HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2015-C40RESOLUTION NO. 2015-C40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
2014121060) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL
GUIDELINES FOR THE DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL
MEDITATION CENTER LOCATED AT 865 EAST MONROVIA PLACE,
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the application for a Meditation Hall (the "Proposed Project") was proposed by
Dhammakaya International Meditation Center ("Applicant" or "DIMC") to the City of Azusa
("City") on April 10, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project, which would include the demolition of the existing
Montserrat Building, the Xavier Center meeting hall, rose garden and eight one-story Organizational
Housing (dormitory) buildings. No changes to the MacNeil Mansion are proposed. Implementation
of the Specific Plan will result in several improvements to the project site including the construction
of a 69,179 -square -foot Meditation Hall, nine two-story Organizational Housing buildings, a
storage/workshop building, a stormwater detention/water quality basin, a fire access road, additional
parking, a reflecting pool, and landscaping. The Proposed Project is located on property owned by
the Applicant at 865 East Monrovia Place, in the City of Azusa, within the County of Los Angeles;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§
21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), and the
City of Azusa Local CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014 the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared allotice
of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to local, county, and state agencies and to
property owners within 300 feet of the DIMC project site; and
WHEREAS, the NOP public comment period ran from December 18, 2014 through January
16, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA")
submitted the only written comment; this comment noted that a Transportation Impact Analysis
("TIA") is required and identified the geographic area that must be examined in the TIA. The
comment also explained that the TIA must consider transit impacts; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014, concurrently with the NOP, a public scoping meeting
notice was distributed to local, county, and state agencies and sent to property owners within 300 feet
of the DIMC project site; and
WHEREAS, a scoping meeting was held on January 14, 2015 during a regular Planning
Commission meeting to receive agency and public input regarding the content of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, at the January 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, oral comments were
received from the Planning Commission; the comments concerned aesthetics, hydrology and water
quality, and utilities and service systems; and
WHEREAS, the City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission held a public
meeting on May 19, 2015 to consider the compliance of the proposed Specific Plan and DEIR with
the Azusa Municipal Code Section 55 — Historic Preservation, and with the CEQA Section
15064.b.3; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission recommended additional
Conditions of Approval and the approval of the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment
for the Dhammakaya Project Specific Plan and Draft EIR ("DEIR"); and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2015, the City filed a Notice of Availability ("NOA") and a Notice
of Completion ("NOC") with the State Office of Planning and Research. The DEIR was completed
and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on May 1, 2015, and concluded on
June 15, 2015; and
WHEREAS, an NOA was distributed to all agencies and persons on the Planning
Department's standard notification list via Certified Mail; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others
during the 45 -day comment period; and
WHEREAS, public comments were received at the City of Azusa Cultural and Historic
Preservation Meeting held on May 19, 2015 and the City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting
held on June 10, 2015, and one written comment via email on June 25, 2015 from the President of
the Rosedale Promenade Community Association; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a meeting to take
comments on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015, a Special Planning Commission meeting was held at the
Dhammakaya International Meditation Center, located at 865 East Monrovia Place; and
Page 2 of 21
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 29, 2015, in the Civic
Center Auditorium located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California. A notice of the time,
place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Azusa
Municipal Code. The environmental documents for the Proposed Project comprising the DEIR and
Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"), which consists of Responses to Comments,
Corrections and Additions to DEIR, (collectively, "the EIR"), the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MMRP"), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at
these hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Applicant's proposal to
(1) create a reflecting pool in front of the MacNeil Mansion designed with a similar shape as the
original pool and similar colored tile; (2) salvage and reuse the existing balustrade to frame the new
reflecting pool; and (3) create an outline of the existing pool on top of the new shop building and
provide a plaque with an explanation of the history of the original pool. In addition to the
Applicant's proposal, the Planning Commission recommends (1) an additional plaque or display be
located near the reflecting pool to also explain the history of the pool and display salvaged pieces of
pool tile, and (2) the Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee should be consulted about the
design of the display and/or signage; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No's. 2015-23
and 2015-24 by unanimous vote of 3-0, recommending certification of the EIR and approval of the
Proposed Project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing September 8, 2015, in the Civic Center
Auditorium located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California. A notice of the time, place
and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Azusa
Municipal Code. The environmental documents for the Proposed Project comprising the EIR, the
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings ("Findings"), staff report, and evidence, both written and
oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing, as the decision-
making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the
provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Corrections and Additions to the DEIR
Section of the FEIR (SCH No. 2014121060) and determined that none of the new material contained
in this section constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the
DEIR for further public comment pursuant to CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the Proposed Project will result in a significant
new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material
indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other
circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5; and
Page 3 of 21
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis
for its decision on the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures would be applied to
the Proposed Project through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the 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 Proposed Project have been adequately
evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate
for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed 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 RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091, no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless
the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant
impact:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
The City of Azusa has made one or more of these specific written findings regarding each significant
impact associated with the Proposed Project. Those findings are presented below, along with a
presentation of facts in support of the findings. Concurrent with the adoption of these findings, the
City of Azusa adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 4 of 21
The EIR evaluation included a detailed analysis of impacts in 11 environmental disciplines, analyz-
ing the Proposed Project and alternatives, including a No Project Alternative. The EIR discloses the
environmental impacts expected to result from the construction and operation of the Proposed
Project. Where possible, mitigation measures were identified to avoid or minimize significant
environmental effects. In addition, the applicant committed to implementing measures in order to
reduce the direct and indirect impacts that will result from Proposed Project activities. The
mitigation measures identified in the EIR are measures proposed by the lead agencies, responsible or
trustee agencies or other persons that were not included in the Proposed Project but could reasonably
be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the Proposed Project, as
required by CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).
Findings on Less than Significant Impacts.
Based on the issue area assessment in the EIR, the City of Azusa has determined that the Proposed
Project will have no impact or less than significant impacts for several issues as summarized in the table
below. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in each of the issue areas
in the table is based on the discussion of these impacts in the detailed issue area analyses in Sections
4.1 (Aesthetics), 4.2 (Air Quality), 4.3 (Cultural Resources), 4.4 (Geology and Soils), 4.5
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions), 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), 4.7 (Hydrology and Water
Quality), 4.8 (Land Use and Planning), 4.9 (Noise), 4.10 (Transportation and Traffic), 4.11 (Utilities
and Service Systems) of the EIR and the cumulative impacts discussed in Section 6.0 (Analysis of
Long Term Effects) of the EIR that were found to have no impact or less than significant impacts.
'xa✓, �s+.�'`3 �1.'''"ge:RYFn.
3k.r
Aesthetics
4.1.A
The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adverse[V affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts will be less than significant.
Air Quality
4.2.A
The proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast
4.2.0
Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan and will not result in cumulative impacts.
Im acts would be less than si nificant.
4 2 B
Construction of the proposed project will not result in emissions that exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District daily thresholds with mitigation incorporated.
4.2.D
The project will not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution
concentrations. Impacts will be less than significant.
4.2.E
The project will not result in odors that could impact a substantial number of people.
Impacts will be less than significant.
Cultural Resources
4.3.A
The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts will be less than significant,
The proposed project will not cause an adverse change in the significance of an
4.3.B
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts will be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
4.3.0
The proposed project will not destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique
geological feature. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Page 5 of 21
Geology and Soils
Impacts to life and property resulting from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map will be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.4.A
Impacts to life and property resulting from seismically induced strong ground shaking
will be less than significant with implementation of the City's existing standards.
Impacts to life and property resulting from seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction and landslides will be less than significant.
Impacts related to a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable
4.4.B
as a result of the project will be less than significant with implementation of the City's
existinq standards and regulations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project will not exceed the threshold for generating greenhouse gas
4.5.A
emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts will be less
than significant.
4.5.B
The project will not conflict with the state greenhouse gas reduction plans. Impacts will be
less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.6.A
Impacts related to the release of asbestos and lead-based paint into the environment as
a result of the proposed project will be less than significant.
H drolo and Water Qualit
The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge
4.7.A -C
requirements, or alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. Impacts will be less than
significant with adherence to existing requirements.
4.7.D
The proposed project will not create or contribute to runoff that will exceed the capacity of
existina or ninnnprl storm water drains e s stems. Im acts will be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
4.8.A
of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adapted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Noise
4.9.A
The proposed project will not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of
4.9.0
applicable standards or permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity,
Impacts will be less than significant.
4.9. B
The proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration. Impacts will be less than significant.
4.9.D
The proposed project will not result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in
ambient noise levels. Impacts will be less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic
Short- and long-term impacts on the performance of the local and regional transportation
4.10.A I
system due to increased traffic generated from the proposed project after consideration of
cumulative traffic increases will be less than si nificant.
Page 6 of 21
4.10.13
The proposed project will not conflict with the Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Program; therefore impacts will be less than significant.
4.10.0
The proposed project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or
4.10.D
incompatible uses and will not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts will be less
than si nificant.
Utilities and Service Systems
4.11.A
The proposed project will not require the construction of new water, wastewater treatment,
4.11.D
or sanitary sewer facilities. The wastewater treatment provider will have adequate capacity
to serve theproject's projected demand. Impacts will be less than significant.
4.11. B
Storm drainage facilities are available and adequate to serve the proposed project. No new
or ex anded entitlements will be needed. Impacts will be less than significant.
4.11.0
Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project. No new or expanded
entitlements will be needed. Impacts will less than significant.
4.11.E
Area landfills have significant capacity to serve the proposed project's solid waste disposal
needs. Impacts will be less than significant.
Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Reduced to a Less than
Significant Level
The City of Azusa finds that the following environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below
a level of significance based upon the implementation of the mitigation measures in the EIR. These
findings are based on the discussion of impacts in the detailed issue area analyses in Sections 4.2
(Air Quality), 4.3 (Cultural Resources), 4.4 (Geology and Soils) and 4.8 (Land Use and Planning) of
the EIR and the cumulative impacts discussed in Section 6.0 (Analysis of Long Term Effects) of the
EIR. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is presented below.
Air Quality
Impact 4.2.B: Construction of the Proposed Project will not result in emissions that exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District daily thresholds with mitigation incorporated.
The Proposed Project would have a significant impact under thresholds B and D ifproject-related
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds. Short-term criteria
pollutant emissions will occur during on-site site clearing, grading, building construction, paving,
and architectural coating activities. Emissions will occur from use of construction equipment,
worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils in the form of fugitive dust. To
determine if construction of the Proposed Project could result in a significant air quality impact, the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) has been utilized. The construction program was
developed based on input from the project representative in conjunction with CaIEEMod
construction survey defaults. Surface ground disturbance, based on the project site plan, was input at
1.59 acres for the proposed Meditation Center, 0.84 acres for the Organizational Housing Buildings,
3.51 acres for parking lot surfaces, 2.88 acres for landscaping, and 0.07 acres for the paved and
landscaped area with the fountain located directly south of the MacNeil Mansion. All proposed
improvements will take place concurrently. Construction phase lengths were estimated using
CaIEEMod construction survey data. Building demolition was estimated to take approximately 20
Page 7 of 21
days, paving demolition was estimated to take approximately 20 days, grading was estimated to take
approximately 20 days, building construction was estimated to take 230 days, paving is estimated to
take approximately 20 days, and architectural coating was estimated to take approximately 20 days.
Construction phases will not overlap. According to the project civil engineer, no import and export
of soil will be required for the proposed improvements. CalEEMod defaults for worker and vendor
trips during project construction were utilized. Interior and exterior surfaces to be painted or
otherwise coated in the proposed Meditation Hall and Organizational Housing buildings were
calculated using the methodology provided in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Based
on the results of the model, maximum daily emissions from construction will result in excessive
emissions of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) (identified as reactive organic gases or ROGs)
associated with interior and exterior coating activities and NOX from equipment usage. Using the
default assumptions of 50 9/1 VOC content for residential interior and 100 g/I for residential
(dormitory) exterior coatings and 250 g/1 for nonresidential interior and exterior coatings, daily VOC
emissions will reach 249.20 lbs/day. To compensate for excessive ROG emissions from coating
activities, the model includes use of zero grams per liter (g/1) VOC content for interior and exterior
coatings. Use of low-VOC coatings during construction activities will reduce VOC emissions to a
maximum of 5.01 lb/day (occurring in winter of 2016), less than the 75 lbs/day threshold established
by SCAQMD (Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)). Another option for mitigating excessive
VOC emission from painting activities is to minimize the amount of coating application that can
occur during the day. The requirement to reduce VOC emissions from coating applications has been
included as Mitigation Measure 4.2.13-1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.13-1,
emissions of VOC will not exceed the SCAQMD daily construction threshold.
Finding. The City of Azusa finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Proposed
Project that mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact 4.2.13. Specifically, the
following mitigation measure is feasible and is adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact
4.2.13 to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.B-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, construction drawings
shall indicate the types of architectural coatings proposed to be used in interior and exterior
applications on the proposed buildings and verification that daily application will conform to the
performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or
exterior coatings will not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. The performance standard may be met through use of low volatile
organic compound coatings, scheduling, or other means that may be identified on the construction
drawings. Construction drawing shall specify use of High -Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns
for application of coatings. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of and
with oversight by the Building Division.
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.13-1 will significantly reduce the
Proposed Project's impacts on air quality, including cumulative impacts, to a less than significant
level by using low-VOC coatings during construction activities or minimize the amount of coating
application that can occur during the day. Such mitigation is hereby adopted for this project.
Page 8 of 21
Therefore, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.
Reference. EIR Section 4.2 (Air Quality)
• Cultural Resources
Impact 4.3.B: The Proposed Project will not cause an adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts will be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
The project site's location at the contact between the foothills and the lower valley and the presence
of a permanent water source would normally suggest a moderate potential for archaeological
resources. However, the project area has been subject to ground disturbance associated with the
numerous construction projects at the Monrovia Nursery and the McNeil Residence-Manresa Retreat
Property through the years. While no known archaeological resources will be impacted, the
northwest corner of the project site is considered an area of high sensitivity for archaeological
resources due to the potential to find a privy, trash pit, or remnants of other Cultural Resources 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9 outbuildings associated with the former MacNeil summer
home. The original MacNeil residence on Rancho los Cacomites was a converted barn used primarily
in the summer from the 1890s through the 1920s. The MacNeil summer home was located in the
northwest portion of the project site and was demolished sometime after 1996. According to the
records search conducted as part of the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, Comejo
(2005) describes the former location of the late -1800s MacNeil summer residence as an
archaeological study area. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.3.13-1 has been incorporated.
Mitigation 4.3.13-1 requires that an archaeological monitor be present during ground disturbing
activities taking place in the northwest portion of the property. The monitor will work under the
direct supervision of a qualified archaeologist and will observe ground disturbing activities in the top
seven feet in depth from the current surface. The qualified archaeologist is required to be on-site at
the pre -construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols. If, after excavation begins, the
qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments are not likely to produce historical
archaeological resources, monitoring efforts will be reduced. In the event of an archaeological
discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further
disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified archaeologist has cleared the area. In
consultation with the qualified archaeologist, the monitor shall quickly assess the nature and
significance of the find. If the discovery is not significant it shall be quickly mapped, documented,
removed and the area cleared. If the discovery is significant, the qualified archaeologist shall notify
the applicant and the City of Azusa immediately. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the
qualified archaeologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include salvage
excavation, laboratory analysis and processing, research, curation of the find in a local museum or
repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure
4.3.13-1 will ensure that impacts to archaeological resources are less than significant.
Page 9 of 21
Impact 4.3. C. The Proposed Project will not destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or
unique geological feature. Impacts will he less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, the northern portion of the
project site is underlain by the Miocene Topanga formation and the southern portion of the project
site is underlain by older Pleistocene alluvium. Ground disturbing activities such as grading,
geotechnical trenching, and utilities within the northern portion of the project site that extend below
two feet have the potential to impact the Miocene Topanga formation which has a high sensitivity for
paleontological resources. Similarly, ground disturbing activities within the southern portion of the
project site that extend below five feet have the potential to impact older Pleistocene alluvium which
also has a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.3.0-1 has been
incorporated. Mitigation Measure 4.3.0-1 requires that a paleontological monitor be present to
observe ground disturbing activities below five feet in depth from the current surface in the southern
portion of the property and below two feet in depth from the current surface in the northern portion
of the property. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist.
The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the pre -construction meeting to discuss monitoring
protocols. Paleontological monitoring shall start at half-time. If after two weeks of monitoring no
paleontological resources are discovered, monitoring shall be reduced to spot-checking on a weekly
basis. If significant paleontological resources are identified then monitoring shall be increased to
fulltime when working in paleontological bearing sediments, as determined by the paleontologist. In
the event of a paleontological discovery, the monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction
crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified
paleontologist has cleared the area. In consultation with the qualified paleontologist the monitor shall
quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant it shall be
quickly removed and the area cleared. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall
notify the applicant and the City of Azusa immediately. In consultation with the applicant and the
City, the qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include salvage
excavation and removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the
laboratory), research to identify and categorize the find, curation of the find in a local qualified
repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.3.0-1, impacts related to paleontological resources will be less than significant.
Finding. The City of Azusa finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Proposed
Project that mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impacts 4.3.13 and 4.3.C.
Specifically, the following mitigation measures are feasible and are adopted to mitigate significant
effects from Impacts 4.3.13 and 4.3.0 to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.13-1: In the northwest portion of the property an archaeological
monitor shall be present to observe ground disturbing activities in the top seven feet in depth from
the current surface. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified archaeologist
(Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards-M.AJM.S. in anthropology, or related
discipline with an emphasis in archaeology and demonstrated experience and competence in
archaeological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation).
Page io of 21
The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the pre -construction meeting to
discuss monitoring protocols.
2. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during excavation within the
top approximately seven feet from the current surface. If, after excavation begins, the
qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments are not likely to produce
historical archaeological resources, monitoring efforts shall be reduced.
3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if
archaeological resources are discovered.
4. In the event of an archaeological discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify
the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall
occur until the qualified archaeologist has cleared the area.
In consultation with the qualified archaeologist, the monitor shall quickly assess the
nature and significance of the find. If the discovery is not significant it shall be
quickly mapped, documented, removed and the area cleared.
6. If the discovery is significant, the qualified archaeologist shall notify the applicant
and the City immediately.
In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified archaeologist shall
develop aplan of mitigation which will likely include salvage excavation, laboratory
analysis and processing, research, curation of the find in a local museum or
repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.0-1: A paleontological monitor shall be present to observe ground
disturbing activities below five feet in depth from the current surface in the southern portion of the
property and below two feet in depth from the current surface in the northern portion of the property.
The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in
geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated experience and
competence in paleontological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation).
The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the pre -construction meeting to
discuss monitoring protocols.
Paleontological monitoring shall start at half-time. If after two weeks of monitoring
no paleontological resources are discovered, monitoring shall be reduced to spot-
checking on a weekly basis. If significant paleontological resources are identified
then monitoring shall be increased to fulltime when working in paleontological
bearing sediments, as determined by the paleontologist.
Page n of 21
3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if
paleontological resources are discovered.
4. In the event of a paleontological discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify
the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall
occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared the area.
5. In consultation with the qualified paleontologist the monitor shall quickly assess the
nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant it shall be
quickly removed and the area cleared.
6. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall notify the applicant
and the City immediately.
7. In consultation with the applicant and the City the qualified paleontologist shall
develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include salvage excavation and
removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the
laboratory), research to identify and categorize the find, curation of the find in a local
qualified repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.13-1 and 4.3.0-1 will
significantly reduce the Proposed Project's impacts on an archaeological resource, including
cumulative impacts, to a less than significant level by ensuring that a paleontological monitor shall
be present to observe ground disturbing activities under the direct supervision of a qualified
archaeologist. Such mitigations are hereby adopted for this project. Therefore, impacts will be less
than significant with mitigations.
Reference. FIR Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources)
• Geology and Soils
Impact 4.4.A. -ii: Impacts to life and property resulting from seismically induced strong ground
shaking will be less than significant with implementation of the City's existing standards.
The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all properties in Southern
California. The project site is located along the northern edge of the San Gabriel Valley, which is an
alluvial filled valley bounded by the Sierra Madre Fault Zone and San Gabriel Mountains on the
north, the Puente Hills on the south, the Covina and Indian Hills on the east, and by the Raymond
Basin on the west. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Review prepared by Petra
Geotechnical, Inc., the type and magnitude of seismic hazards that may affect the project site are
dependent on both the distance to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event.
Although the probability of primary surface rupture is low, ground shaking hazards posed by
earthquakes occurring along regional active faults do exist and should be taken into account in the
design and construction of the proposed facilities within the project site. The proposed additions to
Page 12 of 21
the project site are subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The
City of Azusa adopted the 2013 CBC and included it in its Municipal Code (Section 14-51) on
January 1, 2014 (Ordinance No. 13-03, § 3). The 2013 California Building Code contains seismic
safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that
occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two
percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an average return period of 2,475 years. Adherence to
these requirements will reduce the potential of building collapse during an earthquake, thereby
minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes,
adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure
because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum
requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. In addition, the Proposed Project is
subject to the seismic design criteria recommendations within the Preliminary Geotechnical Report
prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. Adherence to the recommendations within the geotechnical
report and existing regulations will reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong
ground shaking will be less than significant.
Finding. The City of Azusa finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Proposed
Project that mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact 4.4.A. -ii. Specifically, the
following mitigation measure is -feasible and is adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact
4.4.A. -ii to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.A-1: During site grading activities, the consulting geologist must
observe excavations to document the absence or presence of active faults; and to make
recommendations regarding mitigation of active faults if found
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.A-1 will significantly reduce the
risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong ground shaking, including cumulative impacts,
to a less than significant level. Such mitigation is hereby adopted for this project. Therefore, impacts
will be less than significant with mitigation.
Reference. EIR Section 4.4 (Geology and Soils)
• Land Use Planning
Impact 4.8.A: The Proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts will be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
The Proposed Project site is currently designated as Institutional/School in Azusa's General Plan and
is zoned Institutional/School (INS). The INS zone is intended for schools (public and private),
governmental offices, and community meeting and religious uses. This designation is intended for
buildings with a floor to area ratio (FAR) of 0.35-1.2. The Proposed Project includes the
implementation of a Specific Plan that will include the construction of a 69,179 -square -foot
Page 13 of 21
meditation hall, nine two-story Organizational Housing buildings, a storage/workshop building, a
stormwater detention/water quality basin, a fire access road, additional parking, a reflecting pool, and
landscaping. The Proposed Project will include the demolition of the existing Montserrat Building,
the Xavier Center meeting hall, and eight one-story Organizational Housing buildings. No changes
to the MacNeil Mansion are proposed.
The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the zoning code to change the project site from an
Institutional/School (INS) designation to Specific Plan 8 — Dhammakaya International Meditation
Center (DIMC) designation. However, the project site's General Plan designation will remain
Institutional/School (INS) and the proposed improvements to the project site will not change the
current use of the project site. The INS designation allows for religious, meeting, school, and
government land uses. The project site will remain consistent with the INS General Plan designation.
The proposed Specific Plan provides a comprehensive planning tool that includes goals, policies, and
design regulations to guide development of the project site. With the exception of Policy 3.1,
applicable General Plan policies included within the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) were analyzed and determined to be consistent with the applicable policy. General Plan
policies referenced within the General Plan EIR are policies that were adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Chapter 3: The Built Environment / Mobility Element,
Policy 3.1 Develop and maintain a citywide pedestrian network of both on -street and off-street
walkways as shown on the Non -Motorized Circulation Plan. Network shall link new neighborhoods
with existing neighborhoods, connect neighborhood centers, schools, parks, commercial centers, and
citywide destinations such as Downtown, the San Gabriel River, Civic Center, etc. The Proposed
Project will include the construction of a public sidewalk along Monrovia Place. The sidewalk will
stretch from the existing driveway to the eastern site boundary.
To ensure that the public sidewalk along Monrovia Avenue is connected to the project site,
Mitigation Measure 4.8.A -I is incorporated. Mitigation Measure 4.8.A-1 requires the applicant to
provide a pedestrian linkage between the public sidewalk and the proposed Meditation Hall on
construction drawings prior to the issuance of building permits. Impacts will be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated
Finding. The City of Azusa finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Proposed
Project that mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact 4.8.A. Specifically, the
following mitigation measure is feasible and is adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact
4.8.A to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.A-1: The applicant shall provide a pedestrian linkage between the
public sidewalk and the proposed new meditation building on construction drawings prior to the
issuance of building permits. Where such pedestrian linkage crosses the parking lot or drive aisles,
the pedestrian linkage shall be identified by enhanced paving or other City approved method.
Page 14 of 21
Rationale for Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8.A-1 will ensure that the Proposed
Project is consistent with Policy 3.1 of the General Plan. Such mitigation is hereby adopted for this
project. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.
Reference. EIR Section 4.8 (Land Use and Planning)
Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided or Reduced to a
Less than Significant Level
Based on the issue area assessment in the EIR, the City of Azusa has determined that the Proposed
Project will not have significant impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced even with the
incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Screened Out from Detailed Consideration in the EIR
The City of Azusa finds that all of the alternatives eliminated from further consideration in the Draft
EIR are infeasible, would not meet most project objectives and/or would not reduce or avoid any of
the significant effects of the Proposed Project, for the reasons detailed in Section 5 (Alternatives) of
the EIR.
Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR
• Alternative 1 —No Project
According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the evaluation of alternatives in an EIR
shall include a no project scenario, defined as " ... what is reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services." Alternative 1 would consist of the project site
remaining in its existing condition. Because this alternative would not have met any of the project
objectives, it is rejected.
• Alternative 2 — Alternative Locations
Vacant properties were examined throughout the jurisdiction to identify potential alternative
locations for the Proposed Project (see Exhibit 5-1, Alternatives Map). Individual parcels and
assemblages of parcels were examined. This alternative assumes that the scale and operational
characteristics of the Proposed Project would remain the same; therefore, an alternative location
must support approximately 12 acres of relatively contiguous development. Alternative locations are
considered to reduce or avoid potential immediate impacts around the project site. Based on the
review of vacant parcels and parcel assemblages within the City (see Exhibit 5.0-1, Alternatives
Map), there are no sites approximately 12 acres in area that could accommodate a project of this size;
therefore, this alternative is rejected due to lack of actual alternative locations.
Page 15 of 21
• Alternative 3 — Alternative Site Plans
This alternative considers a different configuration for the project site. Because of the size of the
proposed buildings, the existing buildings and vegetation, and the project site topography, little room
exists to make substantial changes to the proposed development plan. However, there is some ability
to move the Meditation Hall and/or Organizational Housing to other areas of the project site.
Although this alterative would meet all project objectives, it fails to substantially reduce or avoid any
significant impacts. Because Alternative 3's density and intensity would remain the same,
construction air quality impacts would remain the same. Therefore, Alternative 3 is rejected.
• Alternative 4 — Reduced Project Size
This alternative would reduce the size of the Proposed Project to achieve reductions in construction -
related air quality impacts. Since the ROG emissions exceeded the established threshold by
approximately two-thirds, decreasing the components of the Proposed Project that require
architectural coating by two-thirds would reduce construction -related air quality impacts to less than
significant levels. Alternative 4 would reduce the size of the proposed Meditation Hall and
Organizational Housing by 67 percent resulting in a 22,830 square -foot Meditation Hall and 15 -room
Organizational Housing building. This reduction was chosen to reduce ROG emissions from
architectural coatings to less than significant levels. An evaluation of Alternative 4 with regard to
acceptance or rejection is conducted below, under "Findings/Rationale."
• Alternative 5 — School/Other Institutional
According to Chapter 3 of the Azusa General Plan (The Built Environment), the project site's current
land use designation is Institutional/School. The typical principal use for the Institutional/School
land use designation is religious, community meeting, schools (public and private), and
governmental offices. The type of uses within the Institutional/School land use designation must be
of a scale and intensity that respects surrounding uses and are allowed to have a Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) ranging from 0.35 to 1.2. Alternative 5 assumes development of a 500 -pupil elementary
school on twelve acres. Alternative 5 is rejected because it would not meet most of the project
objectives.
• Alternative 6 — Residential
The project site is surrounded by the Rosedale Neighborhood, a 517.5 -acre master planned
community (Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan). The project site is bounded by residential uses to the
north and south. This alternative assumes a residential density of four units per acre, consistent with
the surrounding Rosedale Neighborhood. Thus, this alternative assumes 48 units on a 12 acre site.
Alternative 6 is rejected because it would not meet most of the project objectives.
• Alternative 7 — Commercial Park
This alternative assumes the development of a commercial shopping center to support the
surrounding residential uses. Assuming a FAR of 0.75, the 12 -acre project site could support
approximately 392,040 square feet of commercial general retail development. Alternative 7 is
rejected because it would not meet most of the project objectives.
Page 16 of 21
• Alternative 8 — Open Space/Park
As mentioned herein, the project site is surrounded by the Rosedale neighborhood, a 517.5 -acre
master planned community (Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan). Alternative 8 considers development
of the project site as park/open space to support the surrounding residential uses. This alternative
assumes the development of a 12 -acre park. Alternative 8 is rejected because it would not meet most
of the project objectives.
Finding/Rationale: The EIR determined that Alternative 1 is considered to be the environmentally
superior alternative because it would result in the fewest environmental impacts when compared to
the Proposed Project. However, pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
when the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, another environmentally
superior alternative must be selected among the remaining alternatives. Based on this provision,
Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in fewer
environmental impacts when compared to the Proposed Project. However, the City of Azusa finds
that this alternative is infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other reasons
and rejects this alternative. Specifically, Alternative 4 would only partially fulfill the Proposed
Project's Objective No. 2, as listed in Project Description 3.0, which calls for adequately
accommodating the existing ceremonies and housing all teaching and meditation programs inside a
structure to avoid conflicts with inclement weather. Alternative 4 reduces the proposed Meditation
Hall to 22,830 square feet thus accommodating only one-third of the existing activities inside the
structure. In addition, only 15 of the existing 70 organizational housing rooms would be
reconstructed under Alternative 4, therefore only partially fulfilling Objective No. 3, which proposes
to reconstruct the existing organizational housing to meet current seismic standards, with updated
plumbing, electrical and heating systems. While most of the project objectives are fulfilled by
Alternative 4, Objectives No. 2 and No. 3 are considered critical, basic objectives of the Proposed
Project, and failure to achieve them is deemed to be sufficient grounds to reject the alternative.
Therefore, the City of Azusa rejects Alternative 4.
SECTION 3: FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND
REVISIONS TO THE FINAL EIR
The FEIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The focus
of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the
comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines § 15088(b). The City of Azusa finds that responses to
comments made on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Final EIR merely clarify and amplify the
analysis presented in the document and do not trigger the need to re -circulate per CEQA Guidelines
§15088.5(b).
SECTION 4: CERTIFICATION OF EIR
The City Council hereby finds that it has reviewed and considered the EIR while evaluating
the Project. The City Council further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent
Page 17 of 21
judgment of the City Council. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR for the Proposed
Project.
SECTION 5: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the project
findings are based are located at the City of Azusa Community Development Department, 213 East
Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702. The custodian for these documents is the Director of
Community Development. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code
§21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(e).
SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION DECISION
There were no significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR; therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is not required.
SECTION 7: ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A as a
condition of approval of the Proposed Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the
mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 8: FILING OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Staff shall cause to be filed a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk within five (5) working days of approval of the Proposed Project.
SECTION 9: The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof,
harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and
proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and
alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against
the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, this or
any other action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers,
employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved
by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Proposed Project, whether such Actions are brought
under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning
Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Community Redevelopment Law, Surface Mining and Reclamation
Page 18 of 21
Act, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state, or local
constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will
not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that applicant shall
reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course
of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. The applicant or successor in interest shall be
the real party in interest and shall assume primary responsibility for the defense of any legal action or
proceeding commenced against the City to challenge this approval or the City's approval of Land Use
Entitlements and/or the City's approval related to this approval or such land use approval. The
applicant or successor in interest shall reimburse the City for all reasonable attorneys' fees and other
reasonable costs incurred by the City in defending such action or proceeding.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8`h day of September, 2015.
z4e� 1 -e
Joseph Romero Rocha
Mayor
ATTEST:
Page 19 of 21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF AZUSA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-C40 was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8°i day of September,
2015, by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, CARRILLO, MACIAS, ROCHA
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALVAREZ
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Best est & Krieger, LP
City ttomey
Page 20 of 21
Exhibit "A"
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 21 of 21
5 Mitigation Monitoring ReportingProgr rr
DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENfERSPECIFIC PLAN
Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
Mitigation Measures
9
Monimnng Timing)
Action Indicating
Monitoring Agency -
- Vbnfibalion or Com kancd;
-
Iddia� Date RemSrks
Frequency
Compliance-
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Prior to issuance of building permits, construction drawings shall indicate Bre
types of architectural matings proposed to be used in interior and exterior
applications on the proposed buildings and verification that daily applicaflon
will conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic
compounds from application of interior or exterior matings will not exceed the
Ensure construction
4.2.B-1
daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality
Poor to issuance of
drawings and
Management District. The performance standard may be met through use of
bolding permits
procedures reflect
Building Division
low -volatile organic compound matings, scheduling, or other means that may
mitigation measure
be identified on the construction drawings. Construction drawing shall specify
use of High -Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of
coalmgs. This mitigation measure shall be incorporaled to the satisfaction of
and with oversight bthe Building Division.
Environmentallmpact Repon 36
------- A atron Monitoring RTfyng Program 5
DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Environmental Impact Report: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring fro" l
Action Indicating
'
Monitoring Agency
VerificatioB.of Com fiance,
Initials Date 'Remaiks
Frequency
9 Y
om lance
Complier
lg
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
In the norhwest portion of the property an archaeological monitor shall be
present to observe ground disturbing activities in the top seven feet in depth
from the current surface. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision
of a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of Interior Protessionat Qualification
Standards-M.AAS. in anthropology, o related disciplme with an emphasis in
archaeology and demonstrated experience and competence in archaeological
research, fieldwork, reporting, and cumgon).
t. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site at the pre-conslmcfion
meeting to discuss monitoring protocols.
2. The archaeological monitor shall be present full time during
excavation within the top approximately seven feel from the
anent surface. If, after excavation begins, the qualified
archaeologist determines that the sediments are not likely to
produce hisMncal archaeological resources, monitoring efforts
shall be reduced.
4.3.8-1
3. The monitor shall be empowered to lemporardy hall or redirect
grading efforts if archaeological resources are discovered.
Pre-canshuclion,
Documentation from
qualified archaeologist
Planning Department
4. In the event of an archaeological discovery the monitor shall flag
the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No Ntlher
d¢hidnnce in the gagged area shall occur until the qualified
archaeologist has deared the area.
5. In consultation with the qualified archaeologist, the monitor shall
quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. if the
discovery is not significant A shall be quickly mapped,
documented, removed and the area cleared.
6. If the discovery is significant, the qualified archaeologist shag
notify the applicant and the Gty immediately.
7. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified
archaeologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely
induce salvage excavation, laboratory analysis and processing.
research, cunation of the find in a fecal museum or repository, and
preparation of a report summarizing the find.
tnwronmenrai impacr meport 37
5 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION GENTER.SPECIFIG PLAN
Environmental Impact Report. Mitigation Monitoring Repdeling Program
Mitigation Measures
Mbndoring Timing!
Actibn.In I Mirig' .
-
� �
Mobndrihg Agency
Verificati6h of Com fianco
- --
Initials Date — Remarks
Frequency
Compliance
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures ,
A paleontological monitor shall be present to observe ground disturbing
activities below five feet in depth from the current surface in the southern
portion of the property and below two feet in depth from the current surface in
the northern portion of the property. The monitor shall worn under the direct
supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.SJBA. in geology, or related
discipline wilh an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated experience and
competence in paleontological research, Fieldwork, reporting, and curation).
1. The qualified paleontologist shall be onsite at the pre -
construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols.
2. Paleontological monfloring shall start at half-fime. Il after two
weeks of monitoring no paleontological resources are discovered,
monitoring shall be reduced to spot-checking an a weekly basis. If
significant paleontological resources are identified then
monitoring shall be increased to fulltime when working in
paleontological bearing sediments, as delemiined by the
paleontologist.
3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect
Documentation from
4.3.0-1
grading efforts if paleontological resources are discovered.
Pre-constmotion
qualified
Planning Department
4. In the event of a paleontological discovery the monitor shall flag
paleontologist
the area and notify the consmuchon crew immediately. No further
dislorbance in the flagged area shaft occur until the qualified
paleontologist has cleared the area.
5. In consultation with the qualified paleontologist the monitor shall
quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the
specimen is not significant it shall be quickly removed and the
area cleared.
6. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall
notify the applicant and me City immediately,
7. In consultation with M applicant and the City the qualified
paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which ion fikely
include salvage excavation and removal of the find, removal of
sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research
to identify and calegonze the find, curafiat of the find in a local
qualified repository, arid preparation of a report summanang the
find.
38 1 City ofAzusa
0
— _ _ Mitigation Monitorinq Reportin Program 5
DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Environmental Impact Report: Mitigation Monitoring Repotting Program
Mitigation Measures
-_.
Monitoring Ti I ingf
Fre uenc
9 Y
I Action lndaiii
iclg
Plia
Com nde
Monitoring Agency
Verilicadon o -compliance'.
.
Initials Date Re_inarks
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures
4.4.A-1
During site grading activities, the consulting geologist must observe
excavations to document the absence orpresence of active fauns; and to
make recommendations regarding mitigation of active faults ti found.
During site grading
activities
Documentation from
consulting gedogist
Planning Depadment
Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall provide a pedestrian linkage between the public sidewalk
Ensure constrUdion
and the proposed new meditation building on construction drawings prior to
to issuance of
drawings reflect
4.8Aa
the issuance of buildingPrior
permits. Where such n linkage crosses the
building permits
mitigation measure
Planning Depadment
ge fruit
Arkin lot w drive aisles, the pedestrian linkage sha116r identified b
parking Fe 9 Y
prior to building
enhanced paving or other City approved method.
permits
Environmental impact Report 39