HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2015-C56RESOLUTION NO. 2015-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015021018)
FOR THE AZUSA TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Azusa ("City") will be home to two newly operational Gold Line light
rail stations as part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro") Metro
Gold Line Phase II expansion; and
WHEREAS, in February 2013 the City of Azusa was awarded a transit -oriented development
("TOD") planning grant from Metro to study and promote TOD around the Azusa Downtown and
APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations; and
WHEREAS, using the TOD planning grant, the City developed the Azusa Transit -Oriented
Development Specific Plan, (the "Project" or "Specific Plan") (State Clearinghouse # 2015021018),
which proposes land use regulations for an area approximately 308 acres in size in the central portion of
the City, including those areas that are within an approximately one-quarter mile radius of the two
stations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead
agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines the City determined that a
program -level Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR for the proposed
Project on or about February 4, 2015, and circulated the NOP for a 30 -day period until March 5, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, in the NOP, the City solicited comments from various public agencies, other
entities, and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 1, 2015, the City initiated a 48 -day public review and comment
period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and
comment; 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 48 -day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on July 14, 2015 at the Azusa Civic
Auditorium located at 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, in the City of Azusa; and
WHEREAS, the City received two comment letters from state agencies, one comment letter
from a local or regional agency, and five comment letters from individuals regarding the Draft EIR
during the 48 -day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the
48 -day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and
revisions to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer to the Draft EIR, as
revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are of no impact
or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3
hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which
the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of feasible
Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which
the City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of feasible
Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 6 hereof, and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the
proposed Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are identified in the EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project
identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 9 hereof, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh its
potential significant environmental impact, and the basis for that determination is set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Section 10 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation
measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section 11
below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
2
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 EIR, and all
oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the 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, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constituted
substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; 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 proposed Project have been adequately evaluated;
and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as
findings of fact.
SECTION 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
At a session assembled on October 19, 2015, the City Council determined that, based on all of
the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory
agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant
and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of
insignificance through the identified Mitigation Measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully
mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the
identified Mitigation Measures.
SECTION 3: FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT
REOUIRING MITIGATION.
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of
other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse
environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to
address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact' or a "less than significant' impact.
Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than
significant impact to the following resource areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vista
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.1-11.)
Explanation: The City's General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the City. The
Specific Plan includes development standards for building height, massing, and setbacks, and design
guidelines that encourage variation. Future development would not result in the obstruction of any
public scenic vistas. Although the San Gabriel Mountains are visible throughout the specific plan area,
the low scale of the future developments would not result in continuous obstructed views of the
mountains, thus views of the San Gabriel Mountains would remain the dominant landscape feature after
buildout of the Specific Plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-11.)
2. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.1-26.)
Explanation: Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a change in visual character,
however it would not result in a degradation of visual character. During construction, short term visual
impacts would occur, including the presence of equipment and material storage, as well as grading and
earthmoving activities. However, construction contractors would be responsible for screening project
sites from view with temporary fencing or other means, to reduce visual intrusion on the neighborhood.
Together with the temporary nature of these impacts, construction impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-13.)
During operation of the Project, visual character would be controlled by the Specific Plan's
standards, guidelines, and uses designed to reinforce the Specific Plan districts' specific development
patterns, character, and image. As a result, buildout of the Specific Plan would include a cohesive palate
of street trees, landscaping, and street furniture to ensure a unifying theme is established. In addition,
new development would be subject to the "good neighbor standards" outlined in the Specific Plan.
These standards include setback, landscaping, lighting, and screening requirements for future projects
that are adjacent to low and medium density uses. As such, buildout of the Project would improve the
overall visual quality of the specific plan area and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.1-
14 through -26.)
0
3. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.1-27.)
Explanation: Buildout of the Project would allow for future development of residential and non-
residential uses. Although development would introduce new light and glare sources, the specific plan
area is located in a developed portion of the City, characterized by high levels of ambient nighttime
illumination. However, new sources of light and glare could disturb visually sensitive viewers, such as
nearby residents and/or recreationists, surrounding development, or motorists. (EIR, p. 4.1-26.)
Where appropriate, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City's Municipal Code
lighting standards, which requires all onsite lighting devices to be designed so as to limit glare/spillover
onto adjacent properties. Additionally, all future development would undergo site plan review to ensure
compliance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district. As such, potential impacts
associated with light and glare would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-27.)
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Farmland
Threshold: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: The City of Azusa is approximately 60 percent developed. Current zoning in the
specific plan area includes Moderate Density Residential (MOD), Medium Density Residential (MED),
Low Density Residential (LDR), and Neighborhood Center (NC) uses. According to the Department of
Conservation 2012 Los Angeles County Important Farmland map, no parcels within the specific plan
area are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural uses or forest land. No
forest land occurs in the plan area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: The City of Azusa is approximately 60 percent developed. Current zoning in the
specific plan area includes Moderate Density Residential (MOD), Medium Density Residential (MED),
Low Density Residential (LDR), and Neighborhood Center (NC) uses. According to the Department of
Conservation 2012 Los Angeles County Important Farmland map, no parcels within the specific plan
area are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural uses or forest land. No
forest land occurs in the plan area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: 'The City of Azusa is approximately 60 percent developed. Current zoning in the
specific plan area includes Moderate Density Residential (MOD), Medium Density Residential (MED),
Low Density Residential (LDR), and Neighborhood Center (NC) uses. According to the Department of
Conservation 2012 Los Angeles County Important Farmland map, no parcels within the specific plan
area are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural uses or forest land. No
forest land occurs in the plan area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: The City of Azusa is approximately 60 percent developed. Current zoning in the
specific plan area includes Moderate Density Residential (MOD), Medium Density Residential (MED),
Low Density Residential (LDR), and Neighborhood Center (NC) uses. According to the Department of
Conservation 2012 Los Angeles County Important Farmland map, no parcels within the specific plan
area are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural uses or forest land. No
forest land occurs in the plan area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
5. Conversion
Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: The City of Azusa is approximately 60 percent developed. Current zoning in the
specific plan area includes Moderate Density Residential (MOD), Medium Density Residential (MED),
0
Low Density Residential (LDR), and Neighborhood Center (NC) uses. According to the Department of
Conservation 2012 Los Angeles County Important Farmland map, no parcels within the specific plan
area are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural uses or forest land. No
forest land occurs in the plan area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Applicable Air Quality Plans
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air quality plans of the SCAQMD?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.2-17.)
Explanation: SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth and reduce the
levels of pollutants within the SCAQMD's jurisdiction. Consistency with the AQMP is established by
demonstrating that the project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth
forecast. The 2012 AQMP based its assumptions on growth forecasts contained in the SCAG 2012-
2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2012 RTP/SCS). The 2012
RTP/SCS is based on growth assumptions through 2035 developed by each of the cities and counties in
the SCAG region. (EIR, p. 4.2-16.)
The additional population within the project area would be 2,915 people by 2035 buildout, which
is within SCAG projections for the area. Therefore, the increase in population would be within the
projected growth for the City and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the Azusa General Plan.
Thus, the project would be considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plans, and would
not jeopardize attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Project would
therefore have a less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.2-17.)
2. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
Explanation: Operational activities associated with buildout of the Project would not result in
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Potential sources that may emit odors
during construction activities include equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. Odors from these
sources would be localized and generally confined to the project site. All odors would be temporary,
and all construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, no
significant impacts relating to odors would occur. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
7
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: The City is urbanized and 60 percent developed. The specific plan area is not
located near any vacant land with natural vegetation supportive of sensitive species. Species located in
the specific plan area would be limited to terrestrial species (such as squirrels) and birds that are
commonly found in urban environments. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
2. Riparian and Sensitive Habitat
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists within the specific
plan area or in the surrounding area. Further, there are no wetlands within the plan area or in the
surrounding area. Implementation of the project would not have substantial adverse effects on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service
including federal protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: There are no wetlands within the plan area or in the surrounding area.
Implementation of the project would not have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service including federal protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
0
4. Movement of Wildlife
Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: No wildlife corridors, native wildlife nursery sites, or bodies of water in which fish
are present are located in the specific plan area or in the adjacent areas. A number of mature trees are
scattered throughout the specific plan area and may provide suitable habitat, including nesting habitat,
for migratory birds. The City requires that project applicants/developers comply with the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) by either avoiding grading activities during the nesting season (February 15
to August 15) or conducting a site survey for nesting birds prior to commencing grading activities.
Projects implemented under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of the
MBTA. Adherence to the MBTA regulations would ensure that if construction occurs during the
breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to any nesting birds if found.
Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
5. Local Policies or Ordinances
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: Future development, revitalization, and/or redevelopment activities, including the
removal, planting, and maintenance of all trees permitted under the Specific Plan would be required to
be reviewed by the City for consistency with the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Article VI).
Additionally, the Specific Plan outlines standards and guidelines to ensure the proper management of
trees. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
6. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
Explanation: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community
Conservation Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plans applicable to the specific plan area.
Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-2.)
DI
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-3.)
Explanation: There are no known human remains on or near the specific plan area.
Additionally, the specific plan area is in a highly urbanized area of the City. Because the specific plan
area has already been previously disturbed and developed, it has been subject to construction and
ground -disturbing activities. The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during further site
clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. However, ground -disturbing activities have
the potential to disturb previously undiscovered subsurface human remains.
In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities,
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall remain
halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any
death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have
been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the
manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner is required to make a
determination within two working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the
coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes
or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. In addition, project
applicants/developers shall include provisions for discovery of human remains in their Project EIR.
Therefore, no significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study for this issue. (EIR, p. 7.0-3.)
F. ENERGY
1. Wasteful Use
Threshold: Would the project use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.4-13.)
Explanation: A project's energy usage would be considered "wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary" if the project were to violate state and federal energy standards, including Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations. Construction of the Project would not result in wasteful use of fuel or
energy, because construction contractors would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable
California Air Resources Board regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or
replacement of heavy duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Idling restrictions and the use of newer
engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. Rising fuel prices
also provide contractors and owners a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. In addition, the Specific Plan includes
sustainability design guidelines to encourage the use of sustainable materials and techniques during
construction, reducing energy consumption during construction of future development. Therefore,
10
building of the Specific Plan would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy
resources in its construction phase and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.4-8 and -9.)
Operation of the Project would increase the project area's electricity demands by 65.8 percent
over existing conditions, and a 65.3 percent increase in natural gas consumption. However, these
demands are within the service capabilities of the City's Light and Water Department. Further, the use
of energy provided by altemative/renewable resources to meet operational demands is growing —
estimated at 24.2 percent of all electricity delivered by the Department in 2015. In addition, future
development would be required to meet Title 24 requirements and incorporate energy saving design
elements identified by the Specific Plan. Finally, transit -oriented development strategies, standards, and
guidelines included in the Specific Plan support a multi -modal transportation system that will reduce
automobile dependability, and encourage alternative transportation use. This, along with the focus on
infill development within the urban core, will lead to more energy efficient development. Therefore, the
Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts
would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.4-11 through -13.)
2. Increase in Energy Demand
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial increase in demand on energy resources
during peak and base period demands and in relation to projected energy supplies?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.4-13.)
Explanation: Operation of the Project would increase the project area's electricity and natural
gas demands over existing conditions. However, these demands are within the service capabilities of the
City's Light and Water Department. Further, the use of energy provided by alternative/renewable
resources to meet operational demands is growing — estimated at 24.2 percent of all electricity delivered
by the Department in 2015. In addition, future development would be required to meet Title 24
requirements and incorporate energy saving design elements identified by the Specific Plan. Finally,
transit -oriented development strategies, standards, and guidelines included in the Specific Plan support a
multi -modal transportation system that will reduce automobile dependability, and encourage alternative
transportation use. This, along with the focus on infill development within the urban core, will lead to
more energy efficient development. Therefore, the Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.4-11
through -13.)
3. Transportation Energy
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial increase in transportation energy use?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.4-14.)
Explanation: Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in population and employment growth
within the specific plan area, thus there could be an associated increase in the overall vehicle miles
traveled ("VMT"). This increase could result in additional fuel consumption and therefore an increase
in energy use associated with transportation within the plan area. However, the TOD strategies,
standards, and guidelines included in the Specific Plan support a multi -modal transportation system
including transit use and walkability. Further, the land use patterns included in the Specific Plan
11
promote a reduction in vehicle use, reducing the energy use associated with vehicle transportation. The
proposed 840 multi -family units, and retail and office uses, would be built near the Downtown Gold
Line station to further reduce VMT. This would allow residents and employees in the area to combine
errands into a single trip and without the use of a personal vehicle. As a result, adherence to and
implementation of the Specific Plan's policies, development standards, and design guidelines will
reduce impacts relating to transportation energy use to a level of less than significant (EIR, p. 4.4-13
and -14.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.5-14.)
Explanation: The southern portion of the City, where the specific plan area is located, is highly
susceptible to liquefaction and thus could be susceptible to seismic -related ground failure, such as lateral
spreading, subsidence, or settlement. The California Building Code contains provisions to safeguard
against major structural failures or loss of life caused by hazards, including liquefaction. Future projects
under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC, which are imposed on
project developments by the City during the building plan check and development review process. Thus
impacts related to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. (EIR,
4.5-14.)
2. Landslides
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: There are no known landslides in the specific plan area, and the specific plan area
is not in the path of any known or potential landslides. Furthermore, the Department of Conservation
Azusa Quadrangle Liquefaction and Landslides Map indicates that the specific plan area is not located
in areas susceptible to landslides. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
3. Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-3.)
Explanation: Development within the specific plan area would be subject to local and state
codes and requirements for erosion control and grading during construction. Development would result
in a mix of uses, including hardscape and landscape improvements, and would not contain exposed soil.
12
Thus, upon building, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be expected to be
extremely low. Impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-3.)
4. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.5-15.)
Explanation: Future projects under the Specific Plan could be located on land that is unstable
(including expansive soils), or that could become unstable during construction of a future project and/or
seismic shaking. However, unstable and expansive soils are generally removed during foundation work
to avoid structural damage. Unstable/expansive soils are addressed through the integration of
geotechnical information in the planning and design process for individual projects. Local soil
suitability is assessed for specific projects in accordance with standard industry practices and state -
provided guidance, such a CGS Special Publication 117A, used to minimize the risk associated with
unstable soils. Compliance with UBC and CBC requirements, as well as local building codes and
ordinances, and review of individual project grading reports and plans by the City's Building Division
would ensure that no significant impacts related to expansive soils would occur. Thus, impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.5-14 and -15.)
5. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.5-15.)
Explanation: Future projects under the Specific Plan could be located on land that is unstable
(including expansive soils), or that could become unstable during construction of a future project and/or
seismic shaking. However, unstable and expansive soils are generally removed during foundation work
to avoid structural damage. Unstable/expansive soils are addressed through the integration of
geotechnical information in the planning and design process for individual projects. Local soil
suitability is assessed for specific projects in accordance with standard industry practices and state -
provided guidance, such a CGS Special Publication 117A, used to minimize the risk associated with
unstable soils. Compliance with UBC and CBC requirements, as well as local building codes and
ordinances, and review of individual project grading reports and plans by the City's Building Division
would ensure that no significant impacts related to expansive soils would occur. Thus, impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.5-14 and -15.)
13
6. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: The specific plan area is currently served by the City of Azusa's wastewater/sewer
system. Future development that would be accommodated under the Specific Plan would require
connection to existing sewers mainlines and service lines, which are currently available in the
surrounding roadways, and would not require the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no significant impacts
would occur. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Generation of GHGs
Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions ("GHGs"), either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.6-24.)
Explanation: Development under the Specific Plan would result in the generation of GHG
emissions, both directly and indirectly. Construction emissions were computed for an assumed 1 -year
average construction period for the projects proposed for construction between the years 2015 through
2035. Operational emissions were estimated for 2035, the first complete year of full project occupancy.
The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2 ("CalEEMod") was used to estimate GHG
emissions. (See, EIR Appendix 4.2.)
Construction emissions would occur only when construction activities are underway. However,
it is common practice to amortize construction -related GHG emissions over the project's lifetime in
order to include these emissions as part of a project's amortized lifetime total emissions. Construction
emissions for the Project were estimated at an average of 1,025 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
per year ("MTCO2e/y'), or a total of 20,500 MTCO2e/y over the course of 20 years. (EIR, p. 4.6-21,
Table 4.6-3.)
Total operational emissions for buildout of the Project are estimated to be 24,694 MTCO2e/y,
including amortized construction emissions. (EIR, p. 4.6-24, Table 4.6-4.) To determine significance,
total emissions were compared to the SCAQMD plan -level efficiency threshold of 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per year per service population. The service population of a project is defined as the total of
residents and employees associated with a project. For this Project, the service population was
estimated to be 4,151 persons, based on 2,915 new residents and 1,236 new jobs. (EIR, p. 4.6-23.)
Therefore, the total emissions for the Project total 5.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service
population. Because this is below the SCAQMD threshold of 6.6, the project is considered to have less
than significant impacts. (EIR, p. 4.6-24.)
14
2. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would operation of the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.6-26.)
Explanation: The project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions if the
project was in conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation concerning GHG reductions. AB
32 and Transit Ordinance Development Planning Grant Program ("TOD Program") are the relevant
plans with which to review compliance of this Project. (EIR, p. 4.6-24.)
Regarding AB 32, the SCAQMD adopted GHG significance thresholds specifically to meet AB
32 requirements within its jurisdiction, and so plans and projects that meet those thresholds can be
assumed to meet the requirements of AB 32. As the per capita GHG emissions from the project (5.6)
are well below the SCAQMD efficiency threshold (6.6), the Project is consistent with AB 32. (EIR, p.
4.6-25.) Regarding the TOD Program, the TOD Program provides grants for local agencies in Los
Angeles County to develop land use regulations that support TOD. One of the goals of the TOD
Program is to reduce GHG emissions by encouraging infill development near transit. The Specific Plan
would develop vacant parcels as well as encourage infill within the urban areas of the City. The
proposed infill development is next to the new Gold Line light rail stations and would be transit oriented
to reduce vehicle trips and subsequently GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the
TOD Program and the impact would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.6-25.)
L HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.7-28.)
Explanation: St. Frances of Rome School and Alpha Infant Care and Pre -School are located
within the specific plan area. There are currently six public elementary, middle, and high schools within
one-quarter mile of the specific plan area. Additionally, there are seven private schools or child care
centers within one-quarter mile of the specific plan area. (EIR, p. 4.7-27.)
Hazardous materials could be used during construction, however, large quantity hazardous waste
producers or users are not currently operating or anticipated to be constructed within the specific plan
area. Disclosures to the County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division ("HHMD") is
required for any business that uses, handles, or stores hazardous materials or waste materials equal to or
in excess of basic quantities. Additionally, federal, state, and local regulations and policies governing
the use of hazardous materials strictly regulate the proper handling of such materials and their containers
to ensure accidents involving the release of toxic materials into the environment do not occur. As a
result, impacts from release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. (EIR, pp.
4.7-27 and -28.)
15
Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or land use plan area or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Threshold: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport located approximately 10 miles
southwest of the specific plan area. The specific plan area is not located within airport land use plan or
within 2 miles of an airport. Implementation of the Project would therefore not result in airport -related
safety hazards. In addition, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the specific plan area.
Impacts are thus less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.7-24.)
Explanation: The specific plan area is located within an urbanized area, and therefore is not
subject to impacts related to wildland fires. (EIR, p. 4.7-24.)
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards and Degradation of Water Quality
Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirement?
Threshold: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.8-25.)
Explanation: During construction, spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can
result in oil and grease contamination, and staging areas and building sites can result in pollution from
paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals. Thus construction impacts can lead to exceedance of water
quality objectives or criteria. However, during construction activities, BMPs would be implemented in
compliance with the Construction General Permit and the general waste discharge requirements. Future
projects would implement BMPS meeting best available technology/best conventional pollution control
("BAT/BACT") in order to ensure that discharges would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of
water quality standards in the receiving waters. All discharges from qualifying storm events would be
sampled for turbidity and results would be compared to the US EPA's numeric thresholds for corrective
16
action to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. Through the implementation of BMPs and
source controls meeting BAT/BACT to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that
discharges during a future project's construction phase would not cause or contribute to any exceedance
of water quality standards in the receiving waters, the future project would comply with federal and state
legally required water quality standards and waste discharge requirements with respect to construction -
related runoff. (EIR, pp. 4.8-22 and -23.)
During operation, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in compliance with the
Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan would reduce impacts associated with decreased
filtration areas due to new development. Development within the specific plan area shall comply with all
water quality, hydromodification, and other requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board ("LARWQCB") for new development and redevelopment projects. Before discharging
any dewatered effluent to surface water, project applicants are required to obtain an NPDES MS4 permit
and Waste Discharge Requirement from the LARWQCB. In addition, a water quality management plan
may be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 permit. (EIR, pp. 4.8-24 and -25.)
Through implementation of the Specific Plan's sustainable design features, implementation of
BMPs and source controls, future projects would comply with federal and state legally required water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements with respect to operation -related runoff. On this
basis, operational -related runoff would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements and/or otherwise degrade water quality. Impacts are therefore less than significant. (EIR,
p. 4.8-25.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.8-26.)
Explanation: Buildout of the Specific Plan would increase the percentage of impervious surfaces
in the plan area, potentially affecting groundwater recharge rates. However, the Specific Plan
encourages the use of permeable paving and bioswales to minimize the effects of impermeable areas.
Further, this urbanized area does not represent a significant source of groundwater recharge. Thus, the
potential decrease of stormwater infiltration into groundwater would be minimal and impacts would be
less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.8-25 and -26.)
Groundwater is the City's Department of Light and Water's primary water source, and under the
Specific Plan, water consumption is project to increase by one percent over existing conditions. The
Department of Light and Water has determined that existing water sources can serve the uses associated
with buildout of the Specific Plan during a normal year, single -dry year, and multiple -dry year.
Therefore, the Specific Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.8-26.)
17
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate r
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Threshold: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.8-27.)
Explanation: Implementation of the Specific Plan is not anticipated to substantially change the
drainage patterns within the project area. Project development could increase the rate and/or amount of
stormwater runoff in comparison to existing conditions, which in turn could result in flooding issues on -
or off-site. However, the Specific Plan's design guidelines would help to mimic natural hydrologic
conditions which will help reduce sheet flow and the velocity of stormwater.
As the City is responsible for land use planning and development within the City limits, City
officials shall review and approve all local hydrology and hydraulic analyses. The City has not
identified any existing storm drainage deficiencies in the specific plan area. Thus, the projected increase
in stormwater runoff would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR, p. 4.8-27.)
4. Degrade Water Quality
Threshold: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: During construction, spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can
result in oil and grease contamination, and staging areas and building sites can result in pollution from
paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals. Thus construction impacts can lead to exceedance of water
quality objectives or criteria. However, during construction activities, BMPs would be implemented in
compliance with the Construction General Permit and the general waste discharge requirements. Future
projects would implement BMPS meeting best available technology/best conventional pollution control
("BAT/SACT") in order to ensure that discharges would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of
water quality standards in the receiving waters. All discharges from qualifying storm events would be
sampled for turbidity and results would be compared to the US EPA's numeric thresholds for corrective
action to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. Through the implementation of BMPs and
source controls meeting BAT/BACT to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that
discharges during a future project's construction phase would not cause or contribute to any exceedance
of water quality standards in the receiving waters, the future project would comply with federal and state
V
legally required water quality standards and waste discharge requirements with respect to construction -
related runoff. (EIR, pp. 4.8-22 and -23.)
During operation, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in compliance with the
Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan would reduce impacts associated with decreased
filtration areas due to new development. Development within the specific plan area shall comply with all
water quality, hydromodification, and other requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board ("LARWQCB") for new development and redevelopment projects. Before discharging
any dewatered effluent to surface water, project applicants are required to obtain an NPDES MS4 permit
and Waste Discharge Requirement from the LARWQCB. In addition, a water quality management plan
may be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 permit. (EIR, pp. 4.8-24 and -25.)
Through implementation of the Specific Plan's sustainable design features, implementation of
BMPs and source controls, future projects would comply with federal and state legally required water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements with respect to operation -related runoff. On this
basis, operational -related runoff would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements and/or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts are therefore less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.8-25.) '
5. Housing in Flood Zones
Threshold: Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Threshold: Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: The City's General Plan indicates that the specific plan area is not located within a
100 -year flood zone as mapped by FEMA. Therefore, future development associated with
implementation of the Specific Plan would not involve the development of new housing and/or any
structures within an identified 100 -year flood hazard. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
6. Inundation
Threshold: Would the project be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
Explanation: A seiche is a period oscillation of a body of water resulting from seismic shaking
or other causes that can cause flooding. The specific plan area is not located within a coastal area, and
no water bodies are on or adjacent to the specific plan area that would impact future projects as a result
of seiche or tsunami. In addition, given the developed nature of the specific plan area, there are no
19
features in the vicinity that are capable of inundating the site by mudflow. Therefore, impacts are less
than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
K. LAND USE
1. Divide a Community
Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.9-24.)
Explanation: The specific plan area is already approximately 90 percent developed, exclusive of
parks and open space. Future development under the Specific Plan would primarily consist of infill and
redevelopment. The Project also includes objectives to strengthen, beautify, and improve the City's
corridors and gateways as well as reduce automobile uses. Further, the Specific Plan includes mixed use
and "good neighbor" standards which aim to minimize visual divisions between existing and new
development. Finally, all future projects in the specific plan area would be evaluated at a project -
specific level. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not physically divide an
established community and would result in a less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.9-24.)
2. Conflict with Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.9-25.)
Explanation: An analysis of each applicable Azusa General Plan goal and policy was undertaken
to determine the Project's consistency with the General Plan. (See EIR, Table 4.9-3.) This lengthy
analysis determined that the Project would be consistent with each relevant goal and policy of the
General Plan, and therefore impacts at the local level would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.9-25
through -36.)
In addition, a consistency analysis with the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies
of SCAG was undertaken. (See EIR, Tables 4.9-4 through 4.9-10.) This comprehensive analysis
determined that the Project was consistent with the goals of the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. (EIR, pp. 4.9-36 through -48.) Thus impacts at the regional
level were also found to be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.9-48.)
3. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
20
Explanation: No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved habitat conservation plan applies to the specific plan area. Implementation of the project
would not conflict with the provisions of an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-4.)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Known and Locally Important Resources
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site, delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
Explanation: As identified in the General Plan, mineral resource sites, including aggregate and
Portland Concrete Cement, are located within the City boundaries. However, the mineral resource zones
identified in the General Plan are not located in the Specific Plan area. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
M. NOISE
Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: Is the project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public se airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Threshold: Would the project result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels if the project is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
Explanation: There are no public airports or private airstrips within the vicinity of the specific
plan area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.11-20.)
21
Explanation: The project provides for infill development which would not require significant
regional public infrastructure upgrades for any utility, transportation facility, or public service. Due to
the fact that localized net new infrastructure needs are anticipated to be minimal, it is not anticipated that
the infrastructure improvements would result in measurable population growth in or around the specific
plan area. (EIR, p. 4.11-18.)
Implementation of the Project would directly affect population growth by introducing new
housing that would induce population growth within the specific plan area, as well as new employment
opportunities that would directly induce population growth in and around the specific plan area.
Conservatively, the project is anticipated to result in a total City population increase of approximately
3,342 persons. Based on population projects, the projected population growth in the City between 2014
and 2035 is approximately 4,662 persons. Thus, the growth associated with the Project would not
exceed this projection. Therefore, the population growth associated with the Project is not considered
substantial and the impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.11-18 and -19.)
2. Displace Housing
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.11-21.)
Explanation: Anticipated development within the specific plan area is conceptual at this time.
No specific development plans that include the removal of any housing units are under consideration as
part of the Project. Any residential properties acquired for development purposes would have to be
acquired in accordance with state and federal law. Maximum buildout of the Project could result in an
additional 840 dwelling units within the specific plan area — consequently a net increase in housing units
would result from the Project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.11-20 and -21.)
3. Displace People
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.11-21.)
Explanation: The Project is programmatic in nature and does not identify any existing residential
units for demolition and/or redevelopment. The Specific Plan is expected to facilitate an increase in
population, housing, and employment and is not expected to displace existing housing or residents. A
net increase in residential housing units over existing conditions is anticipated as a result of the Project.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.11-21.)
22
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Services
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services, including fire protection services?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.12.1-7.)
Explanation: The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides emergency and fire services
throughout the City. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Specific Plan have the
potential to increase fire hazards. However, all future projects would be subject to LACoFD codes and
inspection by LACoFD personnel. In addition, all future projects would be subject to LACoFD
requirements relative to water availability and accessibility to firefighting equipment, as well as comply
with City, County, and state fire protection regulations. Construction activities could also result in traffic
delays in the specific plan area, and increase emergency response times and the potential for vehicle
traffic accidents. Under the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, all future projects would be required to maintain
space for emergency vehicles on and adjacent to the project site. Therefore, adherence to LACoFD
codes and requirements during buildout of the project would reduce the potential for fire hazards during
construction of projects to a less than significant level. (EIR, p. 4.12-5.)
Over the 20 -year buildout of the project, emergency calls would be expected to incrementally
increase. As the residential population and commercial development increase in the specific plan area,
the LACoFD would continue to monitor fire protection resources to ensure adequate facilities, staffing,
and equipment are available. Pursuant to the LACoFD's Development Fee Program, individual projects
would be required to pay all necessary fees to the LACoFD to offset impacts on fire protection services.
Revenue generated from the Development Fee Program, as well as a percentage of property taxes would
go towards improvement and maintenance of existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and the
hiring of additional personnel as needed. Therefore impacts to new or physically altered facilities would
be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.12-1-7.)
Although impacts would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure is included to
further reduce potential impacts:
Mitigation Measure FIRE -I: Development projects shall incorporate fire protection
improvements, including access requirements and modernization of existing
equipment/systems, as required by the LACoFD prior to preparation of final project
design plans. The plans shall be submitted to the LACoFD prior to issuance of building
permit for review and approval.
2. Education
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
23
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services, including educational facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.12.3-8.)
Explanation: Project applicants/developers would be required to pay all education facility fees
as directed by AUSD, prior to issuance of each building permit, which as provided by state law, would
fully mitigate the impact of a future project. School fees for new residential construction are $2.05 per
square foot and $0.33 per square foot for commercial/industrial projects. AUSD is currently conducting
analysis to determine whether the fee for residential units can be raised to the state -allowed maximum of
$2.14 per square foot. These fees would provide funding to ensure that adequate school
capacity/construction would be available to serve the students generated by the proposed multi -family
units. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the appropriate school district is considered full mitigation
for project impacts. As individual projects are developed, each project applicant/developer would be
responsible for payment of fees in accordance with SB 50 requirements. Therefore, impacts related to
the provision of new or physically altered school facilities would be less than significant. With payment
of fees, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.12.3-7.)
3. Library Services
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services, including library facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.12.4-4.)
Explanation: Implementation of the project would include the construction of 840 multi -family
units. With the addition of the multi -family units, the number of residents in the plan area is projected to
grow by approximately 2,915 residents. While the Library does not currently maintain a service level
ratio of number of resources to residents and buildout of the project would be gradual, the population
growth in the specific plan area would lead to an increase in the use of the Library facility and resources.
With the addition of 2,915 residents and the current number of library resources (104,829), the number
of resources per resident would decrease to 2.04 resources per resident. In addition, the number of ratio
of librarians to residents would also decrease to one librarian per 3,420 residents:
However, site-specific projects are analyzed in the development approval process in the context
of a range of public services, including libraries. The majority of the Library's budget is derived from
the City's General Fund. Tax revenue generated from new businesses and residents associated with the
development of future projects within the specific plan area would increase City revenue and contribute
to the City's General Fund. Therefore, impacts to Library services and resources from implementation
of the Specific Plan would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.12.4-3 and -4.)
FM
P. RECREATION
Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
Explanation: Buildout of the project would include the construction of 840 multi -family
residential units. With the addition of these multi -family units, the residential population is expected to
grow by 2,915 residents. Currently, Veterans Freedom Park, a 10.2 -acre park, and Edwards Park, a 0.4 -
acre park, are the only parks located in the specific plan area. As the City is 9.6 square miles it is likely
that residents living in the specific plan area would use Veterans Freedom Park and Edwards Park, as
well as the City's other park venues and the recreation areas within the Angeles National Forest.
The Specific Plan includes design measures and policies for paseos, plazas, and public spaces to
be incorporated in the specific plan area. While these improvements would not increase the total
parkland acreage located in the specific plan area, these uses would provide additional areas that could
be used for passive recreation activities. Residential development constructed under the Specific Plan
would be required to pay the current City's park developer fee (currently the Quimby Act Fee) in
accordance with the City's Municipal Code Article I Section 14-7. The City has determined these fees
are adequate to offset the impact of residential units on existing parks. The fees collected would be used
for acquisition, development, and improvement of public parks and recreation facilities throughout the
City. In lieu of paying the fees associated with residential development, project applicants/developers
would have the option to dedicate land to be used for public parkland. As such, buildout of the Specific
Plan would not result in the overuse of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration would
occur or be accelerated. Therefore, impacts to existing park and recreation facilities would be less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.13-7 and -8.)
Q. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Performance of the Circulation System
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.14-28.)
Explanation: Construction: Buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over a 20 -year period.
During construction, most construction workers would arrive at project sites before the morning peak
hour and depart prior to the afternoon peak hour, minimizing trips during the AM and PM peak traffic
periods. This is because the City limits construction times to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00
PM. Truck trips associated with materials deliveries would occur throughout the specific plan area
25
during construction of future developments. Although the overall scale of development permitted in the
specific plan area would be small, construction of several projects could occur simultaneously.
However, even with multiple projects undergoing construction simultaneously any impact that would
occur would be temporary and short-term, and less than significant.
Although mitigation measures are not required, the following measure has been identified to
reduce impacts even further:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to construction of the future development projects, the
project applicant/developer shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for implementation
during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. The
following provisions shall be included:
One unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
• At any time only a single lane is available, the project applicant/developer shall
provide a temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i. e., flag persons), or other
appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions. !f construction
activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the project
applicant/developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating
detours/alternative routes and the haul truck route.
■ Temporary closures and alternative travel routes shall be disclosed to all
agencies which provide emergency services (e.g., Azusa Police Department and
Los Angeles County Fire Department) in the City.
When construction of future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway
closures, no more than one roadway closure shall be permitted within 0.5 mile of
each concurrent development project to ensure adequate access for emergency
vehicles.
Incorporation of Measure HAZ-3 will ensure that project applicants/developers will prepare a
Traffic Control Plan for implementation during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City
Traffic Engineer. Further, it ensures that the Azusa Police Department is aware of temporary roadway
closures due to construction activities and alternative travel routes. This will ensure adequate
performance of the circulation system during construction of future projects. (EIR, p. 4.14-24.)
eration: Buildout of the Specific plan would generate 16,314 daily trip during a typical
weekday. Based on the trip generation forecast included in the traffic analysis report, buildout of the
Specific plan would add up to 1,025 trips (522 inbound trips and 503 outbound trips) during the AM
peak hour and 1,022 trips (528 inbound trips and 494 outbound trips) during the PM peak hour. The
traffic analysis report calculates traffic volumes for two scenarios: existing traffic conditions with the
project (Existing with Project), and a "cumulative" scenario that includes the project and related projects
for the year 2035 (Future Cumulative with Project). (EIR, p. 4.14-25; see also EIR Table 4.14-6.)
Traffic impacts were compared against the County intersection impact threshold criteria. (EIR, p. 4.14-
27.) Based on this analysis, it was determined that significant impacts would not occur at signalized
intersections. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.14-28.)
26
While operational impacts were found to be less than significant, the following mitigation
measure was nonetheless identified to further reduce impacts:
Mitigation Measure TR -1: Installation of Traffic Signal at Dalton Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard. The City's Public Works Director shall regularly monitor of traffic conditions
and review of accident data for Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. In addition, the
Public Works Department shall work with the Community Development Department to
monitor each development proposal within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan area to
determine when the traffic signal installation at Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
would be warranted.
Incorporation of Measure TR -1 would ensure that impacts at Dalton Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard remain less than significant by allowing the City to identify when a traffic signal is warranted
at Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. (EIR, p. 4.14-28.)
2. Congestion Management Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program
(CMP), including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the CMP for designated roads or highways?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.14-30.)
Explanation: Under Los Angeles County's CMP Traffic Impact Analysis criteria, a project
impact is considered to be significant if the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility
(e.g., a freeway or intersection) by 2 percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F
(V/C > 1.00).
The County's CMP Traffic Impact Assessment guidelines require that intersection monitoring
locations must be examined if the project would add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM
weekday peak hours. The closest intersection monitoring location is Azusa Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard. Based on the project trip distribution and trip generation, 282 AM peak hour project trips
and 282 PM peak hour project trips are projected to travel through this CMP intersection. As the
projected number of AM and PM peak hour trips exceeds the CMP intersection threshold, a CMP traffic
impact analysis was completed for this intersection. The CMP traffic impact analysis determined that the
reconfiguration of the Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue Couplet (e.g., the change in circulation
patterns) would result in a decrease in V/C. Thus, buildout of the Specific Plan would not result in the
V/C ratio increasing by 0.02 or more. Thus, impacts to the CMP intersection location would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.14-29.)
The County's CMP Traffic Impact Assessment guidelines also require that freeway monitoring
locations be examined if development of a proposed project would add 150 or more trips (in either
direction) during either the AM or PM weekday peak periods. The closest freeway monitoring locations
are the I-210 Freeway at the I-605 interchange and the I-210 Freeway at the San Dimas Avenue exit.
Approximately 20 percent of the vehicles traveling to and from the specific plan area would travel on
the I-210. As buildout of the project would result in 1,025 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 1,022 PM
peak hour vehicle trips, 125 vehicles would travel west and eastbound during the AM peak period and
122 vehicles would travel west and eastbound during the PM peak period. Thus, operation of the project
27
would not add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours to
CMP freeway monitoring locations and a CMP freeway analysis is not necessary for the project. Project -
related impacts to the CMP freeway monitoring locations would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.14-
30.)
The nearest County designated CMP transit center is the proposed Azusa Downtown Gold Line
Station, located in the specific plan area, within the Gold Line District. Based on the projected number
of AM and PM vehicle trips (discussed above), and the AVT factor (1.4 persons), the total number of
AM and PM peak hour person trips is 1,435 and 1,431, respectively. Assuming nine percent of the total
person trips would use the Metro Gold Line via the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station, buildout of the
Specific Plan would result in an additional 129 AM peak hour and 129 PM peak hour weekday
boardings. As of March 2015, the Metro Gold Line average weekday boardings totaled 43,631 people.
The Foothill Gold Line Extension projected ridership is estimated to be 64,000 person trips by 2030.
Thus, the Azusa Downtown Gold Line station total daily boardings would comprise 0.004 percent of the
Foothill Gold Line Extension total projected ridership. Therefore, CMP transit impacts would be less
than significant. (EIR, p. 4.14-30.)
3. Air Traffic Patterns
Threshold: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
Explanation: The specific plan area is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use
plan area or within two miles of an airport. Thus, implementation of the Project would not cause
changes to air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels. Impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-5.)
4. Design Feature Hazards
Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.14-32.)
Explanation: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in the construction and/or
operation of hazardous design features or the interaction of incompatible uses. However, the Specific
Plan's goals and policies do encourage compact growth and mixed-use development, pedestrian
linkages, the implementation of bicycle facilities, and the reconfiguration of roadways, creating a multi-
modal transportation network. Thus, it is imperative that facilities designed for non -automobile modes
include enhanced safety features to minimize conflicts between transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and
motor vehicles and trains. The Specific Plan incorporates street improvement standards, which would
provide a defined and often separated space for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. Additionally
strategies are included that aim to calm traffic and make streets more pedestrian and bicycle friendly,
including widening sidewalks, narrowing vehicle lanes, installing paved crosswalks, installing flashing
lights along crosswalks, installing bulb -outs and installing bicycle lanes and sharrows.
W.
To promote economic vitality in the City's downtown area, buildout of the Specific Plan
includes the reconfiguration of the San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue northbound and southbound
couplet. The northbound and southbound roadways would both be reconfigured to allow two-way
traffic on both streets. Initially, the reconfiguration could create confusion for motorists. However,
prior to the restriping of the roadway, the Department of Public Works would implement the necessary
steps needed (e.g., temporary roadway signage, use of a traffic guard), to ensure motorists are aware of
the roadway reconfigurations. With appropriate signage and public information, impacts would be less
than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.14-31 and -32.)
5. Alternative Transportation Modes
Threshold: Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.14-34.)
Explanation: The Specific Plan's goals and policies encourage a complete and safe multi -modal
network and also would be consistent with the applicable goals of SCAG's RTP/SCS including:
maximizing mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, ensuring the safe travel for
all people and goods in the region, preserving and ensuring a sustainable regional transportation system,
protecting the environment and residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation,
encouraging land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non -motorized transportation, and
maximizing mobility and accessibility of all people and goods in the region. Thus, the Specific Plan
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities and impacts
would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.14-33 and -34.)
R. UTILITIES
1. Electricity and Natural Gas
Threshold: Would the project create energy utility (electricity and natural gas,) system capacity
problems, or result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.15-12.)
Explanation: The construction of future projects associated with buildout of the Specific Plan
would require electricity to serve construction trailers, power tools, tool sheds, work and storage areas,
and other facilities associated with development activities. Electricity would be expected to be supplied
by gasoline, propane, or diesel -powered generators with minimal reliance on the electrical grid. Overall,
electricity consumption that would be required during construction would be limited and temporary.
Construction impacts on available electricity supplies would be less than significant. Development
could require the construction of additional electrical distribution lines and/or substations. While
construction activities associated with the extension of the underground electrical lines would be
temporary, in some cases the expansion activities would require the provisional demolition of roadways,
as the City requires all electrical lines to be placed underground. Initial environmental effects could be
29
potentially significant, however impacts associated with future projects would be subject to CEQA and
would be reduced when applicable. Natural gas is not expected to be needed during construction of
future projects associated with buildout of the Specific Plan. Thus impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.15.1-9 and -10.)
The Specific Plan supports the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce
environmental impacts resulting from energy production and consumption. While future projects would
be more energy efficient compared to existing buildings, and the Specific Plan's emphasis on compact
land use would result in less energy consumption, expansion of existing facilities and construction of
new facilities to generate electricity may be required. Design and sizing of all electrical infrastructure
would meet all applicable engineering requirements to the satisfaction of the Department. Proposed uses
that would require the expansion of existing facilities would be the responsibility of individual project
applicants/developers. Further, project applicants/developers would be responsible for the payment of
applicable engineering and design fees, the acquisition of local permits and any required easements.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR, p. 4.15.1-
11.)
To meet the operational requirements of future projects associated with the Specific Plan,
installation and extension of additional natural gas lines may be required. Design and sizing of all
natural gas infrastructure would support the future projects and meet all relevant engineering
requirements. While the additional demand for natural gas could require new supply and construction of
conveyance and distribution infrastructure, existing natural gas facilities in the area would be used to
provide natural gas service to future developments. The availability of natural gas service is based upon
conditions of natural gas supply and regulatory agencies. The potential short-term impacts from
construction of conveyance and distribution facilities for natural gas would be similar to construction of
the electricity generation and transmission facilities described above. Thus impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.15.1-12 and -13.)
2. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 4.15.2-9 through -12.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the future development would generate
construction related solid waste including wood, paper, metal, plastic, cardboard, and green wastes. In
addition, demolition of existing structures in the specific plan area could result in the creation of
hazardous waste such as asbestos and lead based paints. Future projects included under the Azusa TOD
Specific Plan would be required to recycle/divert 50 percent of the construction waste, pursuant to the
requirements of AB 939. The remainder would be disposed of in Class III landfill or a mixed debris
recycling facility which recycles 50 percent of all waste received. Hazardous materials would be
disposed of at one of the hazardous material facilities discussed above. Further, individual projects
would be required to evaluate construction related solid waste impacts before construction of the project
commences to ensure existing Class III landfills and/or mixed debris recycling facilities can
30
accommodate the projected amount of construction waste. Therefore, construction related solid waste
impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.2-9.)
Existing solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate the projected 1,227 annual tons of
solid waste generated upon buildout of the Specific Plan. While solid waste landfills would eventually
reach their maximum capacity, the City of Azusa is working to reduce the amount of solid waste
disposed of in landfills, as well as locate new solid waste facilities and/or ways to dispose of solid waste.
Hazardous waste generation and disposal during buildout of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan would be
handled and disposed of in accordance with all appropriate state and federal laws. Because of the many
laws and regulations associated with the disposal of hazardous waste, it would have to be determined at
the time of disposal where any certain hazardous waste would be taken. At this time, hazardous wastes
cannot be disposed of within Los Angeles County. However, hazardous debris generated during
operation can be accommodated by the permitted Class I and II landfills currently in operation within
southern and central California. Therefore, impacts from operational solid waste disposal would be less
than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.2-11; see also EIR Table 4.15.2-3.)
During construction and operation, future projects would be required to comply with all federal,
State, and local solid waste regulations, including the 2013 Green Building Standards Code, and AB 939
waste diversion requirements. The 2013 Green Building Standards Code aims to improve the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public by incorporating design and construction measures which result
in waste reduction by promoting material conservation and the efficient use of resources. The most
recent data published by CalRecycle shows that the City met the diversion rate required by AB 939 and
diverted at least 50 percent of its waste in 2011. Thus impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. (EIR, pp. 4.15.2-11 and -12.)
3. Wastewater
Threshold: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Threshold: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.15.3-10.)
Explanation: Buildout of the Specific Plan would not disrupt sewer services in the specific plan
area or exceed the capability of LACSD to meet the LARWQCB discharge requirements. Construction
contractors would provide portable on-site sanitation facilities for use during demolition and
construction of future projects as they are developed under the Specific Plan. The on-site sanitation
facilities would be serviced at approved disposal facilities and/or treatment plants. The amount of
construction -related wastewater that would be generated would not have a significant impact on
wastewater disposal and treatment facilities due to the temporary nature of construction activity and the
available capacity of the treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.3-9.)
31
Buildout of the project would generate 232,150 gallons of wastewater per day or 0.22 mgd.
Future projects under the Specific Plan would increase the total daily effluent to 74.02 mgd. In addition,
wastewater flow could be treated at an existing facility which is currently operating at 136.9 mgd under
capacity. Therefore, sewage generated by the project would not require the construction of a new
wastewater treatment facility and/or the expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.3-10.)
4. Water Supply
Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15-19.)
Explanation: To estimate the project's water demand increase, water demand factors based on
land use were determined. Data from the 2010 Azusa Light and Water Department Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) was used to solve for these factors, including developed acres, number of
meter accounts, total water consumption, and non -revenue water loss. (See EIR, Table 4.15.4-2.) Based
on these factors the increased water demand of the specific plan area is estimated to be 410,380.5
gallons per day (gpd) or approximately 460 afy. (EIR, Table 4.15.4-3)
This projection reflects a conservative estimate and does not take into account the SWRCB's
recent statewide water consumption restrictions. In April 2015, the SWRCB issued statewide mandatory
water cuts. In regards to the SWRCB regulations, residents in the City of Azusa are required to reduce
their water consumption by 20 percent. If these restrictions remain in place, future development
associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to these regulations and future
water related legislation. (EIR, p. 4.15.4-15.)
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) completed for the project (see EIR Appendix 4.15.4)
compared the Department's projected water consumption for existing development to available water
supplies outlined in the UWMP during multiple dry years. (See also, EIR Table 4.15.4-4.) The
available supplies during multiple dry years as outlined in the 2010 UWMP, and the difference between
the multiple dry years supply and demand, which could be used to serve future development projects,
including the proposed uses under the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. In addition, the Specific Plan
encourages sustainable and water saving practices such as, the use of permeable paving, urban
bioswales, water efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscaping. Employing these sustainable
practices would reduce the amount of water used for landscaping purposes in the specific plan area.
Thus, the Department would be able to meet the water demands of the proposed uses associated with
buildout of the Specific Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.4-18.)
SECTION 4: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A
LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and this
Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental
impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures
that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
32
A. AESTHETICS
Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.1-13.)
Explanation: The specific plan area is not within a state scenic highway and does not contain
any unique rock outcroppings. However, the Project encourages the reuse of underutilized and vacant
parcels within the specific plan area, and it is possible that parcels targeted for development could
contain existing trees. Therefore, building of the Project could result in the removal of trees. However,
under the City's tree preservation ordinance, the City Department of Public Works must approve tree
removal, and may require tree replacement at the City's required minimum 3:1 replacement ratio. Thus
aesthetic impacts related to tree removal would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-12.)
Further, 23 City designated historic properties, a portion of three City designated historic
districts, and one property included on the National Register of Historic Places list are located within the
specific plan area. Construction activities undertaken as a result of the Project could potentially
adversely impact these properties. (EIR, pp. 4.1-11 through 4.1-13.)
However with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, these impacts would be
reduced to a level of less than significant:
Mitigation Measure CR -3: The City shall require that project applicants/developers
coordinate with a qualified architectural historian to ensure Standards -compliance
projects, including the design of rehabilitation project, compatibility of new construction
with historic structures, and period site visits to monitor construction adjacent to historic
structures to ensure that such activities comply with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standard. Historic professionals shall meet the National Park Service standards.
Due to the programmatic nature of the EIR, a complete assessment of direct impacts of potential
future development is not possible. When specific developments are proposed in the future, they would
be evaluated for potential historic resource impacts. Measure CR -3 requires periodic site visits to
monitor construction adjacent to historic structures and will ensure that such activities comply with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standard. Thus, implementation of Measure CR -3 would reduce aesthetic
impacts to historic structures to a level of less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-12.)
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
33
Explanation: City designated historic properties and portions of three City designated historic
districts are located within the specific plan area. In addition, the Azusa Civic Center, which is included
on the National Register of Historic Places, is also located within the specific plan area. Impacts to
historic structures could occur during construction activities associated with the buildout of the Project.
While the potential to impact historic resources varies by location and project type, in general, ground
disturbing and demolition activities can result in damage, physical demolition, destruction relocation, or
the alteration of historic resources, landmarks, and/or districts. If historic resources cannot be
completely avoided by an individual future project's design, impacts could be significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-
18; see also Final EIR p. 2.0-15.)
However, the Specific Plan has incorporated guiding principles, design guidelines and
development standards to ensure the protection of existing and potential historic resources. (EIR, p. 4.3-
19, Table 4.3-2.) In addition, the past and historical significance of each district would be considered
when approving future individual projects. Further, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance would
fixture minimize impacts to historic structures within the specific plan area. (EIR, p. 4.3-20.)
Regardless, it is reasonable to conclude at this programmatic level of analysis that impacts to historic
resources could occur with buildout of the Specific Plan. Therefore, without mitigation, the project
could result in a significant impact related to historical resources. The following measures have
therefore been identified:
Mitigation Measure CR -1: Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that may affect
structures SO years of age or older, a qualified architectural historian shall conduct an
assessment to determine the significance of the structure(s) and/or site(s). Project
applicants/developers shall ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, direct or
indirect impacts to any known properties that are deemed eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a
local designation be avoided and/or preserved consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Should avoidance and/or
preservation not be a feasible option, a qualified architectural historian shall develop a
mitigation program that may include, but not be limited to, formal documentation of the
structure using historical narrative and photographic documentation, facade
preservation, and/or monumentation. Properties are not equally significant, and some
retain more significance than others. Therefore, prior to development decisions, a
qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate the circumstance regarding
the property and planned development and to make management decisions regarding
documentation of the property.
Mitigation Measure CR -2: To ensure that historic buildings are appropriately
renovated and maintained, the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction,
or adaptive reuse of known historic resources shall meet the US Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (`Secretary's Standards'). Any proposal to
preserve, rehabilitate, restore, reconstruct, or adaptively reuse a known historic resource
in accordance with the Interior Secretary's Standards shall be deemed to not be a
significant impact under CEQA and, in such cases, no additional mitigation measures
shall be required.
Mitigation Measure CR -3: (See language above, incorporated herein by reference)
34
Implementation of Measure CR -1 would require future development proposals coordinate with
the City to avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to historic resources. Measure CR -2 and CR -3
would ensure the rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, or adaptive reuse of known historic
resources meet the Secretary's Standards. Therefore, with the incorporation of these measures, impacts
are reduced to a level of less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
2. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource as defined in section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.3-24.)
Explanation: Projects anticipated by the Specific Plan could involve grading and excavation to
greater depths than previously undertaken. In addition, infill development could occur on vacant
parcels, some of which may not have been previously exposed to ground disturbing activities, and
therefore could result in the disturbance of unknown archaeological resources. (EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Therefore, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
Mitigation Measure CR4: The Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified
of all grading and ground -disturbing activities associated with buildout of the Specific
Plan, prior to the construction of any project An experienced and certified Native
American representative shall be permitted to monitor all proposed projects' ground
disturbing activities.
Mitigation Measure CR -5: If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources is found
during construction activities associated with buildout of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan,
excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction
contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Community Development Department. With
direction from the Director of Community Development, an archaeologist certified by the
County of Los Angeles shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming
grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect
the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation.
The test -level report shall evaluate the site including discussion ofsignifecance (depth,
nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations (which
shall be adopted and implemented by the project applicant/developer), and cost
estimates.
Mitigation Measure CR -6: If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found
during construction activities associated with buildout of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan,
excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction
contractor shall contact the City of Azusa Community Development Department. With
direction from the Director of Community Development, a paleontologist certified by the
County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall
prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the
salvage and curation of identified resources. The Paleontological Resources Mitigation
Program shall be adopted and implemented by the project applicant/developer.
35
These measures will ensure that, in the event unknown, unrecorded, or unidentified prehistoric
archaeological resources are unearthed during excavation and grading activities for a future project
permitted under the Specific Plan, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Together,
these measures require notification of the NAHC, cessation of ground disturbing activities should
resources be encountered, evaluation of any discovery by a qualified archaeologist, and the protection or
salvage of resources. (EIR, pp. 4.3-23 and -24.)
3. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.3-25.)
Explanation: Paleontological resources could be disturbed during buildout of the Project.
Excavation and soil removal of any kind, irrespective of depth, has the potential to impact resources of
paleontological significance. While the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources is low, if
resources were unearthed during excavation and grading activities, impacts could be significant.
However, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
Mitigation Measure CR -4: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
Mitigation Measure CR -5: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
Mitigation Measure CR -6: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
These measures will ensure that, in the event unknown, unrecorded, or unidentified
paleontological resources are unearthed during excavation and grading activities for a future project
permitted under the Specific Plan, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (EIR, pp.
4.3-25.)
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture and Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; or (ii) strong seismic ground
shaking?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.5-15.)
Explanation: Both the Sierra Madre Fault and the Duarte Fault run through the City, and the
Duarte Fault runs through the southern portion of the specific plan area. The State has designated the
portion of the specific plan that is underlain by the Duarte Fault as a Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone; thus,
fault induced ground rupture is a potentially significant hazard. (EIR, p. 4.5-13.)
36
Future development in the specific plan area, designed with current engineering knowledge can
reduce potential damage and harm to and within new structures. Future projects within the specific plan
area would be required to comply with the Azusa Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Article II, which has
adopted by reference the UBC, as well as recommended mitigation and stabilization measures set forth
in the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). Further, the following mitigation measure has been
identified:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a proposed
development located within the specif c plan area and within the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, the City Engineer and/or City Building Oficial shall ensure that
the Grading and Building Plans demonstrate compliance with Public Resources ode
2621, and specifically the required 50 foot building setback from the Duarte Fault trace
as specified under Public Resources Code 2621.7(3A), and all other applicable
requirements included in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
Together, compliance with the UBC, CBC, and Measure GEO-1 will ensure that proposed
development will comply with the appropriate requirements for buildings within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, and reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-15.)
D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Transport, Use, Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.6-26.)
Explanation: Future development could result in the construction of residential uses and other
sensitive receptors adjacent to existing and uses such as dry cleaners or gas stations that require the
routine transport use, and disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials, including hazardous
chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous materials. However, the operation of land uses that use, create,
or dispose of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by federal, state, and local regulations and
policies. Specifically, future development in the specific plan area would be subject to compliance with
programs administered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials
Division. The owners or operators of businesses that handle or store hazardous materials equal to or
above the reportable quantities would be subject to compliance with its programs, as well as other
federal state, and local regulations and policies. In addition, the following mitigation measure has been
identified:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Should any dry cleaning facility be located adjacent to a
sensitive use all hazardous operations must be done off-site to limit the amount and
disposal of hazardous materials. (EIR, p. 4.7-25.)
Together, mandated compliance with federal, state, and local policies and regulations pertaining
to the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials, and Measure HAZ-1 which will prohibit on -
premise dry cleaning near sensitive receptors, will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.
(EIR, p. 4.7-24.)
37
2. Upset and Accidents
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.7-27.)
Explanation: Development under the Project has the potential to result in development in areas
where there are leaking underground storage tank cleanup sites or other types of cleanup activities.
Construction could increase the potential for contaminated soil and groundwater to affect construction
workers or the public. Therefore, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-l: To ensure all prior use of a future development site is
disclosed, including the likelihood that residual hazardous materials and/or wastes are
present, the City shall determine whether specific project sites are listed on government
lists of hazardous materials and/or waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. The City shall require preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) for any listed sites or sites with the potential for residual hazardous
materials and/or waste as a result of location and/or prior uses. The City shall require
that recommendations of the Phase I ESA be fully implemented. If a Phase I ESA
indicates the presence or likely presence of contamination, the implementing agency
should require a Phase II ESA, and recommendations of the Phase II ESA should be fully
implemented. If cleanup is required, a Phase III remediation shall be prepared in concert
with the appropriate Lead Agency.
The above measure would address any potential impact at a project -specific level, and will
require project -specific Phase I environmental assessments where any project site is listed on the Cortese
List. As such, with implementation of the above measure, impacts are reduced to a level of less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.7-26 and -27.)
3. Cortese List
Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.7-28.)
Explanation: There are nine sites within the specific plan area that could have hazardous
contaminants. These sites could be redeveloped with sensitive uses, such as residential use.
Construction workers could be at risk during earth moving activities at these sites. However, the
following mitigation would reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant:
M
Mitigation Measure HAZ-l: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
The above measure would address any potential impact at a project -specific level, and will
require project -specific Phase I environmental assessments where any project site is listed on the Cortese
List. As such, with implementation of the above measure, impacts are reduced to a level of less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.7-28.)
4. Emergency Response and Evacuation
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.7-30.)
Explanation: The City's Evacuation Map anticipates that several streets within the specific plan
area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Project
could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close certain street segments, including those used for
evacuation routes. However, construction would be temporary, and only affect a limited number of
streets or intersections at any one time. Thus, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to construction of the future development projects, the
project applicant/developer shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for implementation
during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. The
following provisions shall be included:
One unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
At any time only a single lane is available, the project applicant/developer shall
provide a temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flag persons), or other
appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions. If construction
activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the project
applicant/developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating
detours/alternative routes and the haul truck route.
Temporary closures and alternative travel routes shall be disclosed to all
agencies which provide emergency services (e.g., Azusa Police Department and
Los Angeles County Fire Department) in the City.
■ When construction of future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway
closures, no more than one roadway closure shall be permitted within 0.5 mile of
each concurrent development project to ensure adequate access for emergency
vehicles.
Implementation of Measure HAZ-3 would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less
than significant level through the preparation of Traffic Control Plans, which will ensure that adequate
emergency and evacuation route access be maintained throughout any construction phases. As a result,
impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.7-29 and -30.)
39
E. NOISE
1. Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.10-23.)
Explanation: Buildout of the specific plan area would occur over an approximately 20 -year
period. Grading and construction activities associated with development of future projects could
intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above ambient background levels including noise
levels above those permissible by the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable
standards. Noise sources could include construction equipment, vendor deliveries, haul rucks, and
construction worker traffic, and a number of noise -sensitive land uses exist within the specific plan area.
However, construction related noise impacts would be short term and temporary in nature. Further,
construction -related activities would occur only during times designated in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Thus, construction -related impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR, p. 4.10-21.)
Operational impacts would occur from future project -generated traffic, operation of the Gold
Line light rail, and human activity on individual project sites. On-site uses would result in the
generation of noise from point sources including building mechanical equipment, parking and on-site
vehicle operations daily human activities and landscaping equipment. However, the projected increase
in ambient noise from these sources would be incremental and considered less than significant. (EIR, p.
4.10-21.) However, Project buildout is projected to generate approximately 16, 314 vehicle trips per
day. This project -related traffic is expected to cause existing noise levels to exceed acceptable
thresholds. Similarly, future development within the specific plan area could be exposes to noise
generated fro operation of the Gold Line light rail stations, which could also intermittently exceed the
City's standard resulting in potentially significant impacts.
To mitigate potential traffic noise and light rail noise impacts, the following mitigation measure
has been identified:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1: Individual development projects under the Azusa TOD
Specific Plan shall be evaluated for sensitive receptors exposure to potential related
noise impacts according to the City's noise thresholds. If it is determined that operation
of a project has the potential to result in a noise increase above 60 dB(A), a project -
specific acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. If
necessary, the projects' design shall be refined to determine specific improvements (e.g.,
Sound Transmission Class ratings, exterior wall construction, treatment offagade
openings) to reduce interior noise levels to meet the requirement of an Ldn of 60 dB(A)
CNEL or less for low density residential properties, 65 dB(A) or less for multi family
properties, and 70 dB(A) or less for schools and libraries, as required by the City and the
state Building Code particularly for properties along Foothill Boulevard, San Gabriel
Avenue, Azusa Avenue, and the BNSF Railway. The results of the analysis and
recommended ratings for windows and doors shall be submitted to the City Building
Oficial for approval and approved prior to issuance of building permits. The approved
windows and doors, and forced air mechanical ventilation shall be incorporated where
windows must remain closed in order to achieve the interior noise criteria.
By requiring individual projects to evaluate noise experienced by sensitive receptors, and
requiring project -specific acoustical analyses, Measure NOISE -1 will ensure that interior noise levels
will be acceptable. Within the incorporation of this measure, impacts are considered less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.10-23.)
2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.10-27.)
Explanation: Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration,
depending on construction procedures and equipment used. If sensitive receptors are located within 25
feet of construction activities, there is potential for to exceed the threshold for human perception and
annoyance from groundbome vibration and noise. In addition, groundbome vibration could damage
nearby historic structures. (EIR, pp. 4.10-25 and -26.) However, the following mitigation measures
have been identified:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -2: For construction that occurs within 50 feet of buildings
more than 50 years old, project applicants shall be responsible for monitoring the
designated buildings for damage. In the event that the monitored properties are
damaged, the project applicant/developer shall be responsible for the cost of any
building repairs.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -3: The City shall require construction contractors to notify
all residential units located within 1,600 feet of any construction site of the construction
schedule. All notices shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as
well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction
process and register complaints.
These measures would require monitoring of nearby historic buildings when construction occurs
nearby, and the notification of residential uses of nearby construction schedules. As a result, impacts are
reduced to a level of less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.10-27.)
3. Permanent Ambient Noise
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.10-28 and -29.)
41
Explanation: It is anticipated that some buildings constructed under the specific plan could have
rooftop equipment that generates permanent noise. Sensitive land uses within 100 feet of such
equipment may be affected by these noise sources. Therefore, the following mitigation measure has
been identified:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -5: Prior to operation ofa project, mechanical equipment
shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City's
Noise Ordinance requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to
review mechanical noise as these systems (e.g., HVAC) are developed to determine
specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City's
Noise Ordinance.
This measure ensures that rooftop equipment meet the City's Noise Ordinance requirements, and
that future projects implement noise reduction measures when rooftop equipment does not meet the
Noise Ordinance requirements. After incorporation of this measure, permanent ambient noise increase
impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.10-29.)
4. Temporary Ambient Noise
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.10-29.)
Explanation: Temporary sources of ambient noise include construction activities and
construction -related use of heavy equipment and truck travel. Existing residences and other sensitive
receptors within and adjacent to the specific plan area could be affected by temporary construction
noise. Specifically, pile -driving may be necessary for specific development within the specific plan area
and could result in intermittent noise levels up to 101 dB(A). Therefore, the following mitigation
measure was identified:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -4: The City shall require individual development projects
to adhere to the following construction specifications. The specifications shall be
included in the plan submittals io the Cityfor review and approval during the plan check
stage:
• During construction, mufflers shall be provided for all heavy construction
equipment and all stationary noise sources in accordance with the manufacturers'
recommendations.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be limited to five minutes
or less.
M
Stationary noise sources and staging areas shall be located as far as is feasible
from existing residences and schools, and other sensitive receptors (e.g., the
Senior Center and City Library) or contractors shall be required to provide
additional noise -reducing engine enclosures (with the goal of achieving
approximately 10 dB(A) ofreduction compared to uncontrolled engines).
Locating stationary noise sources near existing roadways away from adjacent
properties is recommended (i.e., at the southwest corner of the project site).
■ Air compressors and pneumatic equipment shall be equipped with mufflers, and
impact tools shall be equipped with shrouds or shields.
Iffor construction purposes, locating stationary construction equipment near
existing residential uses is required, an 8 feet tall sound -rated fence should be
erected between the equipment and the sensitive receptors. The fence should be
located as close to the equipment as is feasible.
A "construction liaison" shall be designated to ensure coordination between
construction staff and neighbors to minimize disruptions due to construction
noise. Occupants and property owners of residences within 400 feet of
construction activity shall be notified in writing of the construction schedule and
the contact information for the construction liaison.
A qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained as needed to address neighbor
complaints as they occur. If complaints occur, noise measurements could be
conducted to determine if construction noise levels at adjacent property lines are
within the standards. Short-term or long-term construction noise monitoring
could also be utilized to diagnose complaints and determine if additional
mitigation is required for certain phases of construction.
This mitigation measure would ensure that a variety of noise reduction measures, such as
mufflers, shrouds, or shields, be used during construction. Further, it requires siting and staging of loud
equipment in such a way as to reduce temporary noise impacts. With the incorporation of Measure
NOISE -4, temporary ambient noise impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. (EIR, p.
4.10-28 and -29.)
F. RECREATION
Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Would the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.13-9.)
EEx lanation: Construction and operation of additional park and recreation facilities could impact
aesthetics (including night lighting), air quality, cultural resources, geology, land use noise,
transportation, utilities, and other environmental issues. Future development would be subject to CEQA
review and would be required to mitigate any significant environmental impacts, as feasible. It is
43
anticipated that the Azusa TOD Specific Plan would result in the demand for new park and recreation
facilities and that such facilities would have the potential to physically affect the surrounding
environment. The Project incorporates policies encouraging development of paseos, plazas, and public
spaces, which could be used for recreation use. However, the following mitigation measures would
reduce the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors utilizing recreational facilities to a less than
significant level:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: As a condition of approval for development projects within
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, project applicants/developers shall comply with all
applicable standards or guidelines included in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The Azusa
TOD Specific Plan includes standards or guidelines that reduce energy use and vehicle
traffic. These include improvements to streetscapes to encourage pedestrian use,
improved bicycle access, a focus on infill and compact development, promotion of green
development guidelines, increased energy efficiency in buildings, and others. These
measures represent the most effective feasible strategies to reduce emissions of air
pollutants due to development.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
Mitigation Measure NOISE -3: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
The above measures would reduce the potential for air quality impacts to adjacent properties,
exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants, the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise impacts. As
a result, impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, p. 4.14-33.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could reduce the
number of vehicle lanes or temporarily close certain street segments, usually accessible to emergency
vehicles, including those used for evacuation routes. However, potential impacts would be reduced
through implementation of the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
Incorporation of Measure HAZ-3 will ensure that project applicants/developers will prepare a
Traffic Control Plan for implementation during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City
Traffic Engineer. Further, it ensures that the Azusa Police Department is aware of temporary roadway
closures due to construction activities and alternative travel routes. Thus, potential impacts are reduced
to a level of less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.14-32 and -33.)
H. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Police Services
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services, including police services?
Finding: Less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. (EIR, pp. 4.12.2-5,
7 and -8.)
Explanation: The Azusa Police Department provides police protection and services throughout
the City. Implementation of the project would encourage the development of a mix of uses within the
308 acre specific plan area, including residential, commercial, and office. Construction of new projects
would normally not require services from the Azusa Police Department, except in the cases of trespass,
theft, and/or vandalism. Consequently, construction activity could increase traffic in the specific plan
area and conceivably could incrementally increase response times and incrementally increase vehicle
accident potential. (EIR, p. 4.12.2-5.)
Buildout of the project would result in an additional 403,000 square feet of retail, service and
office use, 150 hotel rooms and 840 multi -family residential units. The addition of 840 multi -family
units would result in approximately 2,915 new residents. Daytime population could also increase due to
additional retail employees and patrons within the specific plan area. While the Department has not
established target response times, response times could also increase within the specific plan area due to
increased vehicle traffic generated from buildout of the project, adversely affecting the operating
condition of the local roadway network. An increase in calls for service based upon heavier traffic
combined with denser development in the specific plan area could increase police response times. The
Department's target officer to resident standard is 1.27 officers to 1,000 residents. With the
Department's current staffing level, the officer to resident ratio is 1:768. Based on the projected
potential increase in population of 2,915 residents, three additional police officers would be required
over the lifetime of the project. However, as buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several
years, any increase in demand for police protection services would occur gradually as additional
development and associated population growth is added to the specific plan area. In addition, the timing,
siting, and project -specific details of individual development projects would dictate the necessity of
increasing police service in the specific plan area. The City would not grant building permits until public
services such as police protection. facilities are in place that can adequately serve the new development.
(EIR, p. 4.12.2-6.)
However, the following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to a level of
less than significant during construction and operation of future projects within the specific plan area:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
45
Mitigation Measure POLICE -1: Project applicants/development shall consult with the
Azusa Police Department regarding crime prevention features appropriate for the design
of the project and subsequently, shall submit plans for review and comment. The plans
shall incorporate design guidelines relative to security and semipublic and private spaces
which may include, but not be limited to, access control to buildings, secured parking
facilities, wall/fences with key systems, well -illuminated public and semi-public and
private spaces, which may include access control to buildings, secured parking facilities,
wallsffences with key systems, well —illuminated public space designed with a minimum
of dead space to eliminate areas of concealment, location of toilet facilities or building
entrances in high foot traffic areas, and provisions ofsecurity guard patrol if need. These
measures shall be approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building
permits. New construction within the specific plan area shall be designed to provide for
safety measures (e.g., alarm systems, security lighting, other on-site security measures,
and crime prevention through environmental design policies) and subject to the review
and approval of the City Planning Department and Azusa Police Department.
These measures will ensure that during construction of all future projects, the Department would
maintain ample access for emergency vehicles including routine patrol vehicles by requiring a Traffic
Control Plan prior to construction of any future project within the specific plan area with the potential to
impede access. With adequate access, response times would not be extended and the ability of officers
to provide proactive policing and efficient crime suppression would not be diminished. In addition, as
necessary, Measure HAZ-3 ensures that projects would be required to include standard construction -
traffic control procedures such as flagmen and signage. These measures would further reduce any
potential impacts to police services during construction activities. Measure POLICE -1 would also
reduce impacts by ensuring the incorporation of crime prevention features into future project design,
including guidelines relating to security, lighting, and "eyes on the street' principles. Therefore, with
Measures HAZ-3 and POLICE -1, impacts related to police services during construction of future
projects would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.12.2-5, -8.)
SECTION 5: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures outlined in the EIR
and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be
fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore
included herein:
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Air Quality Violations
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project violate any applicable federal or
state air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing projected air quality violation?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (EIR, p. 4.2-21.)
Explanation: A conservative estimate of construction emissions was completed using
CalEEMod:
M
Estimated Unmitigated Construction Emissions
As shown above, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction would not be exceeded.
In addition, future projects would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, thus the impact from
construction. emissions would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.2-19; see also Final EIR p. 3.0-3.)
Operational emissions, generated by mobile sources, area sources, and stationary sources as a
result of normal day-to-day activity in the plan area. CalEEMod was used to quantify mobile source and
area source emissions. Quantification of stationary sources, such as boilers, generators, cooling towers,
and industrial operations would require detailed and project -specific information about the sources,
which is currently unavailable. Therefore, stationary source emissions would have to be estimated at a
project level, are not considered in the Project's program EIR. (EIR, p. 4.2-19.)
At a minimum, buildings and facilities developed under the Project would comply with the
energy efficiency requirements of the 2013 Title 24 Building Standards Code. In addition, the Project
includes sustainability and other green principles and strategies that would be applied to development
projects in the specific plan area. However, most of these measures are not easily and not quantifiable,
and therefore were not considered in the CalEEMod emissions estimate for project operations.
Therefore, the CalEEMod emissions are considered conservative. (EIR, p. 4.2-20; see also Final EIR
2.4-12.)
Estimated Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Maximum Emissions in Pounds
per Day
Construction Year
VOC
NOx
CO
Sox
PM10
PM2.5
Average Emissions per year
11.2
63.3
60.7
0.1
6.4
4.6
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
As shown above, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction would not be exceeded.
In addition, future projects would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, thus the impact from
construction. emissions would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.2-19; see also Final EIR p. 3.0-3.)
Operational emissions, generated by mobile sources, area sources, and stationary sources as a
result of normal day-to-day activity in the plan area. CalEEMod was used to quantify mobile source and
area source emissions. Quantification of stationary sources, such as boilers, generators, cooling towers,
and industrial operations would require detailed and project -specific information about the sources,
which is currently unavailable. Therefore, stationary source emissions would have to be estimated at a
project level, are not considered in the Project's program EIR. (EIR, p. 4.2-19.)
At a minimum, buildings and facilities developed under the Project would comply with the
energy efficiency requirements of the 2013 Title 24 Building Standards Code. In addition, the Project
includes sustainability and other green principles and strategies that would be applied to development
projects in the specific plan area. However, most of these measures are not easily and not quantifiable,
and therefore were not considered in the CalEEMod emissions estimate for project operations.
Therefore, the CalEEMod emissions are considered conservative. (EIR, p. 4.2-20; see also Final EIR
2.4-12.)
Estimated Unmitigated Operational Emissions
As shown above, operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and
NOx and impacts would be potentially significant.
The following mitigation measure was identified to reduce potential impacts:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: As a condition of approval for development projects within
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, project applicants/developers shall comply with all
applicable standards or guidelines included in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The Azusa
TOD Specific Plan includes standards or guidelines that reduce energy use and vehicle
traffic. These include improvements to streetscapes to encourage pedestrian use,
improved bicycle access, a focus on infill and compact development, promotion of green
development guidelines, increased energy efficiency in buildings, and others. These
47
Emissions in Pounds
per Day
Emissions Source
ROG
NOx
CO
Sox
PM10
PM2.5
Mobile Sources
42.7
93.2
440.1
1.9
126.6
35.6
Area Sources
36.7
0.8
69.1
0.0
0.4
0.4
Total
79.4
94
509.2
1.9
127
36
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
Exceeds Threshold?
YES
YES
No
No
No
No
As shown above, operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and
NOx and impacts would be potentially significant.
The following mitigation measure was identified to reduce potential impacts:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: As a condition of approval for development projects within
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, project applicants/developers shall comply with all
applicable standards or guidelines included in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The Azusa
TOD Specific Plan includes standards or guidelines that reduce energy use and vehicle
traffic. These include improvements to streetscapes to encourage pedestrian use,
improved bicycle access, a focus on infill and compact development, promotion of green
development guidelines, increased energy efficiency in buildings, and others. These
47
measures represent the most effective feasible strategies to reduce emissions of air
pollutants due to development.
Incorporation of Measure AQ -1 would reduce impacts by requiring project
applicants/developers to comply with the Specific Plan's applicable standards and guidelines that reduce
energy use and vehicle traffic. However, the specific reductions in air pollutant operation emissions that
would result fro the implementation of the measures included in the Specific Plan cannot be fully or
accurately calculated. Therefore, while operational emissions would be substantially reduced with
implementation of the Specific Plan, even with implementation of Measure AQ -1 impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR, pp. 4.2-20 and -21.)
2. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (EIR, p. 4.2-21.)
Explanation: Los Angeles County is in non -attainment for the following federal criteria air
pollutants: ozone, PM2.5, and lead. In addition, Los Angeles County is in non -attainment for the
following state criteria pollutants: ozone, PM10, and PM 2.5. (EIR, p. 4.2-7.) As discussed above,
construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, but operational emissions exceed
thresholds for ROG and NOx. The following mitigation measure was identified to reduce potential
impacts:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: (see language above, incorporated herein by reference)
Incorporation of Measure AQ -1 would reduce impacts by requiring project
applicants/developers to comply with the Specific Plan's applicable standards and guidelines that reduce
energy use and vehicle traffic. However, the specific reductions in air pollutant operation emissions that
would result fro the implementation of the measures included in the Specific Plan cannot be fully or
accurately calculated. Therefore, while operational emissions would be substantially reduced with
implementation of the Specific Plan, even with implementation of Measure AQ -1 impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR, pp. 4.2-20 and -21.)
3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (EIR, p. 4.2-24.)
Explanation: Traffic congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate
localized high levels of CO referred to as "hotspots." Such hotspots are defined as locations where the
ambient CO concentrations exceed the state or federal ambient air quality standards. Potential air
quality impacts to sensitive receptors are assessed through an analysis of localized CO concentrations.
M
Post -project maximum future CO concentrations were calculated for peak -hour traffic volumes for both
AM and PM using the CALINE4 screening model, with the following results:
Intersection
1 -hour
1 hour PM
8 -hour
San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
3.5
4.2
2.5
Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
3.5
4.1
2.5
Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
3.3
3.8
2.3
Exceeds state 1 -hour standard of 20 m?
NO
NO
Exceeds federal 1 -hour standard of 35 ppm?
NO
NO
Exceeds state 8 -hour standard of 9.0 m?
NO
Exceeds federal 8 -hour standard of 9.0 p m?
1
1
NO
As shown above, the CALINE4 screening procedure conservatively predicts that future CO
concentrations at each intersection would not exceed the state and federal standards, therefore CO
hotspot impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.2-22 and -23.)
SCAQMD also recommends evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors on
the basis of anticipate ambient air concentrations, determined using a computer-based air quality
dispersion model, compared against localized significant thresholds for PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and CO.
Determining local concentrations of air pollutants associated with a project requires accurate and
detailed project specific information ,regarding the construction and operation of the project, for
example, the size and function of a project, a construction schedule, the location(s) of nearby sensitive
receptors relative to the project, details on any stationary sources included with the project, and any
other data pertinent to emissions of air pollutants. None of this information is currently available since
the project only allows for the possibility of general types of buildings to be construed. Thus, at this
time, and as part of the Project's programmatic EIR, it is impossible to estimate localized
concentrations. Thus, any required LST analyses for the potential development sites within the specific
plan area would be performed during a project -level environmental impacts. Due to the unknown level
of construction activity and operational aspects that could result as part of proposed plan buildout, and
the possible location of sensitive receptors near to project sites, this is considered a potentially
significant impact Implementation of the standard code requirements, SCAQMD's Best Available
Control Measures, and project -level mitigation measures would reduce this impact, but it is unknown to
what extent. Consequently this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (EIR, pp. 4.2-23 and -
24.)
Toxic air contaminants ("TACs"), including reactive organic gases, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and metals, can affect human health. SCAQMD has established a threshold for
evaluating human health risk impacts from TACs, which is based on an incremental increase in cancer
risk. A project is considered to have a less than significant impact in terms of lifetime cancer risk if the
project would result in a maximum increase of no more than 10 in 1 million in the risk of contracting
cancer during a lifetime of exposure to project emissions at any one receptor. (EIR, p. 4.2-23.) 'This
project would result emissions of TACs primarily from diesel -fueled trucks. There is currently not
sufficient information to make an accurate analysis of the potential impacts of TACs associated with the
project, therefore impacts relating to TACs are considered significant and unavoidable. (EIR, p. 4.2-24.)
me
Given the above described impacts to sensitive receptors, the following mitigation measure has
been identified:
Mitigation Measure AQ -2: Individual projects developed under the Azusa TOD Specific
Plan shall be evaluated for potential impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to
pollutant concentrations according to the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook and
the SCAQMD's Rule 1401. Developments found to potentially result in such an exposure
would be required under CEQA to mitigate impacts to the extent feasible.
This measure requires that future projects, once sufficient detail is known, be evaluated for
impacts to sensitive receptors, and that CEQA review be used to identify relative and appropriate
mitigation measures for those impacts. However, even with implementation of Measure AQ -2, impacts
are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (EIR, p. 4.2-24; see also Final EIR p. 3.0-
4.)
SECTION 6: FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative
impacts, which include the impacts of the project plus all other pending or approved projects within the
affected area for each resource. The affected environment for most of the resource areas described
below was determined to be the City of Azusa. Nineteen pending and approved projects were identified
as cumulative projects. (See EIR, pp. 3.0-27 [Table 3.0-2]; 3.0-28 [Figure 3.0-10].)
The City Council herby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
While many of the related projects and the project would be visible from public roads, trails, and
parks, the combination of the related projects and the project is not anticipated to significantly obstruct
existing public scenic views given that new development would be limited to 60 feet and scenic views of
the San Gabriel Mountains would therefore be maintained. Further, views of future projects would be
limited by the relatively flat topography of the area. Regarding visual character, the project would
create a cohesive visual theme within the specific plan area, enhancing the visual character o the area.
Regarding light and glare impacts, development of related projects will occur in accordance with
adopted plans and regulations and mitigation measures would be adopted as necessary. Therefore,
cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-28.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
No parcels within the specific plan area are designated as farmland and no portion of the specific
plan area is zoned for agricultural use or forest land. No forest land occurs in the area or its surrounding.
Therefore, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
C. AIR QUALITY
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, projects with emissions that are below the
SCAQMD emissions thresholds should be considered less than significant on a cumulative basis unless
there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Project operational emissions are expected to exceed
50
the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to air quality impacts and would be significant on a cumulative basis.
The SCAQMD states that for projects that exceed the emissions -based thresholds of significance,
cumulative impacts should be determined based on whether the rate of growth in ADT or VMT for the
project exceeds the rate of growth in population. For this project, the rate of growth in ADT is less than
the rate of growth in population. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant based on
this criterion. (EIR, p. 4.2-25.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The City of Azusa is urbanized and 60 percent developed. Because no sensitive habitat or
species are located within the project area, and future development would be required to be reviewed by
the City for consistency with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Specific Plan's standards and
guidelines, impacts are considered cumulatively less than significant. (EIR, pp. 7.0-2 and -3.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts upon cultural resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site -by -site basis.
The specific plan area includes potential and actual historic resources and may contain actual or
potential archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Where these resources may exist,
implementation of the Project would represent an incremental adverse cumulative impact to cultural
resources. However, given that proper mitigation is implemented by individual projects, impacts would
be fully mitigated and not cumulatively considerable. In addition, related projects would also be
required to implement appropriate mitigation measures. Thus, cumulative impacts to cultural resources
would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-25.)
F. ENERGY IMPACTS
Although buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the consumption of energy resources, this
consumption is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect, rather it is the wasteful,
inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy resources from more than one project and many sources that
is of concern. Given the project's consistency with state energy reduction goals and objectives, the
contribution to a cumulative inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy resources would be less
than significant and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing energy use. Therefore, buildout of the Specific Plan would not contribute to a
cumulative impact regarding the inefficient or wasteful use of energy resources and would be less than
significant. (EIR, pp. 4.4-14 and -15.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Related projects would be subject to varying risks associated with geotechnical hazards. Due to
the site-specific nature of geological conditions, geotechnical impacts are typically assessed on a
project -by -project basis in accordance with CEQA. Related projects would be subject to mitigation
measures similar to those required for future projects within the specific plan area, in addition to the
CBC and UBC. Therefore, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and existing
regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.5-15 and -16.)
51
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Global climate change is by definition a cumulative impact as GHG emissions do not have a
localized impact. The significance threshold of 6.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide -equivalent emissions
per year per service population is set by SCAQMD to allow the region to meet overall statewide
greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. This threshold also applies as a cumulative impact
threshold. Therefore, because the Project's per service population emissions are less than the SCAQMD
threshold, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.6-25 and -26.)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Construction -related hazardous materials impacts would generally be site-specific and limited to
the duration of construction activity and would continue to be highly regulated under federal, state, and
local regulations. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant impact.
Residential cumulative projects may be located in proximity or adjacent to facilities that use,
store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials, which could increase an individual's exposure to
hazardous materials. Cumulative projects that would use, store, transport, and dispose of hazardous
materials would also be required to comply with hazardous materials laws which are designed to avoid
and minimize adverse impacts on public health, safety, and the environment. Each cumulative project
has been or would be subject to environmental review and if significant impacts are identified,
mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts
are less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.7-30.)
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Development of related projects and buildout of the Specific Plan could result in cumulative
water quality and hydrological impacts. Runoff could result in increased stormwater runoff which could
include sediment and pollutants. Development of vacant parcels would result in an increase in
impervious surfaces. However, future development would be subject to regulation, including NPDES
permits and BMPs as necessary. In addition, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in
compliance with the SUSMP would further reduce these impacts.
As the City is approximately 60 percent development, buildout of the Specific Plan in
conjunction with the related projects would not substantially change the surrounding drainage patterns.
Further, the City is not located within a designated groundwater recharge area. Thus, implementation of
the Specific Plan would not result in cumulative considerable hydrology, drainage, or water quality
impacts. During the development approval process, project applicants would be required to construct
storm drain facilities as needed and undergo any stormwater related CEQA analysis when applicable.
With adherence to these federal, state, and local regulations cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.8-28.)
K. LAND USE
Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in density and land use development
compared to existing conditions Under the Specific Plan, the development of an addition 840 housing
52
units, 150 new overnight accommodations/lodging rooms, 226,000 square feet of retail -commercial use,
84,000 square feet of service -commercial use, and 93,000 square feet of office space could occur.
To be consistent with SCAG's growth projections, each development project would undergo the
same project review process in order to preclude potential land use compatibility issues and planning
policy conflicts. Further each project would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well as
within the context of existing and planned developments to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies
of the Specific Plan are consistently upheld. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR, p. 4.9-49.)
L. NOISE
Although the City is approximately 60 percent built out with a limited number of vacant parcels,
the Specific Plan does identify vacant opportunity sites. It is anticipated that existing developed sites
would be redeveloped, in addition to proposed infill projects which would be located on vacant parcels.
As future projects would not be approved simultaneously, it is unlikely that the City would experience
intensive construction activity during implementation of the Specific Plan. Noise from construction of
development projects is typically localized and has the potential to affect areas immediately within 500
feet from the construction site. Therefore, noise from construction activities from projects within 1,000
feet of each other could contribute to a cumulative noise impact for receptors located between the two
construction sites. However, construction noise would be short-term and would affect only surrounding
land uses for a short duration of time.
Cumulative traffic generated from the Specific Plan and other potential projects could result in
significant impacts, specifically along heavily travelled roadways, including Foothill Boulevard, Azusa
Avenue, and San Gabriel Avenue. In addition, San Gabriel Avenue would include a median left hand
turn lane and northbound and southbound bicycle lanes. These modifications are projected to reduce
vehicle speeds on both roadways and could help reduce the traffic related noise levels on both streets.
Further, individual projects' noise impacts would be evaluated on a cases -by -case basis. Therefore
cumulative impacts from noise and/or vibration would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.10-29 and -
30.)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Specific Plan is expected to facilitate an increase in population, housing, and employment,
but is not expected to displace existing housing or residents. However, the City anticipated greater
growth and has adequately planned to provide infrastructure and housing required to serve the projected
growth under the Specific Plan as well as other from other projects. It is also important to note that the
City's cumulative project list only extends a few years into the future and as additional development
occurs it is likely that projects, when combined with other cumulative projects would exceed the
population and housing projects provided by SCAG. For this reason, SCAG updates its forecasts at least
every four years and incorporates the most recent planning data from cities. Implementation of the City
of Azusa General Plan would adequately meet the housing needs of the anticipated population growth
within the City, including the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. Thus, implementation of the Azusa TOD
Specific Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the population and/or housing
resources. (EIR, p. 4.11-22.)
53
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Services: Buildout of the project and related projects ongoing and planned in the City
would increase the demand for fire protection services. The County Fire Department and City would
continue to monitor impacts to fire services and facilities and review each future development project on
a project -by -project basis to determine the need for additional resources. Increased revenues from
ground lease rentals and property tax from the related projects could be used to fund increases in staffing
and equipment, as well as revenue derived from the Development Fee Program. Furthermore, all future
development projects would be required to submit site design plans to the Fire Department during the
planning and building permit check process. In conformance with standard City procedures, these plans
shall be reviewed by the Fire Department with respect to access and building design. Incorporation of
such reviews would avoid any significant cumulative impacts to fire resources and services. Therefore,
cumulative impacts concerning Fire Department staffing, response times, equipment, and facilities
would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.12-1-8.)
Police Services: Buildout of the project would result in the need for three additional police
officers. Cumulative projects outside of the specific plan area would also increase the need for police
services and would require additional police staffing. The Azusa Police Department would continue to
monitor impacts to police services on a project -by -project basis to ensure adequate police resources are
available to serve the specific plan area and other portions of the City. Similar to projects proposed
under the Specific Plan, development projects located in other areas of the City would be required to
submit site designs to the Department and comply with City regulations. Revenues generated from the
cumulative project's ground lease rentals and property tax would reduce cumulative impacts. Thus,
implementation of the Specific Plan and other related projects would not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to the Department's service rations, response times, or other performance
objectives. (EIR, p. 4.12.2-8.)
Education: Buildout of the Specific Plan and related projects would generate new students and
could exceed the capacity of the existing AUSD schools, which could result in a cumulative impact on
the District. However, as with the development projects allowed under the Specific Plan, each related
project would be required to pay the appropriate education facilities fees which would mitigate potential
impacts on schools. Therefore, buildout of the Specific Plan, in combination with related projects, would
not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on school facilities. (EIR, p. 4.12.3-8.)
Library Services: Implementation of the project and related projects would create additional
demands on existing Library services and resources. However, future projects associated with the
Specific Plan, as well as related projects would increase the Specific Plan and surrounding area's
population, number of businesses, and employment opportunities. By increasing the local population
through the development of residential units, existing and future businesses would benefit from a larger
customer base. These changes would increase tax revenues and would allow for additional funding for
the Library. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.12.4-4.)
54
O. RECREATION
Buildout of the Specific Plan and related projects would result in increased usage of the City's
parks and recreation facilities. Similar to residential projects included in the Specific Plan, related
residential projects would be required to provide parkland acreage or pay the City's park developer fee.
Revenue generated from the park developer fee could be used towards the development and construction
of new park and recreation facilities and maintenance or expansion of current facilities. Future
development would be subject to CEQA evaluation, including reducing significant impacts to a less than
significant level when possible. Thus implementation of the project would not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to the City's park and recreation facilities. (EIR, p. 4.13-9.)
P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The traffic analysis report evaluated the eight study intersections' future LOS for the weekday
AM and PM peak hours for both the cumulative base year (2019) and cumulative plus project year
(2035). The same methodology was used to analyze cumulative and project conditions (described
above). A 1 percent increase per year was assumed in regional traffic growth and trips from related -
projects within a 1.5 -mile radius of the project area. (EIR, p. 4.14-34.)
Under Cumulative Base Year (2019), four study intersections are projected to operate at LOS E
or worse during one or both peak hours:
■ Azusa Avenue and 9th Street (PM peak hour)
• San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (PM peak hour)
• Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)
■ Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)
The Cumulative plus Project scenario represents future (2035) traffic conditions with the
buildout of the Specific Plan and roadway network circulation changes. The project traffic volumes were
added to the Cumulative Base traffic volumes to develop the Cumulative plus Project traffic forecasts.
EIR Figure 4.14-6, Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions illustrates the resulting projected peak hour traffic volumes and lane geometries for the
Cumulative plus Project scenario for a typical weekday, including the shifts assuming two-way
operations on both roadways. As shown in EIR Table 4.14-7, under this scenario three of the eight
study intersections would operate at LOS E or worse during one or both peak hours. These include:
• San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (PM peak hour)
• Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (AM and PM peak hour)
• Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (AM and PM peak hour)
Based on the criteria established by the County of Los Angeles, the Cumulative plus Project
conditions would result in less than significant impacts for the eight study intersections. (EIR, pp. 4.14-
34 through -36.)
55
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Electricity and Natural Gas: Future development resulting from the implementation of the
Specific Plan, in combination with other future development within the same service area would result
in the long-term and continued use of natural gas and electricity resources. Potential natural gas and
electricity impacts associated with new developments would be evaluated on a project -by -project basis.
Future development would be required to pay any necessary fees associated with the expansion of
electricity and natural gas services. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to natural gas service and infrastructure. (EIR, pp. 4.15.1-12 and -13.)
Solid Waste: Several regional landfills have sufficient capacity to serve the City's anticipated
waste disposal needs. (See EIR Table 4.15.2-4.) While solid waste impacts would be evaluated on a
project -by -project basis, the County has identified strategies for maintaining adequate disposal capacity
through 2017. All cumulative development within the project vicinity and Los Angeles County would
be required to comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. This includes compliance with the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act and
AB 939, which requires a 50 percent diversion of all solid waste from disposal in local landfills. Upon
compliance with existing standards, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p.
4.15.2-12.)
Wastewater: Related projects would increase the operating capacity of the existing trunk sewer
lines and wastewater treatment plants. The availability of adequate treatment capacity along with the
continuous assessment of capacity flows would be assessed on a project -by -project basis. Similar to the
projects under the Specific Plan, related projects would be subject to the County's wastewater
requirements and thresholds. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater services and facilities would
be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.15.3-11.)
Water SIMly: The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan indicates available water supplies and
an overall water surplus from 2015 to 2035 during multiple dry year scenarios. In addition, future related
projects would be subject to the water code requirements and the public resources code. If necessary, a
water supply analysis would be completed on a project -by -project basis. Sufficient water supply is the
total water supply available during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years within a 20 -year
projection that would meet the projected demand of the project being proposed, in addition to existing
and planned future uses. Based on the demonstrated reliability of water resources available to the
Department and taking into account existing and planned future water uses, the WSA concluded that
City has sufficient, reliable, and sustainable water supplies to meet existing water demands and future
growth, including the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry years, for 20 years. As there is
sufficient supply to meet future demand including the project, the cumulative impact would be less than
significant. (EIR, p. 4.15-19.)
SECTION 7: FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is
required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the
proposed Project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible
environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
MO
• Change in land use that commits future generations to similar uses;
• Irreversible damage from environmental accidents; and
• Large commitment of nonrenewable resources.
While the development patterns reflected in the Specific Plan represent a commitment of these
areas to urban uses for the foreseeable future, the Specific Plan promotes infill development and
generally reflects uses already permitted in and around the specific plan area. The Specific Plan
represents an improved and more efficient land use pattern, with more growth concentrated on less land
and closer to existing infrastructure, than compared to existing conditions. This will reduce the per
capita commitment of nonrenewable resources. (EIR, pp. 6.0-6 and -7.)
Any growth in the specific plan area includes the potential for irreversible damage from
environmental accidents. For example, greater densities expose more people in the same area to
unexpected environmental events such as fire, and/or earthquake which could lead to irreversible
damage. In addition, irreversible changes to the physical environment could occur from the accidental
release of hazardous materials associated with transport on roadways as more hazardous materials are
transported through the City and more people are located in closer proximity to hazardous materials
threats. This exposure would exist under any growth scenario. The objectives included in the Specific
Plan will support the state's Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Green House Gas emission reduction targets and
implement SB 374. Thus, implementation of the Specific Plan does not, in and of itself, result in greater
potential of irreversible damage from an environmental accident. (EIR, p. 6.0-8.)
SECTION 8: FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the
proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing,
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing impacts include the removal of
obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more
development in a service area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could
significantly affect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be
assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would not be growth inducing with respect to removing an
impediment to growth (e.g., establishing an essential public service or provision of new access to an
area), or development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space. The Project
would also not be growth -inducing with respect to fostering economic expansion and population growth
and establish a precedent -setting action. Further, all future development under the Specific Plan would
occur over the 20 -year buildout period, allowing for development of necessary services and
infrastructure to commensurate with the proposed growth. (EIR, pp. 6.0-1 through -4.)
SECTION 9: FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project is intended to meet the following objectives:
57
Transit Oriented Development
• TO -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations focused on the TOD opportunities provided by the
future Azusa Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
• TO -2 Prioritize TOD opportunities presented by City -owned properties adjacent to the future
Azusa Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
• TO -3 Provide district -specific development standards and design guidelines that support and
encourage TOD and increase safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian access to transit facilities.
■ TO -4 Increase development potential within the Gold Line District to sufficiently support high
frequency, rapid transit service, and to provide a base for a variety of housing, employment, local
services, and amenities that support a vibrant station area community.
• TO -5 Ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District are transit -supportive and provide a
mixed-use activity node for visitors and the local community.
■ TO -6 Establish pedestrian linkages to and from the future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station to
support a walkable station area that functions as a community gateway to Downtown Azusa.
Economic Development
• ED -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations to support future market-driven revitalization and
investment.
• ED -2 Articulate strategies for forming public-private partnerships with business and community
stakeholders to attract private investment, enhance local equity, and promote reinvestment.
• ED -3 Provide increased uses, services, and transportation options to support and benefit the local
community.
• ED -4 Provide a range of supporting benefits for the local community, including a variety of
housing, a more walkable environment, and community amenities.
Sustainability
• S-1 Maintain and enhance structures identified as having historic value to retain and support the
existing historic character of Azusa.
S-2 Integrate sustainable, healthy living practices to benefit visitors and the local community
through sustainability and healthy community guidelines.
Healthy Communities
• HC -1 Provide district -specific development standards and design guidelines that enhance
architectural quality, improve the overall identity of the Specific Plan area, and enrich the quality
of life through the built environment.
• HC -2 Encourage grocery, outdoor dining, and other healthy food related land uses that are easily
accessible to the community.
■ HC -3 Emphasize streetscape and landscaping enhancements to improve walking, bicycling, and
transit use options.
M
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
■ CP -I Incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies that
contribute to the safety and vitality of residents and visitors of Azusa.
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/
PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed consideration in an
EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic Project objectives, be feasible, and whether they
would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the Project. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15126(c).)
1. Alternate Site Location Alternative
Description: State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) requires consideration regarding
development at one or more alternative location(s). Under the Alternative Site Location Alternative,
development of the Specific Plan would not be focused around the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station
or Azusa Pacific University/Citrus Gold Line Station and instead would be built out on a separate site.
Thus, proposed development associated with the Specific Plan would not be located within- close
proximity to one of the two TOD sites and a majority of the Specific Plan's objectives would not be
realized. An alternative site location would not meet any of the six Transit Oriented Development
project objectives, would not meet one of the Sustainability project objectives (S-2), and would not meet
two of the Healthy Communities objectives (HC -2 and HC -3).
Findine: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following ground, which provides a full
and independent justification for rejection of the alternative is proper: the alternative fails to meet a
majority of the Project objectives, which are focused on providing transit -oriented development at the
two new Metro Gold Line stations.
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These alternatives are rejected
for various reasons as set forth below.
1. Alternative 1 — No Project/General Plan
Description: Section 15126(2)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires evaluation of the No
Project Alternative. As described in the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and
analyzing the No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving
the project with the impacts of not approving the project. However, "no project" does not necessarily
mean that development will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes "what would be
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." For purposes of the EIR, the No Project/General Plan
Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes buildout within the specific plan area would occur in accordance
with the land uses included in the City's 2004 General Plan (General Plan) and implemented by the
City's Development Code. The Development Code carnes out the General Plan policies by regulating
59
development and land uses within the City, consistent with the General Plan. Under this alternative the
increased density housing opportunities and expanded mix of commercial, office, and entertainment
related land uses proposed in the Specific Plan would not be achieved. Thus the No Project/General Plan
Alternative assumes that without the Specific Plan in place to change the underlying land uses, the land
uses reflected in the General Plan would be developed, resulting in less development. (EIR, p. 5.0-4.)
Impacts: Alternative 1 would result in similar aesthetics, cultural resources, geology/soils,
hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use population/housing, public services, and
utilities impacts as the proposed Project.
Alternative 1 would incrementally reduce air quality impacts, which would nonetheless remain
significant and unavoidable as with the proposed Project. Alternative 1 would also incrementally reduce
the proposed Project's less than significant noise impacts.
Alternative 1 would result in greater (but still less than significant) energy impacts than the
proposed Project. Alternative 1 would also result in substantially greater traffic/circulation impacts and
solid waste impacts. Therefore, overall, Alternative 1 results in more significant and unavoidable
impacts than the proposed Project. (EIR, pp. 5.0-9 through -18; see also, EIR Table 5.0-11.)
Obiectives and Feasibilitv: Alternative 1 would not achieve a majority of the Project objectives.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE FINDING
iTransit Oriented Development , r id s . °,e,w
TO -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations focused
Does not meet objective. Zoning and land use
on the TOD opportunities provided by the future Azusa
regulations would not focus on TOD opportunities near
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
Downtown and Gold Line Stations. The current
permitted land uses and zoning included in the 2005
General Plan would continue to apply to the specific
plan area.
TO -2 Prioritize TOD opportunities presented by City-
Does not meet objective. City -owned properties
owned properties adjacent to the future Azusa
adjacent to the Gold Line Stations could be developed
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
with uses that are not transit oriented.
TO -3 Provide district -specific development standards
Does not meet objective. Specific Plan's district -based
and design guidelines that support and encourage TOD
zoning approach would not be implemented. Further, as
and increase safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
the district -base zoning approach would not be carried
access to transit facilities.
out, the transit oriented development which would
provide safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian access to
the future transit facilities would not be developed.
TO -4 Increase development potential within the Gold
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Line District to sufficiently support high frequency,
Project. Development levels within the Gold Line
rapid transit service, and to provide a base for a variety
District area would coincide with the adopted 2005
of housing, employment, local services, and amenities
General Plan land uses and zoning. The permitted level
that support a vibrant station area community.
of development would not support high frequency rapid
transit service and/or provide a base for a variety of
housing, employment, and amenities to the same extent
when compared to the Specific Plan.
TO -5 Ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
are transit -supportive and provide a mixed-use activity
Project. Would permit mixed use buildings but would
node for visitors and the local community.
not ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District
are transit -supportive.
TO -6 Establish pedestrian linkages to and from the
future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station to support a
walkable station area that functions as a community
gateway to Downtown Azusa.
ED -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations to support
future market-driven revitalization and investment.
ED -2 Articulate strategies for forming public-private
partnerships with business and community stakeholders
to attract private investment, enhance local equity, and
promote reinvestment.
ED -3 Provide increased uses, services, and
transportation options to support and benefit the local
community.
ED -4 Provide a range of supporting benefits for the local
community, including a variety of housing, a more
walkable environment, and community amenities.
S -I Maintain and enhance structures identified as having
historic value to retain and support the existing historic
character of Azusa.
S-2 Integrate sustainable, healthy living practices to
benefit visitors and the local community through
sustainability and healthy community guidelines.
HC -1 Provide district -specific development standards
and design guidelines that enhance architectural quality,
improve the overall identity of the Specific Plan area,
and enrich the quality of life through the built
environment.
Does not meet objective. Specific Plan policies which
encourage and permit future pedestrian linkages and
paseos to and from the future Gold Line Station would
not be realized. The area surrounding the station would
be less pedestrian -friendly (compared to the project) and
ultimately the area would not function as a
community gateway to Downtown Azusa.
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Project. Zoning and land use regulations included
under the project would not be implemented. Future
market-driven revitalization and investment in the area
would not occur to the same extent.
Does not meet objective. The strategies included as part
of the project, to establish public-private partnerships
between businesses and community stakeholders would
not occur.
Thus, the levels of investment and reinvestment, as well
as the establishment of, and improvement in, local
equity would not be achieved.
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Project. Transportation services and options would not
be increased to the same extent as under the project.
Objective would be met, but to a lesser extent than the
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Project. The policies and goals included in the 2005
General Plan (Alternative 1) call for the construction of
various types of
housing, and an increase in and improvement of the
community's amenities and the area's walkability.
However, the development standards and design
guidelines included in the Specific Plan would provide
for additional housing types, an increase in the level of
walkability, and an improvement of community
amenities above those which would be provided under
Alternative 1.
Objective met. Structures identified as having historic
value would be subject to the City's Historic Ordinance
under Alternative 1.
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Project. The sustainable healthy living practices
encouraged under the project would not be supported to
the same extent.
Does not meet objective. The district -specific
development standards and design guidelines aimed at
improving the visual quality of the built environment
would not be implemented.
61
HC -2 Encourage grocery, outdoor dining, and other Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
healthy food related land uses that are easily accessible Project. Healthy food related land uses such as grocery
to the community. stores and farmers markets would not be encouraged to
the same
extent under Alternative I as compared to the project.
HC -3 Emphasize streetscape and landscaping Does not meet objective. Streetscape and landscaping
enhancements to improve walking, bicycling, and transit enhancements included under
use options. the project would not be realized.
CP -1 Incorporate Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies that
contribute to the safety and vitality of residents and
visitors of Azusa.
Does not meet objective. CPTED strategies would not
be incorporated into the overall design of the Specific
Plan's built environment.
Findine: The City Council rejects the No Project/General Plan Alternative (Alternative 1) on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1) Alternative 1 results in worse impacts, and fails to reduce significant and unavoidable
impacts, when compared to the proposed Project; and (2) Alternative 1 fails to meet half of the Project
objectives, and meets the remaining objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Therefore,
Alternative 1 is eliminated from further consideration.
2. Reduced Residential Growth Alternative
Description: The Reduced Residential Growth Alternative (Alternative 2) assumes that the
Specific Plan would be adopted, as proposed, with 560 multi -family units as opposed to 840 multi-
family units. This reduction in the number of multi -family units reflects the conservative projected
demand of multi -family units included in the Market Study completed for the Specific Plan. Additional
non-residential growth, as well as landscaping and transportation improvements associated with the
Specific Plan would be implemented as proposed. (EIR, p. 5.0-4.)
Impacts: Alternative 2 would result in similar aesthetics, hydrology/water quality, land use,
noise, and population/housing impacts as the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 results in incrementally less air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils,
greenhouse gases, hazards/hazardous materials, public services, traffic/circulation, and utilities impacts.
However, Alternative 2 nonetheless results in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, like the
proposed Project. (EIR, pp. 5.0-21 through -32.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 2 would meet most of the Project objectives, however a
few objectives would be met to a lesser extent than the Project because the proposed number of multi-
family units would be less. (EIR, p. 5.0-32.)
PROJECT OBJECTIVE_ FINDING
OTransitOriented Deveia ment I WON
TO -I Provide zoning and land use regulations focused
Objective would be met. The project's zoning and land
on the TOD opportunities provided by the future Azusa
use regulations would be
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
implemented under Alternative 2.
62
TO -2 Prioritize TOD opportunities presented by City-
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
owned properties adjacent to the future Azusa
Project. Alternative 2 would result in the reduction of
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
the number of multi -family units (840 to 560). City -
owned properties adjacent to the Gold Line Stations
would to be prioritized as TOD opportunities. However,
as fewer units would be developed, density at the level
that would be supportive of transit uses may not be
achieved.
TO -3 Provide district -specific development standards
Objective would be met. District specific development
and design guidelines that support and encourage TOD
standards and design guidelines that support and
and increase safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
encourage TOD and ultimately increase safe, direct, and
access to transit facilities.
convenient pedestrian access to transit facilities would
be implemented.
TO -4 Increase development potential within the Gold
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Line District to sufficiently support high frequency,
Project. Under Alternative 2, development would be
rapid transit service, and to provide a base for a variety
increased in the Gold Line District, however fewer
of housing, employment, local services, and amenities
multi -family units would be allowed (560 units under
that support a vibrant station area community.
Alternative 2 compared to 840 units under the project).
While future development would be expected to
sufficiently support high frequency
rapid transit service, as well as provide a base for a
variety of housing, employment, local services, and
amenities; due to the reduction in the number of multi-
family units, this objective would be met but to a lesser
extent than the
roiect.
TO -5 Ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
are transit -supportive and provide a mixed-use activity
Project. Under Alternative 2, land uses permitted in the
node for visitors and the local community.
Gold Line District would continue to be transit -friendly
and include a
variety of uses (e.g., mixed-use developments).
However, the number of multi -family units developed
within this district could be reduced as the overall
number of multifamily units proposed would be reduced.
Thus this objective would be met, but to a lesser extent
than the project.
TO -6 Establish pedestrian linkages to and from the
Objective would be met. Buildout would include the
future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station to support a
construction of pedestrian linkages to and from the Gold
walkable station area that functions as a community
Line Station. Similar to the project, the area would be
gateway to Downtown Azusa.
pedestrian -friendly and function as a walkable area and
community gw
gateway to Downtown Azusa.
EconomicDevelopment dig ?n
ED -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations to support
Objective would be met. The zoning and land use
future market-driven revitalization and investment.
regulations aimed at establishing future market -drive
revitalization and investment
opportunities in the project area would be included
under Alternative 2.
ED -2 Articulate strategies for forming public-private
Objective would be met. No changes would be made to
partnerships with business and community stakeholders
the private investment strategies included in the project.
to attract private investment, enhance local equity, and
promote reinvestment.
ED -3 Provide increased uses, services, and
Objective would be met. The same number of uses,
transportation options to support and benefit the local
services, and transportation options would be provided
community.
to the community, as under the project.
63
ED-4 Provide a range of supporting benefits for the local
Objective would be met. While the number of multi-
community, including a variety of housing, a more
family units proposed would be less than compared to
walkable environment, and community amenities.
the project, buildout of Alternative 2 would provide the
same range of
supportive benefits for the local community such as,
various housing types, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure,
and improved community amenities.
Sustainability
S-1 Maintain and enhance structures identified as having
Objective would be met. Under Alternative 2,
historic value to retain and support the existing historic
structures identified as historic would be subjected to the
character of Azusa.
project's historic design guidelines.
S-2 Integrate sustainable, healthy living practices to
Objective would be met. The sustainable and healthy
benefit visitors and the local community through
community guidelines included under the project would
sustainability and healthy community guidelines.
be implemented under Alternative 2.
Healthy Communities
HC-1 Provide district-specific development standards
_
Objective would be met. The district-specific
and design guidelines that enhance architectural quality,
development standards and design guidelines aimed at
improve the overall identity of the Specific Plan area,
enhancing the specific plan area's
and enrich the quality of life through the built
architectural quality and visual characteristics would be
environment.
implemented under Alternative 2.
HC-2 Encourage grocery, outdoor dining, and other
Objective would be met. Under Altemative 2, no
healthy food related land uses that are easily accessible
changes would be made to future permitted land uses
to the community.
with the exception of the number of
multi-family units. Grocery stores, outdoor dining
opportunities, local food vendors, and farmers markets
would continue to be encouraged throughout the project
area.
HC-3 Emphasize streetscape and landscaping
Objective would be met. The policies included under
enhancements to improve walking, bicycling, and transit
the project which would encourage streetscape and
use options.
landscaping improvements and multi-modal (e.g.,
walking, biking, and transit opportunities) would also be
implemented under this Alternative.
Crime Prevention
CP-1 Incorporate Crime Prevention Through
Objective would be met. Future development
Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies that
(including construction of multifamily units, commercial
contribute to the safety and vitality of residents and
space and improvements to the
visitors of Azusa.
existing landscape and streetscape) would incorporate
CPTED strategies.
Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Residential Growth Alternative (Alternative 2) on
the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1) Alternative 2 fails to meaningfully reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts of the proposed Project; and (2) Alternative 2 meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than
the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration.
3. San Gabriel Avenue North/South Lane Configuration Alternative
Description: Under the San Gabriel Avenue North/South Lane Configuration Alternative
(Alternative 3) San Gabriel Avenue would be reconfigured to include one northbound and one
southbound vehicle travel lane, a median turn -lane, bicycle lanes, and vehicle parking on both sides of
G5m
the street. No changes would be made to Azusa Avenue or the Specific Plan's proposed land uses,
design guidelines, development standards, policies, or goals. (EIR, p. 5.0-5.)
Facts: With three exceptions, Alternative 3 has all similar impacts as the proposed Project.
Alternative 3 will result in greater aesthetics impacts than the Project, and incrementally greater land use
impacts than the Project. In the cumulative condition, Alternative 3 would result in significant impacts
to traffic and circulation. Therefore, Alternative 3 fails to reduce any significant and unavoidable
impacts of the proposed Project, and results in an additional significant impact when compared to the
proposed Project. (EIR, pp. 5.0-34 through -51.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 3 would achieve most of the project objectives to the
same extent as the proposed Project.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE FINDING
aTransit Oriented DeSelo merit;r&1
^to
TO -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations focused
Meets objective lesser extent than proposed
on the TOD opportunities provided by the future Azusa
Project. Land use and zoning regulations would
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
continue to focus on TOD opportunities. However, the
San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue two-way
circulation network, which slow traffic and improve
access to local businesses along Azusa Avenue, would
not be incorporated. Omitting the proposed changes to
Azusa Avenue would restrict growth potential and
economic viability along Azusa Avenue, one of the
Specific Plan's ke strategies.
TO -2 Prioritize TOD opportunities presented by City-
Objective would be met. Under Alternative 3, TOD
owned properties adjacent to the future Azusa
opportunities adjacent to the future Gold Line Stations
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
would be prioritized.
TO -3 Provide district -specific development standards
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
and design guidelines that support and encourage TOD
Project. The district -specific development standards
and increase safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
and design guidelines included in the project would
access to transit facilities.
continue to be included. However, traffic calming
measures and increased pedestrian safety features of the
Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue improvements
would not occur.
TO -4 Increase development potential within the Gold
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Line District to sufficiently support high frequency,
Project. The development potential within the Gold
rapid transit service, and to provide a base for a variety
Line District would sufficiently support rapid transit
of housing, employment, local services, and amenities
service and provide a base for a variety of housing,
that support a vibrant station area community.
employment, local services, and amenities that support a
vibrant station area community under implementation of
Alternative 3. However, the
strategies that would increase economic activity along
Azusa Avenue, would not be incorporated under
Alternative 3.
TO -5 Ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District
Objective would be met. Land uses within the Gold
are transit -supportive and provide a mixed-use activity
Line District would continue to be transit -supportive and
node for visitors and the local community.
provide a mixed-use activity node for visitors and the
local community.
TO -6 Establish pedestrian linkages to and from the
Objective would be met. Strategies to support a
future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station to support a
walkable station area would be implemented. However,
walkable station area that functions as a community
traffic calming measures for Azusa Avenue would not
ateway to Downtown Azusa.
be implemented.
65
Economic Development
ED -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations to support
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
future market-driven revitalization and investment.
Project. The same zoning and land use regulations to
support future market -drive revitalization investment
would be implemented as compared to the project.
However, the economic strategies directed toward Azusa
Avenue would not be implemented.
ED -2 Articulate strategies for forming public-private
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
partnerships with business and community stakeholders
Project. No changes would be made to the private
to attract private investment, enhance local equity, and
investment strategies included in the project. However,
promote reinvestment.
economic
strategies directed toward Azusa Avenue would not be
implemented.
ED -3 Provide increased uses, services, and
Objective would be met. The same number of uses,
transportation options to support and benefit the local
services, and transportation options would be provided
community.
to the community, as under the project.
ED -4 Provide a range of supporting benefits for the local
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
community, including a variety of housing, a more
Project. The same range of supporting benefits for the
walkable environment, and community amenities.
local community would be provided as compared to the
project. However, the strategies to create a more
walkable Azusa Avenue would not be implemented.
Sustainability
S-1 Maintain and enhance structures identified as having
Objective would be met. Historic structures would be
historic value to retain and support the existing historic
subject to the same design guidelines as compared to the
character of Azusa.
project.
S-2 Integrate sustainable, healthy living practices to
Objective would be met. The healthy living practices
benefit visitors and the local community through
included under the project and aimed at benefiting
sustainability and healthy community guidelines.
visitors and the local community would be implemented.
Healthy Communities -
HC -1 Provide district -specific development standards
Objective would be met. The district -specific
and design guidelines that enhance architectural quality,
development standards and design guidelines included
improve the overall identity of the Specific Plan area,
under the project would continue to be implemented.
and enrich the quality of life through the built
These guidelines and standards would continue to
environment.
enhance the architectural quality of the specific plan area
and improve the quality of life through the built
environment.
HC -2 Encourage grocery, outdoor dining, and other
Objective would be met. No changes would be made to
healthy food related land uses that are easily accessible
the proposed land uses under Alternative 3. Grocery,
to the community.
outdoor dining, and other healthy food related land uses
would continue to be encouraged under this Alternative.
HC -3 Emphasize streetscape and landscaping
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
enhancements to improve walking, bicycling, and transit
Project. Streetscape and landscape enhancements
use options.
would be encouraged and would result in improved
multi -modal transit options. However, Azusa Avenue
would remain a one-way northbound roadway and thus
pedestrian connectivity (e.g., walkability) would not be
improved to the same extent as under the project. This
objective would be met, but to a lesser extent than the
project.
Crime Prevention
CP -1 Incorporate Crime Prevention Through
Objective would be met. CPTED project strategies
Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies that
would be implemented during buildout of individual
contribute to the safety and vitality of residents and
projects and streetscape and landscape improvements.
visitors of Azusa.
M
Findine: The City Council rejects the San Gabriel Avenue North/South Land Configuration
Alternative (Alternative 3) on the following ground, which individually provides sufficient justification
for rejection of this alternative: Alternative 3 fails to reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts of the proposed Project and results in greater impacts than the proposed Project. Therefore,
Alternative 3 is eliminated from further consideration.
4. San Gabriel Avenue One Northbound and Two Southbound Land
Configuration
Description: The San Gabriel Avenue One Northbound and Two Southbound Lane
Configuration Alternative (Alternative 4) would reconfigure San Gabriel Avenue's existing four
southbound travel lanes to include two southbound vehicle travel lanes and one northbound vehicle
travel lane, a median turn -lane, and parking on both sides of the street. Bicycle lanes would not be
included on San Gabriel Avenue under this Alternative. Similar to Alternative 3, Azusa Avenue would
remain a one-way roadway with two northbound vehicle travel lanes and no changes would be made to
the Specific Plan's proposed land uses, design guidelines, development standards, policies, or goals, and
the implementation of mixed-use and pedestrian -oriented development would still be encouraged
throughout the specific plan area. (EIR, p. 5.0-7.)
Impacts: With three exceptions, Alternative 4 has all similar impacts as the proposed Project.
Alternative 4 will result in greater aesthetics impacts than the Project, and incrementally greater land use
impacts than the Project. In the cumulative condition, Alternative 4 would result in significant impacts
to traffic and circulation. Therefore, Alternative 4 fails to reduce any significant and unavoidable
impacts of the proposed Project, and results in an additional significant impact than the proposed
Project. (EIR, pp. 5.0-54 through -71.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 4 would achieve most of the objectives to the same
extent as the proposed Project.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE FINDING
Transit Oriented Dedelo menl ...._. _ :y au ik i'
TO -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations focused
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
on the TOD opportunities provided by the future Azusa
Project. Land use and zoning regulations would
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
continue to focus on TOD opportunities. However, the
San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue two-way
circulation network, which slow traffic and improve
access to local businesses along Azusa Avenue, would
not be incorporated. Omitting the proposed changes to
Azusa Avenue would restrict growth potential and
economic viability along Azusa Avenue, one of the
Specific Plan's key strategies.
TO -2 Prioritize TOD opportunities presented by City-
Objective would be met. Under Alternative 4, TOD
owned properties adjacent to the future Azusa
opportunities adjacent to the future Gold Line Stations
Downtown and APU/Citrus College Gold Line Stations.
would be prioritized.
67
TO -3 Provide district -specific development standards
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
and design guidelines that support and encourage TOD
Project. The district -specific development standards
and increase safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
and design guidelines included in the project would
access to transit facilities.
continue to be included. However, traffic calming
measures and increased pedestrian safety features of the
Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue improvements
would not occur.
T04 Increase development potential within the Gold
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
Line District to sufficiently support high frequency,
Project. The development potential within the Gold
rapid transit service, and to provide a base for a variety
Line District would sufficiently support rapid transit
of housing, employment, local services, and amenities
service and provide a base for a variety of housing,
that support a vibrant station area community.
employment, local services, and amenities that support a
vibrant station area community under implementation of
Alternative 3. However, the
strategies that would increase economic activity along
Azusa Avenue, would not be incorporated under
Alternative 4.
TO -5 Ensure that land uses within the Gold Line District
Objective would be met. Land uses within the Gold
are transit -supportive and provide a mixed-use activity
Line District would continue to be transit -supportive and
node for visitors and the local community.
provide a mixed-use activity node for visitors and the
local community.
TO -6 Establish pedestrian linkages to and from the
Objective would be met. Strategies to support a
future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station to support a
walkable station area would be implemented. However,
walkable station area that functions as a community
traffic calming measures for Azusa Avenue would not
gateway to Downtown Azusa.
be implemented.
�f,%&vv -s
ED -1 Provide zoning and land use regulations to support
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
future market-driven revitalization and investment.
Project. The same zoning and land use regulations to
support future market -drive revitalization investment
would be implemented as compared to the project.
However, the economic strategies directed toward Azusa
Avenue would not be implemented.
ED -2 Articulate strategies for forming public-private
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
partnerships with business and community stakeholders
Project. No changes would be made to the private
to attract private investment, enhance local equity, and
investment strategies included in the project. However,
promote reinvestment.
economic
strategies directed toward Azusa Avenue would not be
implemented.
ED -3 Provide increased uses, services, and
Objective would be met. The same number of uses,
transportation options to support and benefit the local
services, and transportation options would be provided
community.
to the community, as under the project.
ED -4 Provide a range of supporting benefits for the local
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
community, including a variety of housing, a more
Project. The same range of supporting benefits for the
walkable environment, and community amenities.
local community would be provided as compared to the
project. However, the strategies to create a more
walkable Azusa Avenue would not be implemented.
-Sustainabtlt �4..t t � -' .0>� �' T.HN.
5�.3 ¢: i�x h'u� dc�' •, 'tom 4th�ik u�� - N.i• . .
S-1 Maintain and enhance structures identified as having
Objective would be met. Historic structures would, be
historic value to retain and support the existing historic
subject to the same design guidelines as compared to the
character of Azusa.
project.
S-2 Integrate sustainable, healthy living practices to
Objective would be met. The healthy living practices
benefit visitors and the local community through
included under the project and aimed at benefiting
sustainability and healthy community guidelines.
visitors and the local community would be implemented.
Findine: The City Council rejects the San Gabriel Avenue One Northbound and Two
Southbound Land Configuration (Alternative 4) on the following ground, which individually provides
sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: Alternative 4 fails to reduce the significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed Project and results in greater impacts than the proposed
Project. Therefore, Alternative 4 is eliminated from further consideration.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to
a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in an EIR.
None of the alternatives would eliminate the significant impact associated with the project
(operational air quality). (See EIR Table 5.0-11.) However, the Reduced Residential Growth
Alternative (Alternative 2) would incrementally reduce the significant impact due to a reduction in the
overall population and by invoking the Specific Plan's goals and principles, such as emphasizing mixed-
use and pedestrian- oriented development in and around the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and the
City's downtown area. Additionally, impact areas determined to be less than significant that are driven
by population, including energy, seismic shaking and public services and utilities, including fire, police,
and library services, electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as solid waste and wastewater
generation, and water consumption would be reduced. This would occur by reducing the number of
multi -family units (from 840 units to 560 units), which would reduce the projected population growth
(from 2,915 residents to 1,944 residents) associated with buildout of Alternative 2.
.O
HC -1 Provide district -specific development standards
Objective would be met. The district -specific
and design guidelines that enhance architectural quality,
development standards and design guidelines included
improve the overall identity of the Specific Plan area,
under the project would continue to be implemented.
and enrich the quality of life through the built
These guidelines and standards would continue to
environment.
enhance the architectural quality of the specific plan area
and improve the quality of life through the built
environment.
HC -2 Encourage grocery, outdoor dining, and other
Objective would be met No changes would be made to
healthy food related land uses that are easily accessible
the proposed land uses under Alternative 4. Grocery,
to the community.
outdoor dining, and other healthy food related land uses
would continue to be encouraged under this Alternative.
HC -3 Emphasize streetscape and landscaping
Meets objective to lesser extent than proposed
enhancements to improve walking, bicycling, and transit
Project. Streetscape and landscape enhancements
use options.
would be encouraged and would result in improved
multi -modal transit options. However, Azusa Avenue
would remain a one-way northbound roadway and thus
pedestrian connectivity (e.g., walkability) would not be
improved to the same extent as under the project. This
objective would be met, but to a lesser extent than the
project.
CP -1 Incorporate Crime Prevention Through
Objective would be met. CPTED project strategies
Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies that
would be implemented during buildout of individual
contribute to the safety and vitality of residents and
projects and streetscape and landscape improvements.
visitors of Azusa.
Findine: The City Council rejects the San Gabriel Avenue One Northbound and Two
Southbound Land Configuration (Alternative 4) on the following ground, which individually provides
sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: Alternative 4 fails to reduce the significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed Project and results in greater impacts than the proposed
Project. Therefore, Alternative 4 is eliminated from further consideration.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to
a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in an EIR.
None of the alternatives would eliminate the significant impact associated with the project
(operational air quality). (See EIR Table 5.0-11.) However, the Reduced Residential Growth
Alternative (Alternative 2) would incrementally reduce the significant impact due to a reduction in the
overall population and by invoking the Specific Plan's goals and principles, such as emphasizing mixed-
use and pedestrian- oriented development in and around the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and the
City's downtown area. Additionally, impact areas determined to be less than significant that are driven
by population, including energy, seismic shaking and public services and utilities, including fire, police,
and library services, electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as solid waste and wastewater
generation, and water consumption would be reduced. This would occur by reducing the number of
multi -family units (from 840 units to 560 units), which would reduce the projected population growth
(from 2,915 residents to 1,944 residents) associated with buildout of Alternative 2.
.O
Although the Reduced Residential Growth Alternative would not eliminate the significant impact
associated with buildout of the project (e.g., operational air quality), Alternative 2 is identified as the
environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce the project related
significant impact and result in the least impacts to public services and finite resources of the
alternatives analyzed.
In addition, Alternative 2 would fulfill most of the Specific Plan's objectives, although in some
cases to a lesser extent than compared to the project. Market forces will ultimately dictate the number of
multi- family units, however, the assumptions used to analyze the Specific Plan reflect the analysis
included in the Market Study completed for the project. Should the market dictate the need for fewer
multi -family units, the flexibility in the Specific Plan would accommodate these changes. (EIR, pp. 5.0-
74 and -75.)
SECTION 10: ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the
City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in
determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of
the proposed Project outweigh the proposed Project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those
impacts may be considered "acceptable."
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible
by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the MMR -P, and this Resolution, having
considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the
following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually
outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental
impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
■ The Project will improve walkability, pedestrian access, and bicycling opportunities in
downtown, which will improve the health and quality of life of residents, employees, and
visitors, as well as decrease the area's per capital greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions
from personal vehicle use.
• The Project will provide residents with a greater variety of housing opportunities and variety of
housing types and choices within the City. Greater variety of housing options encourages key
demographics to move to, or stay within, the City — including students, young professionals,
young families, retirees, and seniors.
• The Project will enhance transit options and connectivity to regional job centers in the greater
Los Angeles area to better serve residents.
■ The Project will establish a new community gateway to the City of Azusa, including a welcome
plaza and a community gathering space.
• The Project will create a transit -oriented designation that caters to commuter, resident, student,
and visitor needs in the morning and evening — which will encourage a livelier and safer
environment around the clock.
70
The Project will improve pedestrian safety through street crossings, streetscape improvements,
and landscaping improvements.
The Project will expand the variety of recreation, retail, and services available within the
community — which will both better serve residents, employees, and visitors, and will also
provide a stronger and more stable and diversified economic base for the City.
The Project will encourage the protection and appropriate rehabilitation of historic structures,
through thoughtful reuse of existing and historic buildings.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the
approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental
impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits
separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in
the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 11: ADOPTION OF THE 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."
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies
between the Mitigation Measures set for herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 12: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and
considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed
in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and
that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft
EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of
proceedings.
SECTION 13: CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution
has been based are located at the 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, City of Azusa. The custodian for these
records is the Community Development Department of the City of Azusa. This information is provided
in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
71
SECTION 14: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles and the State
Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 2015.
Vp Romero Rocha
or
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF AZUSA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-056 was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2"d day of November, 2015,
by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CARRILLO, MACIAS, ROCHA
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, ALVAREZ
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Best JAomey t Krieger, LP
City
72
Exhibit "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
73
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 4.0-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Impact ScienteS, Inc 4.0-2 Azusa TOD Specific Pks Fited F.IR
1029.004
September 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
4.1 AESTHETICS
Threshold AES -2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
CR -3: The City shall require that project applicants/developers
Applicant and/or
Periodic
1. City of Azusa
coordinate with a qualified architectural historian to ensure
developer(s)
construction site
Community Development
Standards -compliant projects, including the design of
visits
Department
rehabilitation project, compatibility of new construction
2. City of Azusa
with historic structures, and periodic site visits to monitor
Community Development
construction adjacent to historic structures to ensure that
Department
such activities comply with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standard. Historic professionals shall meet the National
3. During construction
Park Service standards.
4.2 AIR QUALITY
Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3: Construction and/or operation of the project would violate any applicable federal or state air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment for, and/or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
AQ -1: As a condition of approval for development projects within
Applicant and/or
Verification of
1. City of Azusa
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, project applicants/developers
developer(s)
building plans and
Community Development
shall comply with all applicable standards or guidelines
consistency with
Department/Public Works
included in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan The Azusa TOD
Specific Plan
Department
Specific Plan includes standards or guidelines that reduce
2. City of Azusa
energy use and vehicle traffic. These include improvements
Community Development
to streetscapes to encourage pedestrian use, improved
Department/Public Works
bicycle access, a focus on infill and compact development,
Department
promotion of green development guidelines, increased
energy efficiency in buildings, and others. These measures
3. Prior to issuance of
represent the most effective feasible strategies to reduce
grading permits/Ongoing
emissions of air pollutants due to development,
during operation of
individual projects
Impact ScienteS, Inc 4.0-2 Azusa TOD Specific Pks Fited F.IR
1029.004
September 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, tae 4.0-3 Avim TOD Specific PI.. FaM 6lR
1029.0
Septemher 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
Threshold AQ -4: Construction and/or operation of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ -2: Individual projects developed under the Azusa TOD
Applicant and/or
Submittal and
1. City of Azusa
Specific Plan shall be evaluated for potential impacts related
developer(s)
approval of
Community Development
to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant
mitigation measures
Department
concentrations according to the CARB Air Quality and Land
if necessary
2. City of Azusa
Use handbook and the SCAQMD's Rule 1401.
Community Development
Developments found to potentially result in such an
Department
exposure would be required under CEQA to mitigate
impacts to the extent feasible.
3. Prior to issuance of
grading permits
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold CR -l: The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources as defined in §15064.5.
CR -1: Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that may affect
Applicant and/or
Historical property
1. City of Azusa
structures 50 years of age or older, a qualified architectural
developer(s)
assessment by a
Community Development
historian shall conduct an assessment to determine the
qualified
Department
significance of the structure(s) and/or site(s). Project
architectural
2. City of Azusa
applicants/developers shall ensure that, to the maximum
historian
Community Development
extent possible, direct or indirect impacts to any known
Department
'
properties that are deemed eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, the California Register
3. Prior to development
of Historic Resources, or a local designation be avoided
decisions and the issuance
and/or preserved consistent with the Secretary of the
of demolition permits
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Should avoidance and/or preservation nut be a feasible
option, a qualified architectural historian shall develop a
mitigation program that may include, but not be limited to,
formal documentation of the structure using historical
narrative and photographic documentation, facade
preservation, and/or monumentation. Properties are not
equally significant, and some retain more significance than
others. Therefore, prior to development decisions, a
qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate
the circumstance regarding the property and planned
development and to make management decisions regarding
documentation of the property.
Impact Sciences, tae 4.0-3 Avim TOD Specific PI.. FaM 6lR
1029.0
Septemher 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impal Scin¢es, Inc 4.0-4 Azusa TOD Specific Plan Final FIR
1029.004
September 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
CR -2: To ensure that historic buildings are appropriately
Applicant and/or
Submittal and
1. City of Azusa
renovated and maintained, the preservation, rehabilitation,
developer(s)
review of building
Community Development
restoration, reconstruction, or adaptive reuse of known
plans
Department
historic resources shall meet the US Secretary of the
2. City of Azusa
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary's
Community Development
Standards). Any proposal to preserve, rehabilitate, restore,
Department
reconstruct, or adaptively reuse a known historic resource in
accordance with the interior Secretary's Standards shall be
3. Prior to the issuance of
deemed to not be a significant impact under CEQA and, in
building permits
such cases, no additional mitigation measures shall be
required.
CR -3: The City shall require that project applicants/developers
Applicant and/or
Periodic site visits
1. City of Azusa
coordinate with a qualified architectural historian to ensure
developer(s)
during construction
Community Development
Standards -compliant projects-, including the design of
Department
rehabilitation project, compatibility of new construction
2. City of Azusa
with historic structures, and periodic site visits to monitor
Community Development
construction adjacent to historic structures to ensure that
Department
such activities comply with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standard. Historic professionals shall meet the National
3. During construction
Park Service standards.
Thresholds CR -2 and CR -3: The project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological/archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5
CR -4: The Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified
Applicant and/or
Monitoring of
1. City of Azusa
of all grading and ground -disturbing activities associated
developer(s)
ground disturbing
Community Development
with buildout of the Specific Plan, prior to the construction
activities
Department
of any project. An experienced and certified Native
2. Native American
American representative shall be permitted to monitor all
Heritage Commission
proposed projects' ground disturbing activities.
3. Prior to the start of
grading and ground -
disturbing activities
Impal Scin¢es, Inc 4.0-4 Azusa TOD Specific Plan Final FIR
1029.004
September 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and ReportlagPrograin
Mitigation Measure
Party Responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Monitoring
Action
1. Enforcement Agency
2. Monitoring Agency
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
CR -5: If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources is found
Applicant and/or
Monitoring of
1. City of Azusa
during construction activities associated with buildout of
developer(s)
archaeological
Community Development
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, excavation and other
resources
Department
construction activity in that area shall cease and the
City of Azusa
construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa
C
Community Development
Community Development Department. With direction from
Department
the Director of Community Development, an archaeologist
certified by the County of Los Angeles shall be retained to
3. During grading and
evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the
ground disturbing
immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the
activities
archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a
technical report describing the results of the investigation.
The test -level report shall evaluate the site including
discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and
extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations
(which shall be adopted and implemented by the project
applicant/developer), and cost estimates.
CR -6: If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found
Applicant and/or
Monitoring of
1. City of Azusa
during construction activities associated with buildout of
developer(s)
paleontological
Community Development
the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, excavation and other
resources
Department
construction activity in that area shall cease and the
2. City of Azusa
construction contractor shall contact the City of Azusa
Community Development
Community Development Department. With direction from
Department
the Director of Community Development, a paleontologist
certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the
3. During grading and
find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and
ground disturbing
complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation
activities
Program for the salvage and curation of identified
resources. The Paleontological Resources Mitigation
Program shall be adopted and implemented by the project
applicant/developer.
Impncl Sciences, lne 4.0-5 Amsn TOD Spenjlc Plnn Finnt EIR
1029.004
Sepleni6rr 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
impact Srler¢es, Inc. 4.0-6 Azum'COD Specific Plmn final EIR
1029.001
September 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mi ti aHon
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
status
4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold GEO-1 i and ii: The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture
and/or strong seismic ground shaking.
GEO.1: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for a proposed
Applicant and/or
Submittal and
1. City of Azusa Building
development located within the specific plan area and
developer(s)
review of building
Division
within the Alquist-Priulu Earthquake Fault Zone, the City
plans
2. City of Azusa Building
Engineer and/or City Building Official shall ensure that the
Division
Grading and Building Plans demonstrate compliance with
Public Resources Code 2621, and specifically the required 50
3. Prior to the issuance of
foot building setback from the Duarte Fault trace as
building permits
specified under Public Resources Code 2621.7 (3A), and all
other applicable requirements included in the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold HAZ-1: The project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposa I of hazardous materials.
HAZ-1: Should any dry cleaning facility be located adjacent to a
Applicant and/or
Prior to issuance of
1. City of Azusa
sensitive use all hazardous operations must be done off-site
developer(s)
business license
Community Development
to limit the amount and disposal of hazardous materials.
Department
2. City of Azusa
Community Development
Department
3. During operation of the
project
Thresholds HAZ-2 and HAZ-4: The project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment and/or be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§65962.5, and as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
HAZ-2: To ensure all prior use of a future development site is
Applicant and/or
Review of Phase 1
1. City of Azusa
disclosed, including the likelihood that residual hazardous
developer(s)
Environmental Site
Community Development
materials and/or wastes are present, the City shall determine
Assessment.
Department
whether specific project sites are listed on government lists
2. City of Azusa
of hazardous materials and/or waste sites compiled
Community Development
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The City
Department
shall require preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) for any listed sites or sites with the
3. Prior to the issuance of
potential for residual hazardous materials and/or waste as a
building permits
result of location and/or prior uses. The City shall require
that recommendations of the Phase I FSA be fully
impact Srler¢es, Inc. 4.0-6 Azum'COD Specific Plmn final EIR
1029.001
September 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impart Sciences, Inc. 4.0-7 Aznsn'F01) Specific Plan Final EIR
1029.00#
' September2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
implemented. If a Phase I ESA indicates the presence or
likely presence of contamination, the implementing agency
-'
should require a Phase Il ESA, and recommendations of the
Phase If ESA should be fully implemented. If cleanup is
required, a Phase III remediation shall be prepared in
concert with the appropriate Lead Agency.
Threshold HAZ-7: The project would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
HAZ-3: Prior to construction of the future development projects, the
Applicant and/or
Submittal and
1. City Traffic Engineer
project applicant/developer shall prepare a Traffic Control
developer(s)
approval of a Traffic
2. City Traffic Engineer
Plan for implementation during the construction phase, as
Control Plan
deemed necessary by the City" Traffic Engineer. The
3. Prior to issuance of
following provisions shall he included:
demolition, grading and/or
• One unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both
building permits
directions on surrounding roadways.
• At any time only a single lane is available, the project
applicant/developer shall provide a temporary traffic
signal, signal carriers (i.e., flag persons), or other
appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both
directions. If construction activities require the
complete closure of a roadway segment, the project
applicant/developer shall provide appropriate signage
indicating detours/alternative routes and the haul truck
route.
• Temporary closures and alternative travel routes shall
-
be disclosed to all agencies which provide emergency
services (e.g., Azusa Police Department and Los
Angeles County Fire Department) in the City,
• When construction of future projects would result in
temporary lane or roadway closures, no more than one
roadway closure shall be permitted within 0.5 mile of
each concurrent development project to ensure
adequate access for emergency vehicles.
Impart Sciences, Inc. 4.0-7 Aznsn'F01) Specific Plan Final EIR
1029.00#
' September2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograrn
Imlzact Sciences. bar. 4.0-8 Av1m FOIJ Sperific plan Final EIR
1029'009 September 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
4.10 NOISE
Threshold NOISE -1: The project would expose people or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or noise ordinance.
NOISE -1: Individual development projects under the Azusa TOD
Applicant and/or
Evaluate
1. City of Azusa
Specific Plan shall be evaluated for sensitive receptors exposure to
developer(s)
surrounding area for
Community Development
potential related noise impacts according to the City's noise
sensitive receptors
Department
thresholds. If it is determined that operation of a project has the
exposure for
2. City of Azusa
potential to result in a noise increase above 60 dB(A), a project -specific
potential related
Community Development
acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
noise impacts.
Department
consultant. If necessary, the projects' design shall be refined to
Preparation of an
determine specific improvements (e.g., Sound Transmission Class
acoustical analysis if
3. Prior to the issuance of
ratings, exterior wall construction, treatment of fagade openings) to
the project is
building permits
reduce interior noise levels to meet the requirement of an Ldn of 60
adjacent to or
dB(A) CNEL or less for low density residential properties, 65 dB(A) or
consists of sensitive
less for multi -family properties, and 70 dli(A) or less for schools and
receptors
libraries, as required by the City and the state Building Code
particularly for properties along Foothill Boulevard, San Gabriel
Avenue, Azusa Avenue, and the BNSF Railway. The results of the
analysis and recommended ratings for windows and doors shall be
submitted to the City Building Official for approval and approved
prior to issuance of building permits. The approved windows and
doors, and forced air mechanical ventilation shall be incorporated
where windows must remain closed in order to achieve the interior
noise criteria.
Threshold NOISE -2: The project would expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
NOISE -2: For construction that occurs within 50 feet of buildings more
Applicant and/or
Periodic site visits
1. City of Azusa
than 50 years old project applicants shall be responsible for
developer(s0
Community Development
monitoring the designated buildings for damage. In the event that the
Department
monitored properties are damaged, the project applicant/developer
2. City of Azusa
shall be responsible for the cost of any building repairs.
Community Development
Department
3. During construction
Imlzact Sciences. bar. 4.0-8 Av1m FOIJ Sperific plan Final EIR
1029'009 September 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Party Responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Monitoring
Action
1. Enforcement Agency
2. Monitoring Agency
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
NOISE -3: The City shall require construction contractors to notify all
Construction contractors
All residents within
1. City of Azusa
residential units located within 1,600 feet of any construction site of
1,600 feet shall be
Community Development
the construction schedule All notices shall indicate the dates and
notified of the
Department
duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone
proposed project's
2 City of Azusa
number where residents can inquire about the construction process
construction
Community Development
and register complaints.
schedule.
Department
3. Prior to construction
activities (including
grading, demolition and
ronstruc[ion)
Thresholds NOISE -3 and NOISE41: The project would result in a substantial permanent increase and/or a substantial temporary or periodic increase ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels without the project.
laFmct Sciences, Inc 4.0-9 Azusa TOD Specific Plan Final EIR
1029.004
SeptweFer 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Party Responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Monitoring
Action
1. Enforcement Agency
2. Monitoring Agency
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
NOISE -4: The City shall require individual development projects to
Applicant and/or
Submittal and
1. City of Azusa
adhere to the following construction specifications. The
developer(s)
approval of
Community Development
specifications shall be included in the plan submittals to the
construction
Department
City for review and approval during the plan check stage:
specifications
2. City of Azusa
• During construction, mufflers shall be provided for all
Community Development
heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise
Department
sources in accordance with the manufacturers'
3. During construction
recommendations,
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines
shall be limited to five minutes or less.
• Stationary noise sources and staging areas shall be
located as far as is feasible from existing residences and
schools, and other sensitive receptors (e.g., the Senior
Center and City Library) or contractors shall be
required to provide additional noise -reducing engine
enclosures (with the goal of achieving approximately
10 dB(A) of reduction compared to uncontrolled
engines). Locating stationary noise sources near
existing roadways away from adjacent properties is
recommended (i.e., at the southwest comer of the
project site).
• Air compressors and pneumatic equipment shall be
equipped with mufflers, and impact tools shall be
equipped with shrouds or shields.
• If for construction purposes, locating stationary
construction equipment near existing residential uses is
required, an 8 feet tall sound -rated fence should be
erected between the equipment and the sensitive
receptors. The fence should be located as close to the
equipment as is feasible.
• A "construction liaison" shall be designated to ensure
coordination between construction staff and neighbors
to minimize disruptions due to construction noise.
Occupants and property owners of residences within
400 feet of construction activity shall be notified in
writing of the construction schedule and the contact
information for the construction liaison.
lmpart Sciences, Inc. 4.0-10 Azusa IOD Specific Plan Final EB
1029.004
Sepferober 20U
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-11 Azusa 1 OD Specific Pins Final F.IR
1029.004
September 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
• A qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained as
needed to address neighbor complaints as they occur.
If complaints occur, noise measurements could be
conducted to determine if construction noise levels at
adjacent property lines are within the standards. Short-
term or long-term construction noise monitoring could
also be utilized to diagnose complaints and determine
if additional mitigation is required for certain phases of
construction.
NOISE -5: Prior to operation of a project, mechanical equipment shall
Applicant and/or
Compliance with
1. City of Azusa
be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to
developer(s)
the City's Noise
Community Development
meet the City's Noise Ordinance requirements. A qualified acoustical
Ordinance
Department
consultant shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these
2. City of Azusa
systems (e.g., HVAC) are developed to determine specific noise
Community Development
reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the
Department
City's Noise Ordinance.
3. Prior issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
4.12.1 FIRE SERVICES
Threshold FIRE -1: The project would result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services, including fire protection services.
FIRE -1: Development projects shall incorporate fire protection
Applicant and/or
Incorporation of fire
1. City of Azusa
improvements, including access requirements and modernization of
developer(s)
protection
Community Development
existing equipment/systems, as required by the LACoFD prior to
improvements prior
Department and LACoFD
preparation of final project design plans. The plans shall be submitted
to the submittal and
2 City of Azusa
to the LACoFD prior to issuance of building permit for review and
approval of final
Community Development
approval.
project design plans
Department LACoFD
3. Prior to issuance of
building permit
4.12.2 POLICE SERVICES -
Threshold POLICE -1: The project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including police services
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-11 Azusa 1 OD Specific Pins Final F.IR
1029.004
September 2015
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impart Sciences, Inc. 4.0-12 Azusa'FOD Specific plan Final EIR
1029.009
Srplembrr 2015
Party Responsible for
1. Enforcement Agency
Implementing
Monitoring
2. Monitoring Agency
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Action
3. Monitoring Phase
Status
POLICE -1: Project applicants/development shall consult with
Applicant and/or
Incorporation of
1. City of Azusa
the Azusa Police Department regarding crime prevention features
developer(s)
crime prevention
Community Development
appropriate for the design of the project and subsequently, shall
features
Department and Azusa
submit plans for review and comment. The plans shall incorporate
improvements prior
Police Department
design guidelines relative to security and semipublic and private
to the submittal and
2 City of Azusa
spaces which may include, but not be limited to, access control to
approval of final
Community Development
buildings, secured parking facilities, wall/fences with key systems,
project design plans
Department and Azusa
well -illuminated public and semi-public and private spaces, which
Police Department
may include access control to buildings, secured parking facilities,
walls/fenms with key systems, well —illuminated public space
3. Prior to issuance of
designed with a minimum of dead space to eliminate areas of
building permit
concealment, location of toilet facilities or building entrances in high
foot traffic areas, and provisions of security guard patrol if need.
These measures shall be approved by the Police Department prior to
the issuance of building permits. New construction within the specific
plan area shall be designed to provide for safety measures (e.g., alarm
systems, security lighting, other on-site security measures, and crime
prevention through environmental design policies) and subject to the
review and approval of the City Planning Department and Azusa
Police Department.
4.13 RECREATION
Threshold REC-2: The project would include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1, NOISE -1, and NOISE -3. (See above for Responsible Party, Enforcement Agency, etc.)
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Threshold TR -1: The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
TR -1: Installation of Traffic Signal at Dalton Avenue and Foothill
City of Azusa Department
Monitoring of traffic
1. City of Azusa
Boulevard. The City's Public Works Director shall regularly monitor of
of Public Works
conditions and
Department of Public
traffic conditions and review of accident data for Dalton Avenue and
review of accident
Works
Foothill Boulevard. In addition, the Public Works Department shall
data for Dalton
2. City of Azusa
work with the Community Development Department to monitor each
Avenue and Foothill
Department of Public
development proposal within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan area to
Boulevard
Works
determine when the traffic signal installation at Dalton Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard would be warranted.
3. Ongoing
Impart Sciences, Inc. 4.0-12 Azusa'FOD Specific plan Final EIR
1029.009
Srplembrr 2015