized. Therefore, new impacts would occur.
C) Finding/Rationale
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less
desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above. With this
alternative, new environmental impacts projected to occur from development of the proposed project
would be avoided. From a strictly environmental standpoint (excluding 'Project objectives), the No
Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project because it generates the least
amount of additional trips and creates the least amount of demand for public services. However, it is
found pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social and
technological, or other considerations, including considerations identified in Section XI of these Findings
(Statement of Overriding Considerations), make infeasible the No Project Alternative described in the
EIR. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not meet a single proposed project objective and is
also rjected on that basis. Specifically, it would not provide much-needed employment growth for the
City of Azusa's DTV zone. Further, unlike the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not
achieve City or City of Azusa Redevelopment Agency's objectives to encourage mixed-use and
pedestrian -friendly development in Downtown Azusa and to provide housing and parking for
neighborhood serving businesses. Therefore, the City of Azusa City Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated
above.
2. Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative
a) Description of Alternative
The Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative would include a one-story (35 feet tall) retail
store with two levels of subterranean parking located on the project site. The retail square footage,
number of parking spaces, loading dock configuration, and vehicular access points would be the same as
with the proposed project. However, there would be a reduction of storage space, which in the proposed
project, would be located above the loading dock area. Two levels of subterranean parking would be
provided to accommodate 420 parking spaces, as well as circulation ramps and space.
b) Impact Summary for the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative
mha 2007-058 36
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and StateOnt of Overriding Considerations
As stated in Section 5.0 Project Alternatives of the Draft EIR, under the Reduced Height with
Subterranean Parking Alternative, most of the project -related impacts described throughout the EIR
would be equal or less than the proposed project. The following are the exceptions: geology, soils, and
seismicity (geologic materials and soils); hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous wastes and
contamination), noise and vibration (construction) and public services, (fire protection).
Geologic materials and soils impacts under the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative
would be greater than the proposed project because this Alternative would result in increased impacts
related to the potential loss of topsoil during construction excavation activities for the two levels of
subterranean parking. Therefore, additional impacts would occur.
Hazardous wastes and contamination impacts under the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking
Alternative would be greater than the proposed project because the southeastern portion of the project site
contains elevated levels of diesel hydrocarbons, heavy hydrocarbons, lead, chromium in surface soils (six
to 12 inches bgs). This Alternative would result in a significant impact related to soluble lead in the
southeastern portion of the project site. The excavation activities required during the construction of the
Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative would potentially expose construction workers to
hazardous wastes. Therefore, additional impacts would occur.
Construction phase noise impacts under the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative would
be greater than the proposed project because the highest noise levels are expected to occur during the
grading/excavation and finishing phases of construction. This Alternative would include an increased
amount of excavation activities during the construction phase due to the two levels of subterranean
parking proposed. Therefore, additional impacts would occur.
Construction phase vibration impacts under the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative
would be greater than the proposed project because of the increase in duration and vibration levels during
the excavation activities required for the two levels of subterranean parking. Therefore, additional
impacts are would occur.
Fire protection and emergency services impacts under the Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking
Alternative may potentially be greater than the proposed project because this Alternative would require a
more comprehensive fire and emergency evacuation response plan as well as fire suppression system
because of the two subterranean parking levels. The Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking
Alternative would potentially increase calls for fire and emergency services due to additional parking
square footage and increased traffic, but would not require additional firefighters. The Reduced Height
with Subterranean Parking Alternative would include a similar retail square footage, number of parking
spaces, and vehicular access points as the proposed project. Therefore, additional impacts are would
occur.
C) Finding/Rationale
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less
desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above. The Reduced
Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative would lessen the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project;
however, additional environmental impacts projected to occur from development of the proposed project
would occur within geology, soils, and seismicity (geologic materials and soils); hazards and hazardous
materials (hazardous wastes and contamination), noise and vibration (construction), and public services
(fire protection). The Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative would also be less
consistent with proposed project objectives due to reduced parking, reduced retail space, and increased
amounts of subterranean construction. In addition to the additional environmental impacts created by
„ba 2007-058 37
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and Stat�nt of Overriding Considerations
construction of two levels of subterranean parking, costs would also substantially increase. Therefore, the
City of Azusa City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above.
3. Increased Building Articulation/Step Back Alternative
a) Description of Alternative
The Increased Building Articulation/Step Back Alternative would be similar to the proposed project,
except for a reduction in retail square footage, and would be located on the project site. However, this
Alternative would include an increased amount of building articulation including the increased use of a
sloped roof design on the first level and a second level that is stepped back. The first level of the building
would extend to the property line on each side of the project site and would include elements of a sloped
roof design on the western side of the building, along San Gabriel Avenue. The second level of the
building would be stepped back approximately ten feet from the plane of the western or San Gabriel
Avenue property line, thus, resulting in a reduction in retail square footage. The building would also
include a ten -foot set back along San Gabriel Avenue. The use of building articulation, first level sloped
roof design, second level step back, and building setback with Alternative 3, would be visually consistent
with the height and visual character of the one-story single-family residences located on the west side of
San Gabriel Avenue. In addition, the existing Coast Live Oak trees located on the east side of San
Gabriel Avenue would be preserved because, due to the building setback, the structural footings of the
buildings would be placed further from the root structure of the trees.
b) Impact Summary for the Increased Building Articulation/Step Back Alternative
As stated in Section 5.0 Project Alternatives of the Draft EIR, under the Increased Building
Articulation/Step Back Alternative, most of the project -related impacts described throughout the Draft
EIR would be equal or less than the proposed project. The exception is traffic and parking (parking).
Parking impacts under the Increased Building Articulation/Step Back Alternative would potentially be
greater than the proposed project because this Alternative would provide a first level setback and second
level step back of the building along San Gabriel Avenue. As such, a reduced number of parking spaces
and reduced amount of retail space may result. To provide the adequate amount of parking spaces for this
Alternative, an addition level of parking may be required. The additional parking would have to be
provided in a subterranean level. Therefore, additional impacts would occur.
C) Finding/Rationale
Based on the foregoing, the City of Azusa City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less
desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above. With this
alternative, additional environmental impacts are projected to occur to traffic and parking. The Increased
Building Articulation/Step Back Alternative would reduce the aesthetics and potential biological impacts
from removal of the Coast Live Oak trees along San Gabriel Avenue. The set backs and step backs under
this Alternative would reduce the retail square footage and parking spaces. An additional subterranean
parking level may potentially be required, resulting in similar additional impacts as identified under the
Reduced Height with Subterranean Parking Alternative. Due to reduced parking supply, reduced retail
space, and the potential need for subterranean parking level construction, the Increased Building
Articulation/Step Back Alternative would not meet the project objectives. Therefore, the City of Azusa
City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and
rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above.
wha 2007-058 38
Target Store Redevelopment Prot Findings of Fact and Statlnt of Overriding Considerations
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In certain instances, a proposed project may have possible environmental effects, which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable. In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Draft EIR analyzed the cumulative impacts that could occur with the proposed project. Cumulative
impacts, (i.e., two or more individual effects which, when considered together, compound or increase the
environmental impact of a proposed project) can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time. These cumulative impacts are summarized below.
Aesthetics (Draft EIR, Section 4.1, pp. 4.1-24 to 4.1-26). Cumulative impacts assessment related to
aesthetics is site-specific. The related projects are not located in close proximity to one another and, as
such, would not impact the visual character, scenic views and vistas, scenic resources, light and glare, or
shadows of the same neighborhoods or streets. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated for the
related projects. Any potential impacts between the proposed project and nearby single-family residences
would be reduced with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, cumulatively considerable
impacts related to aesthetics would not occur.
Air Quality (Draft EIR, Section 4.2, pp. 4.2-24 to 4.2-25). The SCAQMD's approach for assessing
cumulative operational impacts is based on the SCAQMD's AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air
quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state CAAs. This forecast also
takes into account SCAG's forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative
impacts focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth.
If a project is consistent with the regional population, housing and employment growth assumptions upon
which the SCAQMD's AQMP is based, then future development would not impede the attainment of
ambient air quality standards and a significant cumulative air quality impact would not occur. The
proposed project would result in a significant NOx and CO impact during operations. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in a regional cumulative operations impact given that the Basin is in
nonattainment for ozone and the proposed project would exceed the regional daily emissions threshold for
an ozone precursor (NOx).
GHG emissions were calculated from mobile sources, natural gas consumption, and electricity generation.
The proposed project would result in net carbon equivalent emissions of 12,173 metric tonnes per year.
This would represent approximately 0.03 percent of State GHG emissions. Worldwide population growth
and the consequent use of energy is the primary reason for GHG emission increases. The market demand
for goods and services and the use of land is directly linked to population changes and economic
development trends within large geographies (e.g., regional, Statewide, national, and worldwide).
Individual site-specific projects have a negligible effect on these macro population -driven and growth
demand factors. Whether an individual site-specific project is constructed or not has little effect on GHG
emissions. This. is because the demand for goods and services in question would be provided in some
other location to satisfy the demands of a growing population if not provided on the project site. The only
exception to this basic relationship between population growth, development, energy consumption and
GHG emissions would occur if the site-specific project (1) embodied features that were not typical of
urban environment or developing communities, and (2) generated a disproportionate amount of vehicle
miles of travel or had other unique and disproportionately high fuel consumption characteristics. The
proposed project does not fall within these exceptions. It is a typical infill development project located in
an urban area. As such, the proposed project would have a negligible effect on any increase in regional
and national GHG emissions.
tzha 2007-058 39
Target Store Redevelopment Prat Findings of Fact and Stat*nt of Overriding Considerations
Biological Resources (Draft EIR, Section 4.3, pp. 4,3-9 to 4.3-10). Several of the 15 related projects
are located in the vicinity of the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest located north of the
project area. However, there is not a high concentration of related projects located near these natural
areas that may potentially contain sensitive species. The related projects would not likely have a
cumulative impact on sensitive species, riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities,
wetlands, resident or migratory wildlife species, local policies and ordinances, or conservation plans.
Potentially significant impacts from resident or migratory wildlife species and local policies and
ordinances from the proposed project would be reduced to less -than -significant levels with the
implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact on biological resources.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Draft EIR, Section 4.4, pp. 4.4-9). Geologic, soil, and seismic hazards
are site-specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative geological relationship between the proposed
project and the 15 related projects in the area. Geologic impacts typically would be the result of the
environment's effect on the related projects, not the related project's effect on the environment. The
related projects would not create earthquakes, but the related projects would be exposed to the risk of
earthquakes. Therefore, the combination of related projects would not contribute cumulatively to
additional risk of an earthquake. Similarly, a proposed project's contribution to soil erosion or loss of
topsoil would be site-specific, and also not cumulative. Nevertheless, cumulative development in the area
would increase the overall residential and 24-hour population, thus, increasing the risk of exposure to
seismically -induced hazards. However, with adherence to applicable State and federal regulations,
building codes, and sound engineering practices, geologic hazards would be reduced to less -than -
significant levels.
The analysis of the proposed project's geology and soils impacts concluded that, through the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project's impacts would. be
reduced to less -than -significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable
cumulative contribution to any potential impacts, and cumulative geologic, soil, and seismic impacts
would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Draft EIR, Section 4.5, pp. 4.5-10). Any potentially significant
impacts of the 15 related projects associated with subsidence or methane gas, or the release, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials, particularly during the construction phase, would be assessed on a
project -by project basis. The removal of hazardous materials would be regulated for all the related
projects. Because of the site-specific nature of hazardous impacts, a cumulative impact would not result
unless all of the related projects were in close proximity (one -quarter -mile) of each other. No more than
three of the IS related projects are within one-quarter mile of each other. Hazardous impacts, such as soil
contamination are typically acute and limited in their potential to affect areas other than those
immediately adjacent. In addition, none of the related projects involve industrial land uses, which are
associated with hazardous substances. Only four of the related projects involve retail uses. The 15
related projects are not located within any airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport or
private airstrip. These related projects are not susceptible to danger from wildfires since these projects
are located in a relatively urbanized section of Los Angeles County that does not include wildlands, high
fire hazard terrain, or vegetation. The proposed project would result in a less -than -significant impact
related to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated and would not result in a
considerable cumulative contribution. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Land Use and Planning (Draft ETR, Section 4.6, pp. 4.6-18). The 15 related projects are not of a scale
to physically divide an established community. Development of the related projects would contribute to
the infill of underutilized parcels within the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Covina. The proposed project
taha 2007-058 40
Target Store Redevelopment Prove Findings of Fact and Stat* of Overriding Considerations
would not physically divide an established community and would not result in a considerable cumulative
contribution.
In addition, a variety of land uses are proposed with the related projects, including single- and multi-
family residential, school facilities, and retail buildings. Each of the related projects would have
individual design features that would need to be evaluated separately for potential land use compatibility
impacts and compliance with applicable local land use plans and policies. Based on the differences in
locations and land uses of the related projects, there would be no cumulative impact for the related
projects. The proposed project would also be consistent with applicable local land uses plans and policies
and would not result in a considerable cumulative contribution. Therefore, a less -than -significant
cumulative impact would occur.
A majority of the related projects are subject to the planning guidelines and restrictions as established by
the General Plan and Development or Zoning Codes of the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Covina. All of
the related projects, as well as the proposed project, are located within the planning area of SCAG, which
is the regional planning organization. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin
and as such is within jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Based on information available regarding the related projects, it is reasonable to assume that the related
projects would implement and support regional planning goals and policies. The proposed project would
support regional planning goals and policies and would not result in a considerable cumulative
contribution. Thus, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
The 15 related projects include developments proposed within the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Covina.
Therefore, some of the related projects may be subject to an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other similar plan. Based on the dispersed location of the related
projects, any of the related projects subject to an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
plan, or other similar plan would be isolated and site-specific and would not result in a cumulative impact.
As previously stated, the project site is not located within or subject to a Biological Resource Overlay
Zone or an adopted habitat conservation plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a
considerable cumulative contribution related to compliance with adopted habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plans. Therefore, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
Noise and Vibration (Draft EIR, Section 4.7, pp. 4.7-14). When calculating future traffic impacts, the
traffic consultant took 15 additional projects into consideration. The traffic consultant also applied an
ambient traffic growth rate of one percent per year when estimating traffic conditions in 2010 and 2012.
Related projects would result in a maximum cumulative roadway noise increase of 2.1 dBA CNEL
(Azusa Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and 5th Street). Mobile noise levels associated with related
projects would be less than the 3-dBA perceptibility threshold. The maximum cumulative roadway noise
increase would be would be 2.5 dBA CNEL and would occur along Azusa Avenue between Foothill
Boulevard and 5'h Street. As such, cumulative roadway noise levels would not exceed the 3-dBA
threshold increment and would not result in a perceptible change in noise level. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to roadway noise.
The predominant vibration source near the project site is heavy trucks traveling on the local roadways.
Heavy-duty vehicles do not typically generate perceptible vibration because of rubber tires and
suspension systems. Most problems with heavy-duty vehicle vibration are related to a pothole, bump,
expansion joint, or other discontinuities in the roadway surface. Neither the proposed project nor the
related projects would substantially increase heavy-duty vehicle traffic near the project site or cause a
substantial increase in heavy-duty trucks on local roadways. Assuming that the local roadways are
maintained in good condition, cumulative vibration levels would not be perceptible at sensitive receptors.
As such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable vibration impact.
taha 2007-058 41
Target Store Redevelopment Pro , Findings of Fact and Stateet of Overriding Considerations
Population, Housing, and Employment (Draft EIR, Section 4.8, pp. 4.8-5 to 4.8-6). There are 15
related projects in the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 13 are anticipated to include new housing,
which would generate population or housing growth. However, the proposed project does not have a
housing component and, therefore, would not generate population growth. As such, the proposed project
would not contribute to a cumulative population growth in the SGVCCG subregion or in the City of
Azusa. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with population growth, housing, or displacement
would occur with the proposed project.
The proposed project and the related projects would displace approximately 101 jobs. However, they
would also generate approximately 1,706 new jobs. For the proposed project, a number of the businesses,
including the industrial businesses, that are being displaced have already relocated or are in the process of
relocation. Thus, the actual employment displacement may potentially be less than anticipated.
Relocation information is not available for the related projects, but it is reasonable to assume that there
would be similar opportunities to relocate existing businesses. Nevertheless, more employment
opportunities would become available than jobs displaced as a result of implementation of the proposed
project. Therefore, less -than -significant cumulative impacts associated with employment displacement
would occur.
Public Services (Draft EIR, Section 4, pp. 4.1-24 to 4.1-26). There is a potential for all of the 15
related projects to generate an increased need for fire protection and emergency services. The 15 related
projects include developments proposed within the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Covina. Three of the
nearest related projects are also retail developments within one-half mile of the proposed project. These
projects would be required to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and development codes related
to fire protection and emergency services. The 15 related projects would require fire protection and
emergency services from the LACOFD. The LACOFD has nine fire stations within an approximately 20 -
square -mile area surrounding the related projects. In addition, a majority of the related projects are being
developed over similar existing uses which already receive fire protection and emergency services. The
two Monrovia Nursery housing projects would be built on undeveloped land, but are the only projects that
would have Fire Station 97 as the first responder. The Monrovia Nursery housing projects are paying for
the relocation and expansion of Fire Station 97 to increase fire services for the area. In addition, it is
anticipated that with the addition of developer fees paid by the other related projects, existing fire services
from the other fire stations would also be adequate. Therefore a less -than -significant cumulative impact
would occur.
The proposed project would not require the need for additional fire. protection and emergency services,
and would result in a less -than -significant impact related to fire protection and emergency services.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have a considerable cumulative contribution related to fire
protection and emergency services.
Eleven of the 15 related projects are located within the jurisdiction of the APD. Two related projects are
under the jurisdiction of the Glendora Police Department and two related projects are under the
jurisdiction of the Covina Police Department. These projects would be required to comply with all
applicable laws, ordinances, and development codes related to fire protection and emergency services. A
majority of the related projects are being developed over similar existing uses which already receive
police protection. It is anticipated that with the addition of developer fees paid by the related projects,
existing police services would be adequate. Therefore a less -than -significant cumulative impact would
occur.
laha 2007-058 42
Target Store Redevelopment Prof ct Findings of Fact and StateInt of Overriding Considerations
As discussed, the proposed project, with implementation of mitigation measures, would have a less -than -
significant impact on police services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable
cumulative contribution on police services in association with the related projects.
Eleven of the related projects are within the City of Azusa, nine of which will add 1,999 dwelling units to
the area. This will increase the residential population and the demand for schools, childcare facilities, and
parks and recreational facilities. Using the highest student generation factors per type of residential use
(i.e., single-family, townhouse/condominium, and rented multi -family) for elementary, middle, and high
schools, it was determined that a maximum of 2,686 new students would be generated by these new
residential projects. This would include a maximum of 1,342 elementary, 672 middle, and 672 high
school students. Schools in the Azusa Unified School District are already operating over capacity. It is
anticipated that all other related projects would also pay developer fees as required by SB 50. These fees
would reduce the overcrowding within the Azusa school system, however, a cumulative impact would
occur.
The proposed project would not include a residential component, and therefore, would not directly
contribute to new student generation. The proposed project would generate a net increase of 129
employees, many of which are anticipated to be residents of the community. Therefore, the proposed
project is not anticipated to contribute additional students from indirect population growth from project
employment. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a considerable cumulative impact on
schools.
There are I 1 related projects within the City of Azusa, nine of which will add 2,487 dwelling units to the
area. This will increase the residential population and the demand for schools, childcare facilities, and
parks and recreational facilities. At least two of the 15 related projects would add parks or other open
space. The City would still have a shortage of parkland based on guidelines established by the City of
Azusa Master Plan. Developer fees would be required by the related projects to mitigate this shortage to
a less -than -significant level. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur related to recreation and
parks.
The proposed project would have less -than -significant cumulative impacts on parks, as it does not include
a residential component and would not directly contribute to population growth. The proposed project
would generate a net increase of 129 employees, many of which are anticipated to be residents of the
community. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute additional demand on
recreation and park services from indirect population growth from project Cumulatively, the proposed
project would have less -than -significant impacts related to recreation and parks.
There are 1 I related projects within the City of Azusa, nine of which will add 1,999 dwelling units to the
area. This will increase the residential population and the demand for schools, childcare facilities, parks
and recreational facilities, and other public services. Specifically, regarding library services, the City
would have a shortage based on results of the Azusa General Plan. Developer fees are not distributed to
libraries and, as a result, a potentially significant cumulative impact related to library services is
anticipated for the related projects.
The proposed project would have a less -than -significant cumulative impact on other public services, as it
does not include a residential component and would not directly contribute to population growth. The
proposed project would generate a net increase of 129 employees, many of which are anticipated to be
residents of the community. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute a considerable
additional demand for other public services from indirect population growth from project.
taha 2007-058 43
Target Store Redevelopment Proi7L`t Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
Traffic and Transportation (Draft E1R, Section 4.10, pp. 4.10-26 to 4.1-30). Future cumulative
conditions (without the proposed project) would result in the majority of intersections operating at LOS C
or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak hour, all the intersections would
operate at LOS C or better, except for the intersection of V Street & Azusa Avenue, which would operate
at LOS D. During the PM peak hour, all studied intersections would operate at LOS C or better, except
for the intersection of Azusa Avenue & Foothill Boulevard which would operate at LOS D, and the
intersection of I" Street & Azusa Avenue which will operate at LOS E. This would not result in a
cumulative impact. The addition of project traffic would not cause LOS to change at any of the
intersections during the AM peak hour. The only changes resulting from the addition of project
traffic would occur during the PM_ peak hour when the Foothill Boulevard/Azusa Avenue
intersection would change from LOS D to E. The V/C ratio at the 1st Street/Azusa Avenue
would increase slightly but would remain operating at LOS E. This change in V/C would be
0.031, higher than the 0.020 change in V/C criteria used by the City of Azusa uses to identify a
significant impact. As such, a significant impact would result at the Foothill Boulevard/Azusa
Avenue and 1st Street/Azusa Avenue intersections. Therefore, this may result in a cumulatively
considerable impact. However, similar to the project -specific impact detailed above, the City of
Azusa City Council finds that implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures TPI
and TP2 would reduce restore these intersections to acceptable LOS and thus result in a less than
significant cumulative impact.
The planned Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension light rail line, which would be located immediately
south of the project site, is planned to commence operations in 2012, two years after the proposed project
would be in operation. An EIR/EIS was prepared in 2005 (Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final
Environmental Impact Repot, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority) analyzing
environmental impacts resulting from the extension of the rail line. Mitigation measures included in this
report were assumed in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project.
Traffic conditions with both the proposed Target Store and the Metro Gold Line for the year 2012 were
evaluated. Traffic forecasts were prepared and analyzed for 2012 Without the Target Project, as well as
With the Target Project. These results are very similar to the earlier 2010 analysis. In general, the
volume/capacity ratios are slightly higher (due to higher traffic volumes), and the level of service would
be unchanged at most all intersections from the 2010 conditions. While the level of service would worsen
slightly at three intersections, they would all remain at LOS D or better.
The number and location of significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project would be the same as
identified for year 2010, i.e. significant impacts in the PM peak hour at the intersections of Foothill
Boulevard and Azusa Avenue and I" Street and Azusa Avenue. The level of service would still be LOS
E at these two locations. Although, no additional traffic impacts would be caused by the proposed project
in 2012 with the Metro Gold Line Extension in operation, due to the proximity of the proposed project to
the Metro Gold Line Extension, cumulative impacts may occur.
An analysis of traffic queues was also conducted for the planned Metro Gold Line Extension. For Azusa
Avenue, the nearest intersection is Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, while for San Gabriel Avenue
the nearest intersection is Ninth Street. The estimated queues were compared to the available storage. In
all cases, the queues would be substantially less than the available storage capacity, indicating that at -
grade operations would be feasible both without and with the Target Store. No cumulative impacts
related to traffic queues would occur.
paha 2007-058 44
Target Store Redevelopment Proj Findings of Fact and StatenOt of Overriding Considerations
An evaluation of street grade crossings at San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue, adjacent to the project
site concluded that there would be no significant impacts at these grade crossings and that at -grade light
rail transit operations would be feasible. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.
The related projects are not located in close proximity to each other. The proximity of each project to a
designated CMP monitoring intersection would be assessed on a project -by -project basis. The proposed
project would not result in impacts to CMP monitoring intersections in the project area. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
The parking analysis prepared for the project site identified a large supply of parking in the downtown
area in close proximity to the project site that is not fully utilized. Additionally, there is significant
potential for an effective sharing of parking resources in the Downtown area as anticipated by the City of
Azusa's General Plan policies.
The proposed project supply of 420 spaces would provide sufficient on-site parking to meet the official
City Code requirements. An overall adequate parking supply for both the weekday and the weekend
would be available. However, during the peak month of December, the parking demand on both
weekdays and weekends would exceed the on-site parking supply. Four nearby municipal parking lots in
addition to a proposed Metro Gold Line parking lot (280 spaces) could help alleviate parking demand
during the month of December. Additionally, an off-site employee parking program could be effective
during the peak month. This would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable condition related to
parking.
Under the proposed project, the driveways are forecast to operate at good levels of service (LOS C or
better) except for the driveway at Azusa Avenue in the PM peak hour, where the outbound left tum out
would operate at LOS E. However, the outbound volume would be only 82 vehicles in the PM peak hour
so few cars would be affected and minimal traffic queues would occur for exiting vehicles. This would
not contribute to a cumulatively considerable condition related to driveways and access.
As discussed earlier in the section, the estimated potential number of transit trips generated by the project
in the peak direction in the peak hour would represent approximately 2.1 percent of total transit capacity.
This would represent a very small proportion of the overall transit system capacity. Therefore, the
proposed project would not cause the capacity of the transit system to be substantially exceeded. This
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable condition.
The 15 related projects identified in the proposed project traffic study are not located in close proximity to
one another. Each project would be required to implement mitigation measures for any potential traffic
hazards. Therefore, cumulative traffic hazard impacts would not result. As previously discussed, the
proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to various traffic hazards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable condition.
Utilities and Service Systems (Draft EIR, Section 4.11, pp. 4.11-12 to 4.11-14). Two of the individual
related projects would likely require a water needs assessment. The 15 related projects would
cumulatively contribute to the infilling and development of underutilized parcels of the surrounding area.
The number of persons, housing, and employment added would be consistent with SCAG projections. In
addition, the related projects would be required to comply with all local regulations associated with the
water drought in the area. As such, the planning of water needs is based on SCAG projections. However,
the related projects are not located in close proximity to one another and no significant cumulative
impacts are anticipated. The proposed project does not include a housing component and would not
create high demand on the existing water supply in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to water supply.
taha 2007-059 45
Target Store Redevelopment Prop Findings of Fact and State* of Overriding Considerations
WRP or JWPCP would service the 15 related projects. The total amount of wastewater generated by the
related projects and the proposed project (579,251 gpd) is 0.6 percent of the remaining 100 mgd capacity
of wastewater treatment at WRP and 0.2 percent of JWPCP's 350 mgd wastewater treatment capacity.
The related projects are not anticipated to require additional wastewater infrastructure to be constructed
because the related projects are not located within a close proximity to each other. Although, the
cumulative growth of the region may potentially result in the utilization of all of the local wastewater
treatment plants remaining capacities. The proposed project would result in a less -than -significant impact
related to wastewater treatment infrastructure after the implementation of mitigation measures.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
wastewater treatment infrastructure.
The landfills that currently serve the project area would be adequate for the solid waste generated by the
construction and operational phases of the 15 related projects and the.proposed project. As discussed, the
City of Azusa has a current landfill diversion rate of 56 percent. It is anticipated that the same percentage
of refuse diversion would apply to all related projects within the City of Azusa. The related projects
located in the Cities of Glendora and Covina would also have to divert at least 50 percent of refuse from
landfills based on AB 939. The related projects would likely utilize the Puente Hills Landfill, which has a
remaining 657 -ton -per -day solid waste capacity. In addition, other area landfills are operational. With
compliance with these standards and the implementation of mitigation measures, the related projects
would have less -than -significant cumulative impacts on solid waste generation. The proposed project
would have less -than -significant impacts related to solid waste disposal after the implementation of
mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact related to solid waste disposal.
Demands on the existing storm drain system located in the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Covina would
not change substantially with the implementation of the related projects. A majority of the related
projects are located in developed and paved areas and would not result in increased demands on the
existing storm drain system beyond existing conditions. The proposed project would be constructed on
developed land and the net increase of impermeable surfaces or urban runoff into the existing drainage
system, during operations, would be minimal to zero. Urban runoff would continue to be collected by the
existing storm water collection system. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with storm water and drains. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact related to storm water and drains.
The proposed project and the 15 related projects would increase demand on electricity and associated
infrastructure in the project area. The 15 related projects would be served by SCG. All of the related
projects would be required to comply with Title 24 of the CCR, which establishes energy conservation
standards for new construction. It is anticipated that construction of the 15 related projects would also
result in temporary electricity consumption that would not be significant when compared to operational
electricity consumption. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated
with electricity consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact related to electricity consumption.
The proposed project and -the related projects would increase demand on natural gas and related natural
gas infrastructure. As previously mentioned, the natural gas supply available to SCG from California
sources is approximately 310 million cubic feet per day. All of the related projects would be required to
comply with any applicable natural gas conservation regulations. The related projects would utilize
existing natural gas infrastructure in developed areas and would not result in significant cumulative
impacts. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the
taha 2007-058 46
Target Store Redevelopment Projo Findings of Fact and Stateot of Overriding Considerations
consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact related to natural gas consumption.
2. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS (Draft EIR, Section 6, pg. 6-1)
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the assessment of growth -inducing impacts in the
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 surrounding environment."
The project site is within a redevelopment area, which seeks to attract private investment into an
economically depressed community. The proposed project would not induce growth, but would seek to
stimulate the economy of downtown Azusa. The proposed project would bring growth to the area by
providing 129 net new jobs. The new jobs would be available to the local community and the project
applicant would be encouraged to hire locally. With the addition of jobs, the proposed project would
foster economic growth in the project area. The proposed project would not create more jobs than the
adopted Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) forecast for the San Gabriel Valley
Cities Council of Government (SGVCCG) Subregion. The new jobs and retail use would help to
revitalize the downtown Azusa area. Thus, the proposed project would meet the goals of the Merged
Project Area Redevelopment Plan by stimulating economic growth in the area. The proposed project does
not include the construction of housing. In addition, the operation of the proposed project is not expected
to induce population growth in the project area because similar uses currently exist on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase population growth either directly or indirectly.
3. IRREVERSIBLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES (Draft EIR, Section
6, pp. 6-1)
Irreversible environmental changes are not anticipated for the proposed project. Construction and
operation of the proposed project would rely upon the use of nonrenewable resources but not at levels that
would be considered out of context with urban development. Use of fossil fuel derived energy sources,
such as gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, and natural gas, would be necessary for transport of workers and
materials during construction and provision of electricity, natural gas, and fuel for vehicles during the life
of the proposed project. Although fossil fuel consumption would constitute the depletion of a resource
that is irretrievable and irreversible, the amount of resources consumed would not be of an extraordinary
nature in a regional context.
X. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Azusa City Council certifies that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines (Pub Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.). The
City of Azusa City Council further certifies that the EIR has been presented to the City of Azusa City
Council, which has reviewed and considered the EIR prior to approving the proposed project, and
certifies that the EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.
2. The City of Azusa City Council finds that the EIR provides objective information to assist the
decision -makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of
the project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private
organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The
Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public
review period.
„ne 2007-05% 47
Target Store Redevelopment Prato, Findings ojFact and State* of Overriding Considerations
3. The City of Azusa staff evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who
reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City of Azusa staff prepared written
responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR
provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City of Azusa City
Council has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither
the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information
regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa City Council has based its
actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption
of these findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the EIR.
4. The EIR evaluated the following environmental potential project and cumulative impacts: Aesthetics;
Air Quality; Biological Resources; Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Land Use and Planning; Noise and Vibration; Population, Housing, and Employment; Public
Services; Traffic and Parking; and Utilities and Service Systems. Additionally, the EIR considered
the Growth Inducing Impacts of the Project. The significant environmental impacts of the project and
the alternatives were identified in the text and summary of the EIR.
5. While experts may disagree pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15151, substantial evidence in the
record supports the City of Azusa's conclusions in the EIR, including but not limited to the areas of
Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation and Traffic.
6. The mitigation measures which have been identified for the proposed project were identified in the
text and summary of the EIR. The final mitigation measures are described in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") (Attachment A). Each of the mitigation measures
identified in the MMRP, and contained in the Final EIR, is incorporated into the proposed project.
The City of Azusa City Council finds that the impacts of the proposed project have been mitigated to
the extent feasible by the Mitigation Measures identified in the MMRP, and contained in the Final
EIR.
Textual refinements and errata were compiled and presented as part of the Final EIR to the
decision -makers for review and consideration. The City of Azusa staff has made every effort to
notify the decision -makers and the interested public/agencies of each textual change in the various
documents associated with the project review. These textual refinements arose for a variety of
reasons. First, it is inevitable that draft documents will contain errors and will require clarifications
and corrections. Second, textual clarifications were necessitated in order to describe refinements
suggested as part of the public participation process.
S. The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and
amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR.
9. Having reviewed the information contained in the EIR and in the administrative record as well as the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City of
Azusa City Council finds that there is no significant new information in the Final EIR such that
recirculation of the Draft EIR, pursuant to the requirements outlined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, would be required.
10. CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt an MMRP for the changes to the project
which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with
project implementation. The mitigation measures included in the EIR as certified by the City of
Azusa City Council and included in MMRP as adopted by the City of Azusa City Council serves that
function. The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and has been
designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the
paha 2007-058 48
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and Staleft of Overriding Considerations
MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In
accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6, the City of Azusa City
Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
11. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6, the City of Azusa City
Council hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of
approval for the proposed project.
12. The custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City of Azusa City Council's decision is based is located at the City of Azusa City Hall,
213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702.
13. The City of Azusa City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every
finding made herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, or is in
the record of proceedings in the matter.
14. The City of Azusa City Council is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting Findings for,
the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the project. It is
contemplated that there may be a variety of actions undertaken by other State and local agencies (who
might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA). The EIR is intended to be the basis for
compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other State and local
agencies to carry out the project.
15. The EIR is a Project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the project. A Project EIR
examines the environmental effects of a specific project. This EIR serves as the primary
environmental compliance document for entitlement decisions regarding the project by the City of
Azusa City Council and the other regulatory jurisdictions.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Draft EIR has identified unavoidable significant impacts that will result from implementation of the
proposed project. Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the
public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the EIR but are not at
least substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on
the completed FIR and/or other information in the record.
Air Quality (Regional Operational Emissions) impacts are not mitigated to a less -Than -significant level for
the proposed project: Furthermore, the three project alternatives do not alleviate these significant impacts
and are not feasible in light of the proposed project objectives.
Accordingly, the City of Azusa City Council adopts the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The City of Azusa City Council recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts will
result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures,
(ii) rejected as infeasible alternatives to the proposed project discussed above, (iii) recognized all
significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the
proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts, the City of Azusa City Council hereby finds that
the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below.
The reasons stated below summarize the benefits, goals, and objectives of the proposed project and
provide the rationale for the benefits of the project. These overriding considerations of economic, social,
aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the proposed project justify adoption of the proposed project and
mha 2007-058 49
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and State! of Overriding Considerations
certification of the completed Final EIR. Each of these overriding considerations would individually be
sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Implementation of the proposed project will improve the social and economic conditions
in the City of Azusa Redevelopment Area and downtown Azusa through: (1) providing
more employment opportunities in the downtown; (2) providing a source of continuous
usage of downtown businesses by residents; (3) providing quality shopping opportunities
for the surrounding community.
2. Implementation of the proposed project will assist in eliminating and preventing the spread
of blight, thereby promoting the redevelopment of the City of Azusa Redevelopment Area,
which currently suffers from the presence of empty or underutilized lots and has some
office vacancy. Implementation of the proposed project will also provide and encourage
additional private sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the project
area, consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project will induce and stimulate growth in the area, and
with its community serving retail and proximity to the future Metro Gold Line Foothill
Extension, the proposed project will increase pedestrian activity and interest in the area,
thereby attracting greater numbers of visitors to the area.
4. Implementation of the proposed project will provide a retailer of national reputation to
stabilize and enhance the perception of the downtown Azusa commercial district.
5. Implementation of the proposed project will develop a new mixed-use community that will
help promote the internal relationship of mutually supportive uses, such as employment,
housing, recreation, and community -serving activities, so as to decrease dependency on the
automobile, encourage pedestrian activity and alternative transportation modes, make
efficient use of land and infrastructure and foster a strong sense of community.
6. Implementation of the proposed project will promote and facilitate employment
opportunities for the local community by offering residents attractive new employment
with Target Corporation.
7. Implementation of the proposed project will be a positive investment for underutilized
parcels located in a prime and highly visible location between two major arterial
thoroughfares in the City.
8. Implementation of the proposed project will provide an exciting new community -serving
retail use.
9. Implementation of the proposed project will promote the City of Azusa's Land
Use/Transportation Policy by coordinating and concentrating development in proximity to
transportation alternatives and in an economically significant transit corridor.
10. The proposed project would contribute to reversing the trend of declining economic activity
and physical decay in the downtown area by developing underutilized parcels, providing
employment, retail, and other services; and enhancing the economic development of the
City. The Agency and the Target Corporation (project applicant) have stated that the
proposed project would function as an economic catalyst for the City in its effort to
increase employment, business, and investment opportunities in the downtown Azusa area.
taha 2007-058 50
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings oJFact and State 101 of Overriding Considerations
The proposed project would contribute to this effort by offering residents a wide variety of
goods and services in a convenient location in downtown Azusa and near the future Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Gold Line Foothill
Extension, which is situated south of and adjacent to the project site.
XII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the proposed project, and
was approved by the City of Azusa City Council by the same resolution that has adopted these findings.
(See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15097.) The City of Azusa City
Council will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will
remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is located below in
Attachment A.
uha 2007-058 51
Target Store Redevelopment Proj• Findings of Fact and Statet of Overriding Considerations
INSERT "ATTACHMENT A" MMRP
lana 2007-058 52
Target Store Redevelopment Prof•
Attachment A
INTRODUCTION
Mitigation Storing and Reporting Program
Section 21086.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires that public agencies approving a
project with an EIR adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for that project. The
purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to mitigate the
potentially significant environmental effects of the project are, in fact, properly carried out. In its findings
concerning the environmental effects of a project for which an EIR was prepared, a Lead Agency must
also include a finding that a MMRP has been prepared and provides a satisfactory program -that would
ensure avoidance or sufficient reduction of the significant effects of the proposed project.
The City of Azusa is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and shall be responsible for assuring full
compliance with the provisions of this program.
TARGET STORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP contains the following:
• All of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project (listed according to the same
numbering system contained in the Draft EIR)
• Phase/time of the proposed project during which the mitigation measure must be implemented
and/or monitored
• Identification of the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure
• Identification of the party responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation
measure
Aesthetics
Al The proposed project shall incorporate design features to lessen the visual contrast with existing
residences on San Gabriel Avenue. The design features to be implemented include, but are not
limited to, varying building height, sloped roof design, and landscaping as approved by the
director of the Public Works Department, all of which shall be consistent with the proposed
project elevations and perspectives shown in Section 3.0 Project Description, as well as
previously in the current section. These features shall be coordinated between the project
applicant and the City of Azusa during the design review approval process before the Planning
Commission and shall provide for a development that is more consistent with the visual character
of the neighborhood.
Timing/Phasing: City of Azusa Planning Commission and City Council Hearings; final
design phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa
Exhibit B of CEQA Resolution
paha 2007-058 I Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Target Store Redevelopment Proj•
Attachment A
Mitigation MDffitoring and Reporting Program
A2 All exterior lighting shall be shielded in a manner to focus illumination onto entrances, the
loading dock, the covered surface parking, or onto the building itself and not be directed in a
manner to cause spillover lighting on residences located along San Gabriel Avenue and 9th
Street.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa
A3 The determination of exterior building materials to be installed with the proposed project shall be
coordinated between the project applicant and the City of Azusa to ensure that light and glare
impacts would not occur. The following exterior building materials shall be used with the
proposed project: buckskin and prairie clay (or similar colors) paint, plaster, concrete, and all
non -reflective windows and other materials, such as clay tile roof, ceramic wall tile, decorative
ventilator brick panels, and wall trellises.
TiminglPhasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Air Quality
Construction Phase
Final design and construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
AQ] Water or a stabilizing agent shall be applied to exposed surfaces in sufficient quantity to prevent
generation of dust plumes.
Timing/Phasing:
Construction phase
Responsible Party:
Applicant
Monitoring Party:
City of Azusa
AQ2 Track -out shall not extend 25 feet or more from an active operation, and track -out shall be
removed at the conclusion of each workday.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa
AQ3 A wheel washing system shall be installed and used to remove bulk material from tires and
vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
AQ4 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall maintain at least six inches of
freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
taha 2007-058 2
Target Store Redevelopment Project
Attachment A
Mitigation Aitoring and Reporting Program
AQ5 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or
other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party
Monitoring Party:
Construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
AQ6 Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa
AQ7 Operations on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
AQ8 Heavy equipment operations shall be suspended during first and second stage smog alerts.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
AQ9 On-site stock piles of debris, dirt, or rusty materials shall be covered or watered at least twice per
day.
Timing/Phasing:
Construction phase
Responsible Party:
Applicant
Monitoring Party:
City of Azusa
Biological Resources
Resident or Migratory Wildlife Species
BRI If the Coast Live Oak trees along the east side of San Gabriel Avenue are to be removed, prior to
construction of the proposed project, the presence of raptor or migratory nesting birds in the trees
shall be evaluated. If the presence of raptor or migratory nesting birds is determined, the
construction of the proposed project shall avoid removing the identified trees until the young have
fledged.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Local Policies and Ordinances
Prior to construction phase
Applicant
City of Azusa
BR2 During the final design phase of the proposed project, and prior to the start of the
demolition/construction phase, the project applicant shall submit a final landscape plan to the City
of Azusa for approval by the City's Urban Forester and the Director of the Department of Public
(aha 2007.058
0
Target Store Redevelopment Project
Attachment A
Mitigation rl Goring and Reporting Program
Works. The final landscape plan shall include provisions to either protect in place the existing
Coast Live Oak trees in the parkway or replace them, per the requirements of the City of Azusa
Tree Preservation Ordinance, with the condition that any replaced Coast Live Oak tree would
attain at least 30 -feet in height, along the east side of San Gabriel Avenue within the new
parkway, within a 20 -year period. The replaced Coast Live Oak trees shall be placed in the
appropriate box size to accommodate the ultimate height the tree would reach within a 20 -year
period.
Timing/Phasing: Final design phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Urban Forester; Director of the City of Azusa Recreation
and Family Services Department
Geology, Soils, & Seismicity
Geologic Materials and Soils
GS1 Best Management Practices (BMPs), required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and application of South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, shall be implemented for the proposed project to reduce potential
soil erosion due to grading and excavation activities. BMPs would comply with applicable UBCs
and include, but are not limited to, scheduling excavation and grading activities during dry
weather, covering stockpiles of excavated soils with tarps or plastic sheeting, and debris traps on
drains.
Seismicity
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division; City of Azusa Public Works
Department
GS2 A liquefaction assessment shall be preformed by a certified engineering geologist or registered
civil engineer, as specified in Division of Mines and Geology's Special Publication 117
Guidelines, and its recommendations shall be incorporated into the foundation design of the
proposed project.
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of grading permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division; City of Azusa Engineering Division
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials
HMI Consistent with the 1994 Federal Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Standards, a Licensed
Asbestos Inspector shall be retained to determine the presence of asbestos and asbestos -
containing materials (ACMs) within structures to be demolished on the project site. If asbestos is
discovered, a Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor shall be retained to safely remove all
asbestos from the site prior to demolition activities.
taha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Project Mitigation tY7C/ri1oring and Reporting Program
Attachment A
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of demolition permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division
HM2 For existing structures to be demolished on the project site, lead-based paint testing shall be
conducted due to the deteriorating condition of many painted surfaces. All materials identified as
containing lead shall be removed by a licensed lead-based paint/materials abatement contractor.
TiminglPhasing: Prior to issuance of demolition permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division
HM3 On-site fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers that are not marked "No PCBs" shall
be removed prior to demolition activities and shall be disposed of by a licensed and certified PCB
removal contractor, in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations.
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of demolition permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division; City of Azusa Engineering Division
Hazardous Wastes and Contamination
HM4 195 tons of contaminated soil in the southeastern portion of the project site containing diesel
hydrocarbons, arsenic, and soluble lead shall be removed and disposed of as hazardous waste per
the specifications of the LARWQCB or other agencies overseeing the cleanup of the proposed
project. Removed soil shall be excavated at a depth of two feet in the southeastern portion of the
project site adjacent to contaminated soil samples found at TPH2, TPH3, and SS2 of the 809
North Azusa Avenue Soil Sample Report.
Timing/Phasing: Construction Phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: Los Angeles Region Water Quality Control Board; City of. Azusa
Building Division; City of Azusa Building Division
HM5 175 tons of contaminated soil in the southwestern and northern portions of the project site
containing arsenic shall be disposed of at a permitted landfill per the specifications of the
LARWQCB or other agencies overseeing the cleanup of the proposed project. Removed soil
shall be excavated at a depth of two feet adjacent to arsenic contaminated soil samples found at
KRSS 13 and 14 of the 110-190 East Ninth Street Soil Sample Report and EASS10, EASS15,
and EASS23 of the 800-802 North Azusa Avenue Soil Sample Report.
Timing/Phasing:
Responsible Party:
Monitoring Party:
Land Use & Planning
Land Use Plans and Policies
taha 2007-058
Construction Phase
Applicant
Los Angeles Region Water Quality Control Board; City of Azusa
Building Division
Target Store Redevelopment Project
Attachment A
Mitigation Storing and Reporting Program
LU1 The City of Azusa Development Code shall be amended to include the Downtown North Overlay
II Zone. Additionally, the City of Azusa Zoning Map shall be amended to reflect the Downtown
North Overlay II Zone. The proposed project shall be required to comply with the newly
implemented standards of the Downtown North Overlay II Zone, which would allow for a greater
maximum height than the DTV zone, a change in building orientation, and a reduced parking stall
size. The reduced length of the parking stalls allowed under the overlay zone provides for
additional surface area in the proposed ground floor parking area, allowing for more parking
spaces to be accommodated in the ground floor parking area.
Timing/Phasing: City of Azusa Planning Commission and City Council Hearings; prior to
final design phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division
Noise
Operational Phase
N The City of Azusa Development Code shall be amended to include the Downtown North Overlay
II Zone. The new Overlay Zone shall allow for truck deliveries to occur between the hours of
4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Mondays through Sunday.
Timing/Phasing: City of Azusa Planning Commission and City Council Hearings; prior to
final design phase
Responsible Party: City of Azusa Planning Division
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Community
Development Department
Public Services
Police Protection
PSl Vandal -resistant lighting systems shall be installed that provide uniform white light that
minimizes glare, light pollution, and light trespass, which provide nighttime vision for motorists,
pedestrians, homeowners and business people, and enhance police ability for surveillance, patrol
and pursuit.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Police Department
PS2 Clear signs shall be posted where parking is limited (e.g., street parking), handicapped parking
stalls shall be marked in compliance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22511.8, and fire lanes
shall be marked in compliance with CVC 22500.1. The property owner shall post signs in
compliance with CVC 22658 stating that illegally parked cars shall be towed.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Department of Public
Works; City of Azusa Building Division
taha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Proj•
Attachment A
Mitigation Storing and Reporting Program
PS3 At a minimum, strategically placed surveillance cameras shall be installed at parking garage
entrances/exits, entry/exit points of the store, and along the south side of the building (including
the loading dock area) that shall be digitally recorded and stored for at least 30 days for
investigative purposes. As requested, Target employees shall provide digitally captured video
and images to the APD in a timely manner, preferably within 60 minutes of the crime being
reported and/or investigated. Warning signs of such recordings shall be conspicuously posted as
a crime deterrent. The store shall be equipped with an audible or silent burglary alarm at all
entry/exit points and monitored by a reputable alarm company and be in compliance with
pertinent requirements for alarm systems.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Parry: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Department of Public
Works; City of Azusa Police Department
PS4 All containers in trash enclosure areas shall have a lid, be kept closed, and the containers and/or
enclosures shall be lockable to deter illegal dumping. All planters shall utilize materials and/or
finishes on top caps that discourage skateboarding. All landscape material shall not have
canopies lower than six feet in height and shrubbery higher than two feet in height to maximize
pedestrian visibility. The use of approved graffiti resistant finishes shall be used wherever
possible.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Department of Public
Works
PS5 Two designated on -street police parking spaces (non -compact) shall be provided near a store
entrance for arrest/investigative purposes, and a designated room shall be made available to law
enforcement for investigative and custody purposes (e.g. shop lifters and other criminal offenders
apprehended by store security/personnel). In addition, Target store private security or other store
personnel shall be required to frequently patrol the parking area,and monitor video surveillance
monitors.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase; operational phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Planning Division; City of Azusa Department of Public
Works; City of Azusa Police Department
Public Schools
PS6 The proposed project shall be. required to pay school impact fees.
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of building permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division
Recreation and Parks
PS7 The proposed project shall pay applicable park impact fees as part of the permitting process.
t.ha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Project Mitigation fiitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment A
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of building permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Building Division
Traffic & Parking
Intersection Analysis/Public Transit
TPl One eastbound left turn lane on Foothill Boulevard shall be added to modify the eastbound
approach on Foothill Boulevard to Azusa Avenue from the existing configuration of one left turn
lane and two through lanes to two left turn lanes and two through lanes.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: City of Azusa
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department
TP2 One westbound left turn lane on I" Street at Azusa Avenue shall be added. The westbound
approach on 1" Street shall be restriped from one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane.
Additionally, the eastbound approach on I" Street shall be restriped from one left turn lane, one
through lane, and one right turn lane to one left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: City of Azusa
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department
Parking
TP3 Because some of the parking demand would be met by other nearby parking lots at certain times,
signage shall be installed to identify such parking locations. Two types of signage shall be
installed. Firstly, appropriate informational signage shall be installed at the four nearby parking
lots indicating public parking that is also available for users of the Target Store. Secondly,
signage shall be installed in the Target parking lot, close to the main store entrance with a map
displaying the locations of the other nearby available public parking lots in the downtown area.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department; City of Azusa Planning
Division
TP4 For the peak month of December, an off-site employee parking program shall be implemented.
Employee parking shall take in the range of 110 to 135 total parking spaces at peak times. By
adopting on off-site employee parking strategy during weekdays and weekends in December,
there would be no parking supply shortfall during weekdays or weekends even in this peak
month. Such an off-site strategy shall identify parking for employees at locations outside the
immediate area of the store and provide shuttle bus transportation from the remote location(s) to
the Target store.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
taha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Project Mitigation Onoring and Reporting Program
Attachment A
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department; City of Azusa Planning
Division
Utilities & Service Systems
Water Supply
Ul Precise water system requirements shall be determined during specific project design review.
Water design requirements shall be subject to the provisions of site plan review by the City of
Azusa.
Timing/Phasing:
Final design
Responsible Party:
Applicant
Monitoring Party:
City of Azusa Light & Water; City of Azusa Planning Division
U2 Water conservation measures shall be implemented, including, but not limited to, the installation
of low water use toilets and landscape water budgets, as recommended by the California
Department of Water Resources, shall be incorporated in all new or substantially rehabilitated
projects.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Light & Water; City of Azusa Planning Division
Sewer and Wastewaster
U3 Precise sewer system requirements shall be determined during specific project design review.
Sewer design requirements shall be subject to the provisions of site plan review by the City.
Timing/Phasing: Final design
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department Engineering Division; City of
Azusa Planning Division
U4 At the time building permit applications are submitted, the proposed project shall demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the City, on-site measures to reduce wastewater loads.
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of building permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Parry: City of Azusa Public Works Department Engineering Division
U5 The proposed project shall be reviewed by the City's Engineering Division and the County of Los
Angeles Sanitation District to determine the adequacy of the existing trunk sewer capacity.
Timing/Phasing: Prior to issuance of building permits
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department Engineering Division; County
of Los Angeles Sanitation District
Solid Waste Disposal
paha 2007-058
Target Store Redevelopment Project
Attachment A
Mitigation Aitoring and Reporting Program
U6 The demolition contractor for this project shall recycle all materials to the greatest extent
possible, especially all "inert" materials. If any inert materials, such as dirt, rock, concrete or
asphalt, require disposal, contractor shall deliver such materials to a reclamation pit such as Cal
Mat or Reliance Pit #2. That is, only inert pits or facilities that do not report "tons disposed"
through the "Disposal Reporting System" as defined by the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, shall be used for discarding inert materials. The demolition contractor
shall report all tons diverted from solid waste landfills by material type to the City of Azusa
following demolition, including all metal, inert materials, wood, plastics or other material types.
The demolition contractor shall also report tons disposed in solid waste landfills which could not
be safely recycled due to waste composition, material mixture, or economic infeasibility.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department; City of Azusa Building
Division
U7 All construction contractors involved in building activities associated with proposed project shall
separate and recycle all materials to the greatest extent possible. If any inert materials, such as
dirt, rock, concrete or asphalt, require disposal, contractor shall deliver such materials to a
reclamation pit such as Cal Mat or Reliance Pit #2. That is, only inert pits or facilities that do not
report "tons disposed" through the "Disposal Reporting System" as defined by the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, shall be used for discarding inert materials. All
construction contractors shall report all tons diverted ("recycled") from solid waste landfills by
material type to the City of Azusa following construction completion, including all metal, inert
materials, wood, plastics or other material types. Construction contractors shall also report tons
disposed in solid waste landfills which could not be safely recycled due to waste composition,
material mixture, or economic infeasibility.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa Public Works Department
U8 Retailers occupying premises of proposed project shall comply with all recycling requirements of
the State of California, including those of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 and Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986.
Timing/Phasing: Construction phase; operational phase
Responsible Party: Applicant
Monitoring Party: City of Azusa
U9 Retailers occupying premises of proposed project shall comply with all waste recycling programs
instituted by the City of Azusa to comply with State law or implement local ordinances.
Timing/Phasing:
Construction phase; operational phase
Responsible Party:
Applicant
Monitoring Party:
City of Azusa
(aha 2007-058 10