Loading...
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