HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-4 Resolution Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan CEQA
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
MONROVIA NURSERY SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND APPROVING
THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan and Project (the "Project") proposes
the development of 489 acres to include a maximum number of 1,575 dwelling units, 50,000 square
feet of commercial uses, parks, open space and a school; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and the City of
Azusa's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Azusa (the "City") is the lead agency for the Project, as
the public agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on July
11, 2002 and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -2-
as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the
responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, approximately 37 written statements were received by the City in
response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2002 to familiarize the
public with the Project and the environmental review process and receive input as to the scope of the
Draft EIR and issues of community concern; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on or about
October 3, 2002 and the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of
Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also provided
a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously
requested such notice and published the Notice of Completion on or about October 4, 2002 in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Pursuant to City of Azusa Local CEQA
Guidelines, the Notice of Completion was mailed to all residents and property owners within 500
feet of the Project. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to interested public agencies,
organizations and individuals. Notice was also sent to approximately 650 interested members of the
public who participated in the Citizens' Congress regarding the Monrovia Nursery. In addition, the
City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City of Azusa Planning Department counter and the public
library, posted the Draft EIR on the City's Internet website and made free copies available to the
public; and
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -3-
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently
analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City
received approximately 24 written comments, and after the close of the comment period but before
the production of the Final EIR, the City received 5 additional written comments, and the City
responded to all of these comments (including the 5 untimely comments) in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided
written responses to comments to all commenting agencies within the statutory time frame; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final EIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, at its regularly scheduled public
meetings on January 21, 2003 reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth
the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so
that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately
evaluated; and
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -4-
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these
effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to
this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based
solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds
are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant,
despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth
herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the
Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -5-
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: FINDINGS.
At a regular session assembled on January 21, 2003, the City Council determined that,
based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the Final EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public,
organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the
Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and
each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified
mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed Project; or (3) significant and 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.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -6-
SECTION 2: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION.
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of
the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
1. Land Use and Planning
Physical Division of a Community: The proposed Project will not extend beyond
the nursery boundaries into other established communities. Therefore, no division of established
communities will occur outside of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-7.) In addition, the proposed
Project will be built around five (5) existing single-family residences located along Sierra Madre
Avenue. The proposed Project will not introduce an element that would divide these residences from
each other. Further, a new private driveway will link these residences to the realigned Sierra Madre
Avenue. As a result, no division of this community will occur and no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted to Avoid or
Mitigate Environmental Impacts: The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan for development
of the Project site. The Specific Plan was developed with substantial participation by the City of
Azusa on a parallel track with the City's current General Plan update. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15.) The
City's participation in the development of the Specific Plan has ensured that the proposed Project was
designed to reflect the current thinking and philosophy of the General Plan Update as it is
progressing. Adoption of the Specific Plan and amendment of the General Plan would make the
proposed Project consistent with the City of Azusa's General Plan and would reduce any potential
inconsistency impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) Therefore, no additional
mitigation is necessary for consistency with the General Plan.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -7-
In addition, the proposed Project will require a change of the City's zoning for the
subject property, from the existing zoning of RA, RA-20,000, RA-12,500 and A-1-2 to Specific Plan
(SP-5). As part of the General Plan amendment, the City will approve the zone change, which will
reduce any potential inconsistency with zoning requirements to less than significant. (Ibid.)
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
The Project contains three (3) Specific Plan Districts which include the Promenade
District, Park Neighborhoods and the Village Core. The western portion of the Promenade District
(the "District")will be located east of the existing Dalton Elementary School. However, the
development proposed for this area of the District will be similar to existing development that
surrounds the school. Therefore, no land use conflicts will result in this area of the District. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-8.)
The District also includes a rail line owned by the Blue Line Construction Authority.
However, the proposed Project has been designed to minimize land use conflicts with the rail line.
(Ibid.) A vegetated detention basin and the extension of Ninth Street create a buffer which helps
shield and separate the proposed development from the rail line and minimize land use conflicts.
(Ibid.) Additionally, noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to minimize
noise impacts of the proposed Project. Therefore the rail line will not cause a significant land use
conflict. (Ibid.) Safety fences will be required around basins.
The northern portion of the District will be directly south of the southern portion of
the Dhammakaya International Meditation Center (the "Meditation Center"). (Ibid.) To buffer the
Meditation Center from the proposed Project, the extension of Palm Drive has been relocated west of
the Vosburg House to maintain the existing gardens; a local road has been planned to border the
Meditation Center to the south; and the area southeast of the Meditation Center may be used for a
water detention facility or basin. Due to the buffers that have been incorporated into the Project's
design features, the proposed residential uses in the District will not conflict with existing or planned
used of the Meditation Center and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. (Ibid .)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -8-
A light rail transit center is proposed at the southeastern corner of the District.
Existing nursery land is located directly to the east of the tracks and no development plans are
proposed for this area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9.) In addition, townhomes are located immediately south
of the tracks. The proposed residential uses, a light rail transit station and minimal transit-oriented
commercial uses are consistent with land uses currently surrounding the existing townhomes. (Ibid.)
As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. The development in the remainder of the
district will be consistent with surrounding land uses and no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated. (Ibid.) Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
Regarding the Park Neighborhoods District (the "Neighborhoods"), the proposed
development will abut the Lakeview Terrace Condominiums. However, the proposed development
will be of less or similar densities as those found in this condominium complex. Therefore no
significant adverse land use conflicts are anticipated. (Ibid.) The proposed development in the
Neighborhoods will also abut the Meditation Center. However, the Meditation Center's Conditional
Use Permit contains conditions designed to ensure compatibility between the Meditation Center and
surrounding land uses. (Ibid.) These conditions and the nature of the Meditation Center make it
compatible with surrounding residential development. In addition, a permanent easement will be
dedicated by the Project applicant for access to the site. Therefore, no significant adverse land use
conflicts are anticipated. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Neighborhoods will be directly adjacent to the historic Fairmount
Cemetery. Due to the existing chainlink fencing and landscape screening surrounding the cemetery,
the proposed additional housing and commercial uses are not anticipated to create any significant
adverse impacts to the cemetery. (Ibid.)
The Neighborhoods will be adjacent to lower density residential uses to the east in
Glendora. However, certain features of the proposed Project will mitigate any potential impacts to
these existing residential uses. (Ibid.) These features include a one-acre detention basin west of the
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -9-
existing Glendora homes that will have a secondary use as a park and create a one-acre buffer. In
addition, a landscaped berm will separate existing residences from the buffer and the proposed
residences will be located approximately 25 feet higher than the buffer, separated by a landscaped
slope. (Ibid.) These planned design features will mitigate any potential land use conflicts with
existing Glendora residences to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) The development of the
remainder of the Neighborhoods will be consistent with surrounding land uses and no significant
adverse impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.) Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
Regarding the Village Core District (the "Village Core"), this area is located in the
middle of the Project site, in an area of current nursery operations. (Ibid.) Because no existing land
uses surround the Village Core, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Development of the
Village Core will not create any significant adverse impacts. (Ibid.) Therefore, no mitigation is
necessary.
Consistency with Regional Plan: The proposed Project is also consistent with
policies contained in the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan regarding growth management,
regional transportation, air quality, open space and water quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 - 4.6-15.)
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary to make the proposed consistent with SCAG policies.
Consistency with HCPs and NCCPs: No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural
Communities Conservation Plans apply to the Project site. Therefore, the Project does not conflict
with any applicable HCP or NCCP.
2. Population, Housing, Employment
Population Growth: The proposed Project will not induce substantial population
growth. The Project will develop 1,575 dwelling units on the Project Site. Based on the current
average household size in the City of 3.495 persons, the proposed Project may potentially generate
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -10-
up to 5,505 new residents. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-2.) However, SCAG projections indicate that
employment growth will outpace housing growth in the City of Azusa and in the subregion of the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. Therefore, both the City and the subregion will have
less housing than jobs. By providing additional housing, the Project will accommodate this
anticipated growth, resulting in a beneficial impact to the subregion and the City in terms of
balancing housing and employment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-4.) Moreover, the proposed Project will be
consistent with basic policies of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide which calls for
focusing growth within already developed urban areas through infill development, developing at
higher densities along major transit and transportation corridors, and providing on-site support
commercial and public uses to serve new residents. Focusing growth within these parameters will
help reduce urban sprawl and its consequences of impaired vehicular mobility and increased air
pollution in the region. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project will not have a significant impact related to
substantial population growth.
Displacement of Housing or People: The Project will not displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or substantial numbers of people. The only occupied residence on the
Project site is in the process of being voluntarily vacated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-3.) Because the
Project will eliminate only one residence, it will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing
or people and it will not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the
Project will not have a significant impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of
existing housing or people.
Employment: The proposed development will relocate operations at the Monrovia
Nursery Company's (the "Company") Azusa facility to other Company facilities throughout the
nation. This change will displace an average of 500 local jobs. However, the Company has offered
to relocate any of its employees at the Azusa facility to one of its other facilities. (Ibid.) In addition,
the Company has prepared a Separation Plan that provides job training for other employment,
English as a Second Language ("ESL") classes and on-site visits by employment agencies. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.12-4 - 4.12-5.) The Company has also presented a generous financial compensation
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -11-
package to employees who leave the Company. Less than significant impacts will result with
implementation of the Company's Separation Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-5.) In addition, 153
commercial employment opportunities will be created as a result of proposed Project.
Administrative and teaching positions at the proposed school will also provide employment
opportunities. The employment generated by the proposed Project will not exceed SCAG growth
forecasts for the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12.4.) Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated related to employment and no mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts: Even when the Project is viewed in combination with
cumulative projects, no significant adverse cumulative impacts on population, housing, or
employment will result due to the fact that housing growth is consistent with SCAG's regional
projections and the proposed projects will cause very little displacement of housing, people, or jobs.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) Therefore, no mitigation of any potential cumulative impacts is necessary.
3. Public Services - Public Schools
The proposed school on the Project site is based on a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") that was made between the applicant and the Azusa Unified School District ("AUSD").
The Project proposes a 9.0-acre public school site, with a 5.5-acre joint-use park area to meet the
school facility needs of students within the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11.) The MOU was prepared
for the previous proposed development for the Project site, known as the Rosedale Specific Plan.
That plan called for "1,800 homes, of which approximately 1,311 shall be single family detached
residences and approximately 497 shall be single family attached residences." (Ibid .) Because the
proposed Project has substantially less than 1,808 homes, the 1,200 student generation assumption is
conservative. AUSD administration has indicated that the proposed school should be adequate to
satisfy requirements for school classroom and recreation facilities, plus ancillary uses. No significant
adverse impacts will occur. (Ibid.) Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -12-
Additionally, no cumulative adverse impacts on public schools are anticipated from
the proposed Project. The proposed Project, combined with other identified projects, will contribute
a cumulative total of 2,015 new students. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.) The new school developed as part of
the Project will not only serve the residents of the proposed Project, but could potentially serve other
schools currently operating above capacity. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project will not have a potential
significant cumulative impact on school services and no additional mitigation is necessary.
4. Public Services - Parks and Recreation
The proposed Project will not increase the use of existing parks or recreational
facilities to the point that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities would occur or be
accelerated. Likewise, the Project will include recreational facilities, but the construction of those
facilities will not have an adverse physical impact on the environment. The proposed Project
provides varying sizes and types of parkland. Based on the Quimby Act's requirement of three acres
of parkland per 1,000 residents, a total of 16.5 acres of parkland is required for the proposed Project.
(Ibid.) In accordance with the City’s planning standard of 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,
a total of 19.3 acres of parkland is required. The Project provides 31.0 acres of park and recreation
amenities not including the proposed 9.0 acre public school and play fields. meeting both the
Quimby Act requirements and the City’s Master Plan of Local Parks planning standard. (Ibid.)
Parks are largely neighborhood uses, so the residents added by the Project will use the local parks
within the Project area. Because there are so many parks included within the Project to serve
demand generated by the Project, the Project will not cause the deterioration of already existing parks
or recreational facilities. Moreover, the parks constructed as part of the Project will require minimal
improvements, and the necessary construction will not cause a substantial physical impact on the
environment. No significant adverse impacts on parklands would occur and no mitigation is
required. (Ibid.)
Regarding potential cumulative impacts to parklands, because the proposed Project
includes parkland and open space within the Project site, Project residents will not be expected to
regularly travel an extra distance to use a neighborhood park. No significant cumulative impacts will
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -13-
occur with respect to the deterioration of existing public parks. (Ibid.) Nor will the parks
constructed as part of the Project contribute to a substantial physical impact on the environment.
Therefore, no mitigation of potential cumulative impacts to parklands is required.
5. Public Services - Other Public Services
Future residents of the proposed Project, together with other related projects, may
occasionally utilize a variety of other public services such as the City library and the Senior Citizens’
Center. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12.) However, the Project will not require the construction or remodeling
of existing public facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. As a result, a less than
significant adverse impact on other public facilities is predicted. (Ibid.)
6. Public Services - Library Services
Estimated population growth from the proposed development (5,505 individuals)
along with the existing demand for library services could result in an additional burden on the Azusa
City Library, which is already at capacity. (Ibid.) The City has addressed the need to expand and
modernize the library as part of the General Plan update process. An approximately 65,000 square
foot, two-story library building is proposed within the Civic Center in the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) An
application for State funding assistance for the new library was submitted earlier in 2002 and is
pending approval. That Project is anticipated to begin by mid-year 2003 and be completed in early
2005 if State funding is approved. (Ibid.) A fiscal impact analysis prepared by the City will assess
the impact of the projected fair-share fee payment. Fair-share impact fees would offset any Project-
related potential significant adverse impacts to libraries to a less than significant level. (Ibid .)
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -14-
Regarding potential cumulative impacts to library services, in the event that funding
for the new City library is not approved, the potential for a significant cumulative adverse impact on
the current library and the Glendora library facilities exists. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) However, payment
of impact fees would offset any potential significant adverse cumulative impacts to libraries, as well
as other public facilities such as the Azusa Senior Center. (Ibid.) Therefore, no mitigation of
potential cumulative impacts to libraries and other public services is required.
7. Agricultural Resources
The Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance ("Farmland"), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use, nor will the
Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their nature or location, will
result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. A review of the most recent California
Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map (2002) determined that
the Project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17.) Thus, implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on Farmland.
Moreover, the proposed Project will not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract. The Project calls for a zone change to Specific Plan (SP-5) that will render
the proposed Project elements consistent with the City of Azusa zoning code. (Ibid .) Neither the
Project site nor its adjacent lands is included under any Williamson Act contract. (Ibid.) Therefore,
the Project will have no impact on agricultural resources and no mitigation is required.
8. Utilities and Service Systems - Electricity, Natural Gas, Sewage Collection
Electricity: The City of Azusa has indicated that the Azusa Light and Water
Department’s existing sub-station located off Angeleno has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -15-
development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-6.) New underground distribution lines will be constructed from
the substation to the Project site, which is approximately 3,400 feet. (Ibid.) In addition, the primary
Edison line on-site is located along the north side of Sierra Madre Avenue and extends the entire east
to west length of the Project site. During the proposed rerouting of Sierra Madre Avenue, this feeder
line will be placed underground. Since this line is active, it will be maintained during construction
and will not be removed until the underground system is installed and activated in Sierra Madre
Avenue. Edison also maintains an overhead system north of the railroad tracks that extends along
the western Glendora boundary. This system currently serves the Dhammakaya and existing off-site
homes. Depending on proposed grade changes in this area, this line will be temporarily rerouted, if
required. (Ibid.) No significant impacts to electric service are anticipated for the proposed Project
and no mitigation is necessary.
Natural Gas: At buildout, the Project will consume, on average, 104,973 therms of
natural gas annually. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-7.) According to the Southern California Gas Company,
natural gas can be supplied to the Project site without substantially impacting the existing supplies or
infrastructure. The existing two- and three-inch mains will be adequate to handle increased demand.
(Ibid.) In addition, the developer will extend existing mains and construct new lines in compliance
with the Gas Company’s existing requirements and regulations, and will pay all required hookup
fees. Therefore, Project impacts to natural gas service will be less than significant and no mitigation
is necessary. (Ibid.)
Sewage Collection and Treatment: The Project will not require or result in the
construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects. Likewise, the additional demand generated by the Project
will not render the capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities inadequate. Finally, the Project
will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The City’s Sewer Master Plan assumed development of 520 acres of the Project site,
resulting in a total average generation of 717,360 gallons per day ("gpd") of wastewater. (Ibid.) The
actual proposed development of the Project site includes development on approximately 300 acres
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -16-
(with 220 acres dedicated as open space). Applying similar generation factors used in the Sewer
Master Plan to the proposed development plan results in a total average generation of 435,660 gpd of
wastewater (Ibid.), which is more than 281,000 gpd less than anticipated in the Sewer Master Plan.
The wastewater generated from the proposed development of the Project site is approximately 40
percent less than the amount assumed in the City’s Sewer Master Plan. (Ibid.) The San Jose Creek
Water Reclamation Plant ("WRP") has a design capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an
average flow of 88.7 mgd. (Ibid.) The addition of about 0.5 mgd from the development of the
Project site will increase the average flow to the WRP to 89.2 mgd, which is still below the design
capacity of the facility. (Ibid.) Thus, the Project will not result in the construction or expansion of a
new wastewater treatment plant, nor will it the additional demand generated by the Project tax the
capacity of the WRP.
According to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the 12-inch trunk sewer
located in Base Line Road at Alameda Avenue has a design capacity of 2.7 million gallons per day
("mgd") and currently conveys no more than 0.4 mgd. (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will
add 435,660 gpd or about 0.5 mgd to this trunk sewer. Since the addition of 0.5 mgd to the existing
0.4 mgd is less than the design capacity of 2.7 mgd, this trunk sewer has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the development of the Project site. (Ibid.)
The Sewer Master Plan identified needed improvements to the City’s sewer system in
Ninth Street to Soldano Avenue and in Foothill Boulevard to Pasadena Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-
9.) The Master Plan also indicates that the City completed ultimate improvements to the sewer line
in Soldano Avenue and Tenth Street. (Ibid.) Because the majority of the wastewater from the
proposed development will flow to the Ninth Street connection, the proposed development will
likely trigger the need to upsize portions of the downstream sewer facilities. As a result, the Project
site will contribute its fair share toward completing the ultimate improvements identified in the
City’s Sewer Master Plan. (Ibid.) These facilities will be constructed in the existing right-of-way
and the construction will not cause any significant environmental impacts.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -17-
Finally, it is assumed that it is a feature of the Project to comply with all applicable
requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the Project will
not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements imposed by the Regional Board. In summary,
then, the proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the local sewer
system. (Ibid.) No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts: With regard to cumulative impacts, the existing infrastructure
for natural gas, electricity, and wastewater and sanitary sewers is either sufficient to handle projected
increases resulting from the cumulative projects or is readily expandable so that such increases
would cause minimal impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) The proposed Project will require the
construction of service system facilities, and each project on the cumulative project list would be
responsible for designing and constructing adequate facilities to serve its needs. (Ibid.) Such
construction would proceed in compliance with applicable City, County and State standards. (Ibid.)
Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated for electric service, natural gas service and sewage
collection and treatment and no mitigation is required.
SECTION 3: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the
Draft EIR which will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the
mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less then significant level are as follows:
9. Air Quality - Operational Emissions
1. Potential Significant Impacts: Wood-burning fireplaces and furnaces are residential
sources of pollutant particulates ("PM10"). Under the proposed Project, if 25% of the proposed
residences (394 homes) operated wood-burning fireplaces, such operation would generate 46 pounds
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -18-
of PM10 per hour. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-15.) This amount would exceed the significance threshold of
150 pounds of PM10 per day set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD").
Thus, the potential for a significant adverse impact exists. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts to
air quality during operation of the proposed Project to a less than significant level:
AQ2 Residential builders shall install gas-burning devices, such as fireplaces,
instead of wood-burning devices. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.)
3. Supporting Explanation: The mitigation measure addresses the Project's one
potentially significant impact on operational air quality because it requires the use of cleaner burning
fuel. Implementation of mitigation measure AQ2 will ensure that the Project's operational phase
does not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for PM10. Therefore, the implementation of
this mitigation measure reduces the Project's potential air quality impacts to less than significant.
None of the Project's other operational air quality impacts are potentially significant.
Thus, with the implementation of mitigation measure AQ2, and using the significance criteria
established by South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Project will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is in non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
Air quality impacts for the operational phase of the proposed Project were estimated
using trip generation statistics, average trip length statistics, and the California Air Resources Board
emission factors. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-11.) Onsite pollution generation due to the existing Monrovia
Nursery Company operation was analyzed using the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook guidelines. These
existing emissions levels were subtracted from the baseline level because the existing uses will be
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -19-
eliminated upon development of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) In other words, to model the Project's
operational impacts on air quality, the emissions of the existing nursery were subtracted from the
existing air quality conditions because the Project will replace the nursery. Operational emissions
will not exceed any SCAQMD significance thresholds. (Ibid.)
The carbon monoxide ("CO") concentration analysis for year 2010 Project conditions
at specified study intersections showed that one-hour CO concentrations would range from
approximately 3.0 parts per million ("ppm") to 3.7 ppm. Eight-hour CO concentrations would be
approximately 3.0 ppm with the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-12.) Under Project conditions, the State
one- and eight-hour standards of 20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively, would not be exceeded at any
of the study intersections. Therefore, a less than significant adverse impact related to CO
concentrations is anticipated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Because CO concentrations decrease
rapidly in open air, CO concentrations at sensitive receptor locations are expected to be much lower
than at study intersections. Thus, no significant adverse increase in CO concentrations at sensitive
receptor locations is expected and no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of Project
operations. (Ibid.)
In addition, the nitrogen oxide ("NOx") analysis for year 2010 Project conditions
showed that one-hour NOx concentrations at study intersections would range from approximately
0.07 ppm to 0.15 ppm, which is well below the State one-hour standard of 0.25 ppm. (Ibid.)
Therefore, a less than significant impact related to NOx concentrations is anticipated at the study
intersections. (Ibid.) Like CO, NOx is a gas that disperses quickly. Thus, NOx concentrations at
sensitive receptor locations are expected to be much lower than at study intersections. No significant
adverse impacts would occur regarding NOx concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. (Ibid .)
Furthermore, the analysis in the Draft EIR shows that the proposed Project will be
consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-12 - 4.2-15.)
Specifically, the CO analysis indicates that the proposed Project will not exceed or exacerbate
existing violations of California Ambient Air Quality standards ("CAAQs") regarding CO. (Draft
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -20-
EIR, p. 4.2-13.) Thus the proposed Project will comply with the AQMP’s Consistency Criterion No.
1, which states: "The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment
of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP." (Draft EIR, p.
4.2-12.)
In addition, the proposed Project complies with Consistency Criterion No. 2, which
states: "The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments
based on the year of project build-out phase." (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-15.) The AQMD establishes an
"emissions budget" for the South Coast Air Basin, which includes existing conditions, planned
growth based on General Plans for cities within the SCAG region and air quality control measures
implemented by the AQMD. (Ibid.) A comparison of the net emissions for the proposed Project
with the "emissions budget" shows that the proposed Project will not exceed the emissions budget.
(Ibid.)
The Project involves the construction of residential housing and commercial space.
Due to its nature, there is no evidence that the Project will create objectionable odors that will affect
a substantial number of people.
Regarding cumulative impacts, a cumulative emissions threshold was calculated and
daily operations emissions for related projects, as well as the proposed Project, were analyzed in
accordance with SCAQMD criteria. The analysis showed that none of the cumulative emissions
would exceed the cumulative emissions threshold. Regarding objectionable odors, as indicated
above, there is no evidence that the Project will have any impact. Therefore, no significant
cumulative adverse impacts to air quality would result from development of the proposed Project.
(Draft EIR, pp. 5-3 - 5-4.)
10. Cultural Resources
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -21-
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The proposed Project will involve substantial grading
and has the potential to uncover paleontological resources, which may be a significant adverse
impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.) Additionally, although no known archaeological or Native American
sites are found on or adjacent to the Project site, the possibility remains that such resources may be
found during site preparation or grading/excavation phases of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) The
destruction of a Native American resource would be considered a significant adverse impact. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-9.) Further, several of the historical structures on the Project site appear to meet the
criteria for significance as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.)
There will be significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, to two
specific cultural resources: (1) Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard to the railroad tracks, and (2) the
Covina Canal. Those impacts are discussed in Section V of this Resolution.
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to
cultural resources to a less than significant level:
CR1 The historical portion of the Vosburg House shall be preserved. An
architectural historian shall document the historical portion of the structure in
compliance with CEQA and any other applicable laws. Based on this
documentation and any other relevant substantial evidence, the City's
Community Development Director shall determine the historical portion of
the structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.)
CR2 The gates at the entry to the Nursery shall be preserved in place and/or
relocated within the Project site. (Ibid.)
CR4 Palms located in Palm Drive from the railroad to "I" Street will be removed,
stored in a secure location, and replaced on-site once Palm Drive is
reconstructed. The applicant will prepare and submit a Landscape Master
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -22-
Plan that is acceptable to the Community Development Director. The
Landscape Master Plan shall specify the methods for transplanting the palms
and will limit transplanting to those with a useful life of 10 years or more. In
the event some palms are damaged or die during the transplanting, the
Landscape Master Plan shall also identify the specifications for replacement
of the palms and will limit transplanting to those with a useful life of 10 years
or more. Replacement shall be at no less then a 1:1 ratio and shall be
Washingtonia filifera. The Landscape Master Plan shall identify the
appropriate size replacement palms. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-10.)
CR5 Prior to grading activities within 300 feet of Fairmount Cemetery, the
developer shall work toward an agreement with Fairmount Cemetery Trustees
to document access, stabilization through grading buttresses on the west side
of the cemetery, and appropriate fencing. (Ibid.)
CR6 No grading on the Dhammakaya International Meditation Center property
shall occur without written approval from the trustees of the Center. (Ibid.)
CR7 Vegetative clearing or grading for fuel modification within areas supporting
native habitat shall be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist for surface
artifacts. Any artifacts found will be curated in an appropriate location upon
consultation with the Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission.
(Ibid.)
CR8 A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present on the site throughout
grading operations. At a minimum, the monitor shall observe grading
operations for a period of not less than ten hours per week; however, if
resources are identified, monitoring activities shall increase to not less than
15 to 20 hours per week. The on-site archaeological monitor shall have the
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -23-
authority to temporarily halt or divert grading operations if any significant
archeological or historic resources are uncovered to allow evaluation,
avoidance, preservation and/or removal of significant features or specimens,
in compliance with CEQA requirements and in coordination with the City of
Azusa and the Project applicant. Upon completion of grading operations, a
written report shall be submitted to the City documenting the actions of the
monitors, quantifying any features or specimens identified, and the location
of the collection, if any. This mitigation measure will protect any cultural
resources found on-site. (Ibid.)
CR9 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with a qualified Native American archaeological representative to
provide general oversight of the archaeological monitoring activities on
behalf of Native American interests. The Native American representative
shall work with the archaeological monitor of record to identify and/or
protect any Native American artifacts found on-site. (Ibid.)
CR10 If a previously unknown archaeological site is uncovered, the City of Azusa
and the State Office of Historic Preservation shall be notified. (Ibid.)
CR11 If any human remains are encountered during construction, work in the
immediate area of the find shall be halted and the Los Angeles County
Coroner shall be contacted. (Ibid.)
CR13 Further historical research and archeological test excavations shall be
conducted at the sites of the 1910 residence (including the LAN-240 site),
Cliff House and tunnel in order to determine if any portion of these sites
remain intact or if any artifacts are present. If artifacts are found, they shall
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -24-
be curated in an appropriate location upon construction with the Azusa
Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-11.)
CR14 An archaeologist shall document characteristics and historical background of
the millstone. The stone itself shall be preserved on-site or may be donated
to an approved museum. This mitigation measure will ensure that a historical
record of the millstone is created and that this artifact is preserved and
protected. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation. Mitigation measures CR1 and CR2 will ensure the
preservation of the historical resources those measures are designed to protect, namely the historical
portion of the Vosburg House and the gates at the entry to the Nursery property. Regarding Vosburg
House, the Monrovia Nursery Company will retain ownership of the house and use it as a corporate
headquarters for its nationwide nursery operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.) These mitigation measures
assure that the Project will not have significant impacts on these historical resources.
Mitigation measure CR4 will prevent an adverse impact to Palm Drive by retaining
the character of that street. The segment of Palm Drive from the railroad tracks to I Street will be
excavated to 20-25 feet and the soil will be then recompacted, requiring temporary removal of the
existing palm trees. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.) Upon completion of grading and street paving, the trees
will be replaced on-site and Palm Drive will be transitioned to a two-lane palm lined roadway.
(Ibid.) Mitigation measure CR4 assures that the Project will not have significant impacts on the
segment of Palm Drive from the railroad tracks to I street.
Mitigation Measure CR5 will protect and enhance Fairmount Cemetery by ensuring
that the Project's grading activities do not adversely affect access or soil stability and that appropriate
fencing prevents intruder entry into the Cemetery. Fill dirt will be placed adjacent to the cemetery’s
western slope to stabilize the area. (Ibid.) Notably, though, while Fairmount Cemetery is recognized
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -25-
as a historical resource, it lies outside the limits of the Project and the Project will not have any
significant impacts on Fairmount.
Mitigation Measure CR6 ensures that no grading on the Dhammakaya International
Meditation Center property shall occur without written approval from the trustees of the Center.
(Ibid .) This protects the Center from unauthorized intrusion by the Project. The Project has also
been revised to provide further buffers to the Dhammakaya facility. A connector road has been
relocated to ensure no impacts to the Dhammakaya gardens. (Ibid.) A detention basin may be
located adjacent to the southeast corner of the facility, providing addition green space buffer. In
addition, a local road is planned to border the facility on the south as an additional buffer. (Ibid .)
With these Project design features and mitigation measure CR6, the Project will not have significant
impacts on the Dhammakaya Center.
Mitigation Measures CR8, CR9, CR10, and CR11 ensure that, in the event
historically significant resources, including human remains, are unearthed during ground disturbance,
the resources will be protected, preserved and handled appropriately. These mitigation measures
safeguard the protection of any additional historical resources discovered onsite.
Mitigation Measure CR13 protects any historical resources found at the sites of the
1910 residence, Cliff House, or the tunnel. Preservation of these resources will reduce potential
impacts to these cultural resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR14 ensures that the millstone will be preserved. Thus, this
mitigation measure eliminates any potential adverse impact to this historical resource. In summary,
then, the Project's potential impacts on the historical resources identified above are mitigated below a
level of significance by the implementation of these mitigation measures. Thus, except for Palm
Drive from Foothill Boulevard to the railroad tracks and the Covina Canal (discussed below in
Section V), with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the Project will not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -26-
Likewise, the Project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site
or unique geologic feature, nor will it disturb any currently unknown human remains without
providing appropriate relocation. Accordingly, with the exception of the impacts to the identified
segment of Palm Drive and the Covina Canal, all of the Project's potential impacts on cultural
resources are mitigated below a level of significance.
11. Geologic Resources, Mineral Resources, and Flooding
1. Potential Significant Impacts: Preliminary analysis of soils on the Project site
indicates that many of the soils, in their current condition, are unsuitable for the proposed
development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13.) In addition, a seismic event along any of the faults within the
Project site could result in displaced streets and broken subsurface utilities, including sewer, water
and gas lines. Due to the presence of active faults, a potentially significant adverse impact could
occur. (Ibid.) Further, seismically induced landsliding may present a potential hazard in the
mountainous portions of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14.)
Additionally, the failure of existing or proposed check dams, debris basins, water
storage tanks, or reservoirs located upgradient of the proposed development may occur as a result of
seismic activity, which could result in a significant adverse flooding impact. (Ibid.) Moreover,
lurching (secondary ground cracking which occurs from ground shaking) has been identified as a
potential hazard on the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.) Lurching may cause structural damage on
new developments in the Project site, which could result in a significant adverse impact. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.4-14.) In addition, debris flow and rock fall hazards exist on the Project site where development
is proposed at the base of the natural slopes and at the mouth of the canyons. Structures and
property within the paths of substantial debris can be severely damaged if such hazards occur. (Ibid.)
Additionally, the southerly portions of the Project site require investigation for liquefaction (the
transformation of soil to a liquid state). A liquefaction study for the proposed Project identified soils
susceptible to liquefaction under the design earthquake loading conditions, which may constitute a
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -27-
potential significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 - 4.4-15.) Furthermore, in the event of a major
earthquake, water stored in existing and proposed above ground reservoir tanks could potentially
slosh and cause either partial or total failure of a tank, which may result in a significant adverse
impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-15.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
significant impacts related to geologic resources and hazards to a less than significant level:
Soil Stability
GS1 Detailed soils analysis will be required as part of the grading plan. A specific
evaluation of potential settlement hazard will be conducted. Mitigation of
soils which are subject to significant settlement or collapse will be required
through removal or removal and recompaction as an engineered fill, as
directed by the City Engineer.
GS2 Soils shall be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, and appropriate
mitigation recommended. If found, all compressible materials shall be
removed and replaced as compacted fill (with the exception of peat, which
shall be removed from the fills). The criteria for leaving surficial soils in
place shall be consistent with the grading specifications of the City of Azusa.
Other recommendations may include deep piles or caissons to support the
structures, and/or in-place mechanical densification of compressible layers.
(Ibid.)
GS3 If soils underlying a specific area on the proposed Project area are determined
susceptible to ground lurching, site-specific foundation recommendations
shall be made to mitigate this hazard. An alternative mitigation measure shall
be to remove and recompact the subsurface soils prone to ground lurching.
(Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -28-
GS4 If soils underlying a specific area on the proposed Project area are determined
to be highly expansive, impacts shall be mitigated by special foundations,
such as post-tensioned slab foundations, raft foundations, or caissons. (Ibid.)
Seismicity
GS5 New developments and construction shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet
from any fault identified as "active" within the Project site. All active fault
lines shall be indicated on grading plans. (Ibid.)
GS6 New developments and construction shall comply with State seismic safety
engineering requirements. (Ibid.)
GS7 A setback zone shall be established along the Sierra Madre Fault consistent
with the limits shown in the report titled Geologic Fault Investigation of the
Rosedale Master Planned Community, Azusa, CA, May 29, 1997. A 50-foot
setback shall be provided on the south of the fault, and a variable setback
ranging from 50 to 550 feet shall be provided on the north side. No structures
intended for human habitation shall be permitted within the fault setback
zone.
GS8 Engineering design measures such as remedial grading, heavy reinforcement
of foundations and concrete floor slabs, post-tensioned slabs, or a
combination of these methods shall be used as directed by the City Engineer
to mitigate the potential hazard of secondary ground cracking along the
discontinuous bedrock faults and bedding planes observed in the regionally
mapped location of the Upper Duarte fault.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -29-
GS9 The projection of Fault "C" shall be confirmed. Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the Applicant’s engineering geologist shall compile the
results of all past photogeologic analysis onto a Project development geologic
map (or maps) denoting the source (photo year, number, and frames) and
nature (tonal contrast, vegetation, topographic, geomorphic, etc.) on an
accompanying table. The geologist will then indicate which features are
related to geologic features and which are man-made, erosion, animal trails,
etc. including evidence, and perform such surface mapping (e.g., ravines, cut
slopes) as may be appropriate. A summary report and map(s) will be
provided to the City’s engineering geology representative for review and
approved. The City’s engineering geology representative shall review the
geologic data and photo-lineaments surrounding and related to Fault "C".
This shall include a review of the original aerial photographs of the relevant
portions of the development area as deemed necessary. An opinion relative
to which photo-lineaments appear to suggest faulting as the most reasonable
interpretation will be developed, and further analyses or an investigation
program to determine which of these features may be faults that pose a
potential hazard to the development as planned will be recommended. The
representative will then meet with the Applicant’s engineering geology
experts to discuss the opinions, and recommended analyses/investigations to
the satisfaction of the City’s engineering geology representative. This
mitigation measure will ensure proper geologic mapping of the fault. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.4-15 - 4.4-16.)
GS10 If the evidence generated by the review confirms the currently mapped
location of Fault "C," no further action will be taken. If evidence generated
from the review determines that Fault "C" may trend more westerly,
southerly, or in some other direction than previously mapped, then additional
subsurface exploration shall be required to resolve the nature of the suspected
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -30-
trend(s). If subsurface exploration reveals that Fault "C" is sufficiently active
and trends in a different location than previously mapped, the revised
location(s) of the fault will be mapped and an appropriate setback zone (from
habitable structures) will be delineated. This zone will be delineated at a
sufficient number of locations to allow an accurate location of the surface
trace(s) and to establish a suitable setback distance from the trace(s), which
shall not be less than 50 feet from habitable building foundations unless
approved by a qualified certified engineering geologist. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-
16.)
GS11 If the evidence generated by the review indicates that Fault "C" may trend
north towards Sierra Madre Avenue, exploration with some combination of
dozers, scrapers, or excavators shall be undertaken early in the grading stage
of the Project in the northwestern-most portion of the site. Depending on the
results of this geotechnical investigation, the preliminary setback would be
revised as appropriate. (Ibid.)
GS12 New developments and construction shall be setback 50-feet from identified
"active" portions of Fault "C"should it be discovered to traverse through the
site. (Ibid.)
GS13 The projection of Fault "D" shall be confirmed. Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the Applicant’s engineering geologist shall compile the
results of all past photogeologic analysis onto a Project development geologic
map (or maps) denoting the source (photo year, number, and frames) and
nature (tonal contrast, vegetation, topographic, geomorphic, etc.) on an
accompanying table. The geologist will then indicate which features are
related to geologic features and which are man-made, erosion, animal trails,
etc. including evidence, and perform such surface mapping (e.g., ravines, cut
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -31-
slopes) as may be appropriate. A summary report and map(s) will be
provided to the City’s engineering geology representative for review. The
City’s engineering geology representative shall review the geologic data and
photo-lineaments surrounding and related to Fault "D". This shall include a
review of the original aerial photographs of the relevant portions of the
development area as deemed necessary. An opinion relative to which photo-
lineaments appear to suggest faulting as the most reasonable interpretation
will be developed, and further analyses or an investigation program to
determine which of these features may be faults that pose a potential hazard
to the development as planned will be recommended. The representative will
then meet with the Applicant’s engineering geology experts to discuss the
opinions, and recommended analyses/investigations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 -
4.4-17.)
GS14 If the evidence generated by the review confirms the currently mapped
location of Fault "D," no further action is necessary. If evidence generated
from the review determines that Fault "D" may trend more easterly, or in
some other direction than previously mapped, then additional subsurface
exploration shall be required to resolve the nature of the suspected trend(s).
If subsurface exploration reveals that Fault "D" is sufficiently active and
trends in a different location than previously mapped, the revised location(s)
of the fault will be mapped and an appropriate setback zone (from habitable
structures) will be delineated. This zone will be delineated at a sufficient
number of locations to allow an accurate location of the surface trace(s) and
to establish a suitable setback distance from the trace(s), which shall not be
less than 50 feet from habitable building foundations unless approved by a
qualified certified engineering geologist. Conversely, if it is determined that
Fault "D" does not qualify as an active fault, the corresponding setback zone
will be removed from the map entirely. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -32-
Ground Shaking
GS15 All structures built on the Project site shall be required to comply with the
most current seismic building code standards. (Ibid.)
Seismically Induced Landslides and Flooding
GS16 A detailed evaluation of proposed soil removals (area, depth) shall be
performed to identify potential landslide areas. Remedial measures will be
developed and implemented as required by the City Engineer.
GS17 Slope stability analyses shall be performed, and remedial measures shall be
developed and incorporated upon preparation of the Project grading plan.
This mitigation measure will allow identification of appropriate debris
fencing and/or landslide stability measures to protect homes from landslides
as a result of a seismic event. (Ibid.)
GS18 Appropriate flood control planning and design which consider the existence
of these potential water and debris sources in addition to normal design flow
and bulking factors shall be incorporated. This mitigation measure will allow
identification of engineering measures to minimize the potential for impacts
to homes from flooding as a result of a seismic event. (Ibid.)
Debris Flow and Rock Fall
GS19 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit final
grading plans and supporting technical documentation that indicate the
complete boundaries of the debris flow zones presently designated as A, B,
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -33-
and C. The grading plans and associated final geotechnical and engineering
geology reports shall also indicate the preferred methods, such as debris
fences, trenches, basins, or other engineering methods that will be used to
satisfactorily protect adjoining homes and structures from potential debris
flow. The zone designations and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and
approved by the City’s engineering geology and geotechnical representative.
This mitigation measure will ensure that recognized engineering measures are
implemented to ensure a level of safety consistent with the construction of
homes. (Ibid.)
GS 20 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit final
grading plans that indicate the areas where liquefaction hazards are expected.
The grading plans and associated final geotechnical and engineering geology
reports shall also indicate the preferred engineering techniques, such as
removal and recompaction, dewatering, deep vibro-compaction, stone
columns, or other suitable engineering methods that will be used to
satisfactorily protect all structures from liquefaction hazards. The
liquefaction area designations and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and
approved by the City’s engineering geology and geotechnical representative.
GS21 Prior to construction of any railroad crossings at Palm Drive or Citrus
Avenue, Project design plans and associated reports shall be provided to the
railroad owner and operator for review and approval.
3. Supporting Explanation: Mitigation Measures GS1 through GS4 ensure that the
Project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is or will become unstable or expansive.
Mitigation Measure GS1 requires detailed soil analysis and the removal and recompaction of any
soils subject to significant settlement or collapse. Mitigation Measure GS2 will ensure that all soils
are stabilized to a level of safety consistent with the construction of homes. Mitigation Measure GS3
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -34-
will ensure that homes are constructed with safety design standards to withstand lurching of the soil
in the event of seismic activity. Mitigation Measure GS4 will ensure that recognized engineering
measures are implemented in the construction of the foundations of the homes to ensure that the
homes built are safe, in the case that expansive soils are found within the Project.
Preliminary studies conclude that the variety of engineered, recompaction, removal
and densification techniques adopted in the mitigation measures will mitigate the impacts of
potential hazards associated with unstable soils to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-
13.) Extensive soils testing and suitability analysis will be required by the City Engineer after the
development of detailed grading plans as part of the standard project review process, and treatment
of the currently unstable soils will occur as directed by the City Engineer. These standard practices
will reduce potential soils impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Thus, with imposition of
Mitigation Measures GS1 through GS4, the Project will not be located on a geologic unit that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, nor will it be located on expansive
soil.
The Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence), strong seismic
groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides. Mitigation
Measures GS5 through GS20 address each of these potential impacts and impose measures that
mitigate them below a level of significance. Regarding potential impacts to subsurface utilities from
a seismic event, seismic engineering practices for utility lines typically take into account the potential
for rupture. Compliance with State seismic safety engineering requirements will reduce potential
significant impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) In addition, potential ground shaking
hazards can be addressed and mitigated through compliance with State seismic building code
requirements. All structures within the Project site will be required to comply with the most current
seismic building code standards. Such compliance will reduce ground shaking hazards to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -35-
The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. While the
Project will involve substantial grading, slopes will be revegetated. Moreover, the Project will
comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, including those
which prohibit discharge of soil into the storm sewer system. Thus, the Project will not have a
significant impact related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The Project will not use septic tanks. Therefore, there is no impact relating to the
soils being incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems.
The Project will not 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, nor would it 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. The Project area is not presently used for oil or natural gas
extraction and no further mineral resources have been identified on or adjacent to the Project area.
Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in the loss of any known mineral resources and no
significant impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. (Ibid.)
The Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map, place
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, or expose people
or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Adequate debris basin storage will be
designed in order to accommodate the storm water runoff as well as the debris volume that will be
generated during a "design" storm event. The design of the stormwater basins will take into account
the existing crib wall retention structures. (Ibid.) This will ensure that neither people nor structures
are subjected to a significant risk of flooding. In addition, the Project site is not located in the 100-
year flood zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"). Therefore,
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -36-
potential flooding impacts are considered less than significant. Also, the proposed Project site is not
in an area subject to volcano and tsunami hazards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-15.) The nearest volcanic area
is located near the City of Temecula, approximately 68 miles south of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p.
4.4-11.) The Project site is also not located within a coastal zone, which eliminates tsunamis as a
potential hazard. (Ibid.)
Regarding potential cumulative impacts, concerns related to geology and seismicity
are site-specific (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.) The proposed Project is not expected to be affected by, or to
affect other projects in the area. Therefore, no cumulative adverse effects to geology are expected.
(Ibid .) With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the potential impacts to geologic
resources and hazards will be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-18.)
As indicated above, the Project has no impact on mineral resources. Likewise, the
Project has no impact relating to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map, placing
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, exposing
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, or exposing
people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Because the Project does not
cause any impacts in these areas, it does not contribute to any cumulative impacts in either mineral
resources or flooding.
12. Hazardous Materials
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -37-
1. Potential Significant Impacts: Total petroleum hydrocarbons ("TPH") were detected
at concentrations exceeding the health based cleanup levels ("HBCL")for this chemical, as calculated
by consultant McLaren Hart for its 1993 environmental assessment of the Project site. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.5-4, 4.5-12.) The petroleum hydrocarbons were found adjacent to the aboveground asphalt
emulsion tanks on the Project site and require remediation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-11 - 4.5-12.) In
addition, several types of asbestos-containing materials ("ACMs") were found on the property,
ranging from good to poor condition. The removal of nursery facilities that may contain ACMs
could cause a potentially significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13.) In addition, based on the
construction dates of the buildings (prior to 1980), it is possible that lead-based paint may be present
in the buildings on the nursery property. (Ibid.) Also, based on the age of the buildings on the
Project site, it is possible that some of the pad and pole mounted transformers may contain
polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"). The production of PCBs was banned in the United States in
1976. However, light ballasts manufactured through 1979 may contain PCBs. (Ibid .) Since
buildings on the Project site were built before 1980, it is possible that some of the light ballasts may
contain PCBs. The removal of transformers and light ballasts that may contain PCBs may cause a
significant but mitigatable impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
significant impacts to hazardous materials to a less than significant level:
HM1 Prior to the removal of any structures, the applicant shall update the asbestos
and lead paint surveys of all structures on site built prior to 1988. Where
ACM, lead sheeting and/or lead-based paint exceed regulatory action levels,
appropriate abatement and management techniques shall be developed and
implemented. All materials containing lead shall be removed and disposed of
by a licensed lead-based materials contractor in accordance with State law.
All material identified as containing asbestos shall be removed and/or
encapsulated by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor as provided by the
provisions of Rule 1403 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -38-
Rules and Regulations. This mitigation measure will ensure the appropriate
removal of asbestos and lead based paint in structures to be removed from the
site to avoid the release of contaminants. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15.)
HM2 Prior to removal of any electrical transformers or fluorescent light fixtures
manufactured before 1979, a survey shall be conducted of each unit. The
owner or responsible party for each unit to be removed shall hire a licensed
contractor to conduct visual inspections to determine if the unit is leaking.
The contractor shall then remove the PCB-containing units in a manner
consistent with State law. If leaks are detected, sampling of the surrounding
soil shall be conducted and any contaminated soil removed in accordance
with the law. This mitigation measure will ensure the appropriate removal of
units containing PCBs to avoid a release of contaminants. (Ibid.)
HM3 During building demolition activities the oil-water separator/sump located in
the diesel garage (Building #2) shall be removed and inspected for signs of
leakage. If visible signs of leakage are present, soil sampling shall be
conducted and any soil with chemical levels higher than the HBCLs shall be
removed and hauled to an approved disposal site. This mitigation measure
will ensure the proper clean-up of oil-water separator/sump to avoid release
of contaminants. (Ibid.)
HM4 The TPH-impacted soil in proximity to the asphalt emulsion tanks shall be
wetted prior to removal, and a backhoe should be used to excavate the soil.
Upon completion of excavation, confirmation soil samples shall be collected
to verify the effectiveness of the remediation. Excavated soil shall be placed
in a covered bin, and taken off-site for disposal by a licensed waste hauler, in
accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. This mitigation
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -39-
measure will allow the proper excavation and removal of TPH-impacted soil.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16.)
HM5 If areas of odorous or discolored soil are observed during site grading
activities, grading will cease in the suspect area pending collection and
analysis of soil samples. Soil sampling results will be compared to HBCLs,
or Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goals ("PRGs") to evaluate whether spot soil excavation is advisable. Spot
soil excavation will be conducted in general accordance with the excavation
procedures identified for the asphalt emulsion tank area. All work will be
conducted in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and
protocols and documented appropriately.
3. Supporting Explanation: As mitigated, the Project will not create a significant risk to
the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or
through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions, nor will it emit hazardous materials,
substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Extensive soil testing
of the Project site has occurred since 1986. The test results identified a limited number of areas
where chemical levels were detected above HBCLs. Those areas were remediated and further testing
indicated that the remediation was successful. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-12.) In addition, all of the
underground storage tanks ("USTs") that were located on the Project site have been removed and
regulatory closure has been received for all USTs removed. (Ibid.) Furthermore, based on recent
sampling results, pesticides, herbicides and metals are either: (1) not present at concentrations greater
than their respective detection limits; (2) are within the typical background ranges for naturally
occurring metals; or (3) are present, but at concentrations that do not exceed acceptable levels.
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary to address the occurrence of these chemicals on site. (Ibid.)
Typical background metals concentrations were exceeded for only four metals: antimony, mercury,
molybdenum and selenium. However, when these detections are considered in the entire data set for
these metals, the average concentration of these metals is within the range of naturally occurring
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -40-
background concentrations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-12 - 4.5-13.) In addition, the occurrence of TPH-
impacted soil appears to be localized and limited to shallow soil in immediate proximity to the two
aboveground asphalt emulsion tanks. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-11, 4.5-13.)
Additionally, the Monrovia Nursery Company operated a landfill on the nursery
property from the late 1960's until 1978. The landfill was never open to the public and was only
used for disposal of plant clippings, inert construction materials and miscellaneous non-hazardous
waste. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14.) According to inspection reports from Los Angeles County dated
September 1995 and January 1996, no surface emissions or landfill gas were noted. Furthermore, a
1993 soil sampling detected only low concentrations of pesticides in the landfill. (Ibid.) In addition,
a solid waste air quality assessment test in 1988 documents that there is no landfill gas migration
beyond the Project site's perimeter. According to the same report, nearly equal amounts of carbon
dioxide and methane in the test sample suggested that anaerobic digestion is occurring in the landfill.
(Ibid.)
Furthermore, the proposed Project assumes complete removal of the landfill in
compliance with California Health and Safety Code section 41700, which prohibits nuisance
discharges of air contaminants. (Ibid.) Additionally, two ground water wells on the Project site were
analyzed for pesticides, volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and nitrates. Neither VOCs nor
pesticides were detected in the ground water and nitrates were detected at a concentration below the
maximum contaminant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15.) In addition, Monrovia Nursery Company
sampled the sludge and water from its water recycling plant on the Project site in 1993. Samples
were analyzed for VOCs, pesticides and semi-volatile organic compounds. None of the substances
were detected. (Ibid.) Also, a report prepared in November 1998 indicated that, based on the
characterization of the nursery property, potential risks to human health associated with pesticide
residue in the soil were one in one million or less. (Ibid.) Thus, the Project will not have any
significant impacts related to the release or emission of hazardous materials.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -41-
The Project will not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project is not located
within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, or within the
vicinity of a private airstrip. The Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project will
not have any significant impacts on any of these categories.
As mitigated, the Project will not 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. The Project incorporates design features
and mitigation measures requiring the landscaping and maintenance of a fuel modification zone that
will serve as a buffer between the undeveloped open space areas and the housing constructed as part
of the Project. The Project also requires that the houses constructed incorporate current fire safety
standards such as tile or composite roofing materials.
Regarding cumulative impacts, concerns related to hazardous materials are site-
specific. All new development projects will be required to mitigate, prior to implementation, any
existing hazardous concerns. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.) The proposed Project has not identified risks
related to the exposure of the public to the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, no
cumulative adverse effects related to hazardous materials are anticipated. (Ibid.) With
implementation of the above mitigation measures, any potential impacts to hazardous materials will
be mitigated to a less than significant level.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -42-
E. Noise - Operational Phase
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The predominant operational noise source for the
proposed Project would be vehicular traffic. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-10.) In addition, the railway
alignment along the southern Project boundary currently accommodates a single daytime round trip
due to local freight activity. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12.) Typically, rail activities produce two sources of
noise: (1) operational noise from the engine, wheels, and the rail; and (2) signaling at a rail crossing
and/or rail station. (Ibid.) Regarding signaling, federal and State laws require rail operators to sound
a horn or whistle producing a minimum sound level of 96 decibels ("dBA") at 100 feet at least 1,320
feet from the place where the railroad crosses any street or road. (Ibid.) These laws also require
engineers to sound a horn if there is a person, vehicle or object in the way. The horn or whistle must
continue to sound at intervals until the train crosses the street or road. (Ibid.) Currently, the single
round-trip freight activity sounds a horn for the crossing at Palm Drive. This operation produces a
community noise level of 61.4 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL"), which exceeds
the 60-dBA CNEL threshold established under California Code of Regulations ("CCR") Title 24.
(Ibid.)
The proposed Project would retain the existing at-grade crossing at Palm Drive and
add a second at-grade crossing at Citrus Avenue. (Ibid.) Although the additional crossing would not
alter the operational noise due to rail activity, it would add additional noise from horn signals at
Citrus Avenue. (Ibid.) The additional noise from horn signals, combined with the operational noise
from rail activity, would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL threshold and would affect existing residences,
an existing church, and some of the proposed residences within the Promenade District, resulting in a
potential significant adverse impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.) Also, APU has indicated that its
facilities would be impacted by noise.
The current railway alignment in the Project area has been identified as the proposed
Phase II extension of the Gold Line light rail system from Pasadena to Claremont. (Ibid.) This
proposed extension would operate approximately 200 light rail passenger trains and two freight
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -43-
trains each day. The Draft EIR analysis assumes that light rail operates between 6:00 a.m. and 12
midnight and freight operations occur between 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m. (Ibid.) Under the "No
Project" condition (analyzed in the "Alternatives" section of this Resolution), the implementation of
Phase II of the Gold Line would cause an increase in the frequency of rail crossings at Palm Drive
from two crossings to 202 crossings. This increase in operations has the potential to cause noise
impacts from both rail operations and horn signals. (Ibid.) Combined future rail operations could
produce community noise levels slightly greater than the 60 dBA CNEL threshold set by CCR Title
24. (Ibid.)
Light rail operations are subject to similar signaling requirements for at-grade
crossings and stations. (Ibid.) Horn signals at Palm Drive could exceed the 60 dBA CNEL
threshold. Since this area includes existing residential and university uses and proposed residential
uses, the effect of horn signals may result in a significant adverse noise impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-
14.) Based on the number of proposed light rail and freight trains, the at-grade crossing at Citrus
Avenue may cause community noise levels to increase to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Therefore, horn signals
at Citrus Avenue would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL threshold, which may result in a significant
adverse noise impact. (Ibid .)
Citrus College owns and operates a sound and recording studio on its campus. The
studio is housed in a building approximately 800 to 1,000 feet from the Citrus Avenue rail crossing.
While there are no local or State criteria for sound and recording studios, this facility is recognized as
a sensitive receptor. (Ibid.) Because the additional Citrus Avenue at-grade crossing is close to this
sensitive receptor and the light rail activities will produce noise levels slightly above adopted
standards, a potential significant adverse noise impact may result. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
noise impacts for the operational phase of the proposed Project to a less than significant level:
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -44-
N7 Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Project, an interior
noise analysis compliant with the California Code of Regulations ("CCR"),
Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards will be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
N8 Any one of the following three mitigation measures could be implemented to
reduce Project-related noise impacts:
N8(a) Palm Drive shall be lowered below the elevation of the railroad tracks
and Citrus Avenue shall cross the railroad tracks at-grade. This
would require the removal of the existing palm trees and the
construction of retaining walls up to 20 feet in height. (Ibid.)
N8(b) The railroad tracks shall be lowered and crossing grade-separated at
both Palm Drive and Citrus Avenue. The railroad would be depressed
approximately 20 to 25 feet. Vegetated slopes and/or retaining walls
would line both sides of the railway. This would eliminate the
existing at-grade crossing at Palm Drive and the need for a horn
signal. This would also avoid an at-grade crossing at Citrus Avenue.
A horn signal may still be required near Citrus Avenue if a rail station
is constructed. However, the station platform and the tracks would be
depressed 20 to 25 feet. (Ibid.)
N8(c) The railroad tracks shall be raised approximately 5 to 7 feet and
crossing shall be grade-separated at both Palm Drive and Citrus
Avenue by lowering both streets so they pass underneath the railroad
tracks. An earthen berm or other measure(s) suitable to visually
buffer the elevated tracks from the existing residences to the south
shall also be installed.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -45-
The implementation of Mitigation Measure N7 and either N8(a) or N8(b) will
mitigate the Project's direct and cumulative operational noise levels below a level of significance.
(Ibid.) In the event that Mitigation Measure N8(a) is selected, second-tier environmental review of
noise impacts may be required to further evaluate cumulative impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation: As indicated below in Section 4.D., the Project will not
expose persons or generate noise in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies, nor is the Project located within an airport land
use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Thus, the Project will not create any impacts related to these categories.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N7 and N8(a), N8(b) or N8(c), the
Project will not result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project. The increase in Project trips from the proposed Project
would increase noise levels to 53.1 dBA CNEL, which is within the normally acceptable range for
community noise exposure. Therefore no significant adverse noise impacts are anticipated as a result
of Project-related traffic. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12.) In addition the noise level due to operational rail
activity at any building facade facing the rail alignment is anticipated to be 41.0 dBA CNEL, which
is consistent with the surrounding community noise levels within the Project area. Because this level
is below the 60 dBA CNEL threshold of significance established by the City, no significant adverse
noise impacts are expected for building facades along the rail alignment. (Ibid.) Furthermore, the
combined effect of rail and surface street noise within the Project site will also fall below the
threshold standard. Random nighttime rail events would increase the average CNEL by
approximately six decibels. However, given the current rail operations, this would not result in a
significant adverse noise impact. (Ibid.)
In addition, the proposed second at-grade crossing at Citrus Avenue will not create a
significant adverse noise impact for the Citrus College sound and recording studio relative to the
existing rail activities along the southern Project boundary. As mentioned above, these activities
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -46-
consist of a single daytime round trip due to local freight activity. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-12 - 4.7-13.)
The distance and obstructions between the rail crossing at Citrus Avenue and the sound studio will
decrease the noise levels, resulting in a community noise level of 47.8 dBA CNEL, which is
consistent with surrounding ambient noise levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.)
The Project will not create a significant impact related to exposing persons or
generating excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. No significant
groundborne vibration impacts are expected for conventionally constructed buildings at more than
100 feet from the rail edge. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.) The predicted ground vibration levels would be
noticeable by humans, but would not be a significant source of impact due to the infrequent nature of
the rail operations. Thus, no significant vibration impacts will result. (Ibid.) Gold Line construction
will raise the trips to "frequent"; vibration-reducing ties and rails will be of benefit in reducing
impact.
Regarding cumulative noise impacts, a cumulative increase in traffic would result in
sound level changes of less than one decibel to one (1) decibel when existing conditions are
compared to future conditions, including the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) Because
significant adverse noise changes are typically defined as an increase of three (3) decibels or more,
no significant adverse cumulative noise impacts are anticipated. (Ibid .) Assuming that Mitigation
Measure N7 and either N8(b) or N8(c) are implemented, the potential noise impacts related to the
operational phase of the proposed Project will be reduced to a less than significant level. If
Mitigation Measure N8(a) is implemented, second-tier environmental review of noise impacts will
be required to further evaluate cumulative impacts.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -47-
F. Public Services
1. Potential Significant Impacts:
Fire Protection/Emergency Services: The proposed Project’s addition of 1,575
residential units, 50,000 square feet of commercial uses and the proposed elementary school may
increase demand on fire stations serving the Project area and may increase demand for paramedic
services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-7.) In addition, fire hazards within the brush-covered hillside areas on
the Project site can be classified as either "extreme risk" or "high risk," depending upon hillslope and
proximity to residential development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-3.) The City of Azusa contracts with the
Los Angeles County Fire Department ("LACFD") for fire protection services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-1.)
Access and fire flow requirements for fire prevention are primary concerns of the LACFD. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-7.) According to the LACFD, Fire Station No. 97 was built to largely serve the wildland
and urban interface areas and cannot accommodate additional equipment and staff. (Ibid.) The site
of Station No. 97 is inadequate for any possible expansion due to seismic concerns. However,
additional personnel, equipment and/or relocation and expansion of the existing facilities will be
needed to serve future additional development within the City. (Ibid.) In addition, the proposed
Project may incrementally contribute to a cumulative increase in the demand for fire protection
services from the LACFD and the United States Forest Service in northeast Azusa and northwest
Glendora. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
Police Protection: The addition of 1,575 dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of
commercial uses would increase the demand for police services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11.) An increase
in residential units will create more demand on police services through increased calls for music and
other noise disturbances, parking problems, and a variety of other enforcement issues. Additionally,
the increase in retail shopping space increases the calls for service for parking issues, shop-lifting,
robbery and other criminal matters. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -48-
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to public services to a less than significant level:
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
PS1 The applicant shall pay fire development impact fees consistent with the
adopted fee schedule. The applicant shall work with the LACFD to dedicate
land for a new fire station in-lieu of required development impact fees.
(Draft EIR, p. 2-10.)
PS2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit conceptual
fuel modification plans to the LACFD for review and approval. (Ibid.)
Police Protection
PS3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City or developer shall consult
with the Azusa Police Department to implement a construction security plan.
(Draft EIR, p. 2-11.)
3. Supporting Explanation: With the implementation of mitigation measures, the
Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or
need for new or expanded fire or police facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services: Regarding fire hazard risks in the Project
area, the applicable General Plan policies that will be complied with for the proposed development
include:
(1) Prohibition of untreated shake roofs;
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -49-
(2) Establishment of programs for weed and brush removal and use of fire-
retardant plantings;
(3) Control of off-road vehicle use during periods of high fire risk; and
(4) Encouraged use of private swimming pools to assist in firefighting. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-3.)
The LACFD determined that existing fire stations are adequate to maintain a
satisfactory level of service to the proposed Project area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-7.) The LACFD and the
City concluded that there are sufficient facilities within the Project area to serve the proposed Project
within response times acceptable to the LACFD. (Ibid .) Three fire stations, including Station No.
97, are within adequate response times to the Project site. (Ibid.) The Project proposes to dedicate
land to move Station No. 97 from its current location to a larger location north of a proposed traffic
circle on Sierra Madre Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9.) The proposed station is anticipated to meet all
of the LACFD’s goals as follows: (1) The pad is located outside of the Sierra Madre Fault Setback
Zone and separated from residential uses; (2) Access to the pad can be taken from both Sierra Madre
Avenue and a small residential roadway, which allows for a pass-through station design and
eliminates the need to back equipment into the station; and (3) The station is located close to the
existing station so service area boundaries should not be disrupted. (Ibid.)
Regarding staff and equipment, implementation of the Project will require the
addition of 7 personnel and 1 vehicle to maintain adequate response times. The cumulative impact
of the Project combined with other projects will require the addition of 12 personnel and 4 vehicles.
Normally, the Project would pay fees sufficient to cover the costs of its direct impacts as well as its
fair share of the cumulative impacts. In this case, the applicant proposes instead to dedicate the land
needed to relocate Station No. 97. This dedication of land represents an in-lieu contribution that
fully mitigates the Project's potential impacts on staff and equipment.
To avoid potential fire hazards to housing, the proposed Project will require fuel
modification, consisting of the removal of dead plant materials and thinning of existing plant
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -50-
groupings, in the northern and middle portions of the site. (Ibid.) The LACFD will approve the
conceptual and final fuel modification plans prior to construction adjacent to the wildland areas.
(Ibid.)
Regarding potential cumulative impacts to fire protection services, the proposed
relocation and expansion of Station No. 97 will provide the Project site with adequate service, thus
mitigating any potential significant adverse cumulative impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.) In addition,
continued implementation of and adherence to fire safety standards and regulations administered by
the LACFD and other fire protection agencies will reduce potential adverse cumulative impacts to a
less than significant level. (Ibid.)
Police Protection: Based on an estimated population increase of 5,505 persons for
the proposed Project, a corresponding increase in police officers is also required. (Draft EIR, 4.8-
11.) In order to maintain the existing staff ratio of 1.35 officers, per 1,000 population, seven (7)
additional police officers will be required. (Ibid.) Also, one community services officer, one
dispatcher, one DARE police officer (part-time for the school year), and two crossing guards (part
time for the school year) would be required. Anything less would decrease the overall level of
service to the entire city. (Ibid.) Additionally, three police cars and one fully equipped police
motorcycle would be needed to maintain the current level of cars per officers. A fair share
contribution towards seven additional police officers and one additional car will be made as part of
the proposed Project. Thus, potential impacts to police protection services would be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
Regarding potential cumulative impacts on police protection services, the cumulative
demand for additional sworn officers would be approximately 11 sworn officers. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-5
- 5-6.) The existing Azusa Police Department headquarters facilities are more than adequate to
accommodate the additional sworn officers and other accompanying space needs attributable to any
additional personnel needs with other reasonably foreseeable development. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
Therefore, no significant adverse cumulative impacts to police protection services would occur.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -51-
(Ibid.) Overall, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to
public services will be reduced to a less than significant level.
G. Biological Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts: Impacts to areas of the Project site that are under the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") are limited to two single
ephemeral drainages that total 0.01 acres of waters of the United States, but do not include
jurisdictional wetlands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17.) Impacts to Project site areas under the jurisdiction of
the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") total 0.01 acres of waters of the State of
California, but do not include wetlands or riparian habitat. (Ibid.) Potential significant adverse
impacts may occur regarding the areas under the Corps and CDFG’s jurisdiction. (Ibid.) In addition,
fuel modification activities may result in partial impacts to native woodland vegetation associations.
For example, highly flammable chaparral may be virtually eliminated where it occurs within a fuel
modification zone. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18.) Also, coast live oak woodland may be subject to clearing
of the understory layer and pruning of the lower branches of some trees. (Ibid.) Further,
implementation of the proposed Project could result in the loss of 1.64 acres of coastal sage
scrub/chaparral due to grading. (Ibid.) Project implementation may also result in impacts to 0.79
acres of walnut woodland for construction of a municipal water tank. The loss of 0.79 acres of
walnut woodland would not be considered significant, but would be considered adverse before
mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19.) In addition, approximately 0.19 acres of coast live oaks habitat
may be impacted by Project implementation. (Ibid.)
Furthermore, if construction should occur during the breeding season for raptors,
there may be a potential for adverse impacts to an active nest. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20.) The loss of an
active nest of any Cooper’s hawk, or a common raptor species such as the red-tailed hawk, may be
considered a potential violation of California Fish and Game Code section 3505.5 and may be
considered a potential significant adverse impact of Project construction. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -52-
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to biological and agricultural resources to a less than significant level:
BR1 Drainages under the United States Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction
(0.01 acre of ephemeral channel) shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1, which
will take place in the riparian corridor proposed for the Project. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.9-21.)
BR2 The Project shall be required to obtain a California Department of Fish and
Game Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a Los Angeles
County Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for 0.01 acre of impact to "Waters of the U.S. and the State." In
addition, impacts must be disclosed to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers within 30 days of Project completion pursuant to Nationwide
Permit #39. (Ibid.)
BR3 Riparian habitat shall be constructed to receive nuisance flow from developed
areas of the site. This constructed habitat will serve the dual purpose of
mitigating for impacted habitat and providing water quality benefits. This
mitigation measure will allow the replacement and enhancement of 0.01 acre
of "waters of the U.S." and/or State jurisdiction impacted by the Project and
allow water quality management to urban runoff. (Ibid.)
BR4 Prior to implementation of fuel modification in areas of coastal sage
scrub/chaparral, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys in May or June for
Plummer’s mariposa lily. If individual specimens are identified in the
proposed fuel modification area, the plants shall be flagged and avoidance
measures will be determined as appropriate by the Project biologist. Fuel
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -53-
modification shall be timed or configured to avoid any potential impacts to
this species. (Ibid.)
BR5 Impacts to California black walnut trees associated with approximately 0.79
acre to be impacted by construction of a municipal water tank will be
replaced at 1:1 for each California black walnut tree impacted. The walnut
woodland will be replaced within the riparian corridor or other suitable areas
on the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-22.)
BR6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of a final subdivision
map, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall prepare an assessment of
coast live oaks and Engelmann oaks to identify candidate trees suitable for
transplanting per recognized arborist practices. Any impacts to coast live
oaks and/or Engelmann oaks shall be mitigated at a replacement ratio
consistent with Los Angeles County standards. Trees determined healthy for
relocation shall be relocated within the riparian corridor or other suitable
areas on the Project site. Others shall be replaced. (Ibid.)
BR7 To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
clearing of native habitats for grading or for fuel modification shall be
performed outside of the avian nesting season (March 15 - July 31). If it is
necessary to clear habitat during this period, areas to be cleared shall be
surveyed by a qualified biologist for active nests. If active nests are
identified, clearing shall wait until the fledglings have departed the nest. A
qualified biologist shall survey for raptor nests within 200 feet of the
proposed grading limits prior to clearing, and no mechanized work shall be
allowed within the buffer until the fledglings have departed the nests. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: As detailed below, with mitigation, the Project will not have
a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any candidate,
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -54-
sensitive, threatened, endangered, rare, or special status species or 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 Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; will not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; and will not impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan covering the
Project site, so the Project will not conflict with any HCP or NCCP.
Wetlands and Other Sensitive Habitat
As mitigated, the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or any sensitive riparian habitat
under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game. As part of the above
mitigation measures, the Project applicant will obtain federal and State permits regarding for
potential impacts to "waters of the U.S." and riparian habitat under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Fish and Game. In addition, the Project applicant will notify the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers of any Project impacts, as required above. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17.)
The Project will not directly or indirectly impact Significant Ecological Area ("SEA")
No. 45, which extends to the northeast portion of the Project site. There is also no potential for the
Project to impact sensitive hillside areas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18.)
Vegetation, Plants and Trees
As mitigated, the Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as the Los Angeles County tree preservation ordinance. In fact,
Mitigation Measure BR6 requires compliance with the standards established in the County's tree
preservation ordinance.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -55-
During fuel modification of native woodland, no mature oak trees will be removed
and these areas will still retain substantial habitat value. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project has been
designed to preserve 69.47 acres of coastal sage scrub/chaparral. With preservation of this acreage
(94 percent), or preservation of higher quality habitat than what is currently found within the
development area or fuel modification zone, impacts to coastal sage scrub/chaparral will be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19.)
Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project would avoid impacts to mulefat
scrub and would preserve 0.78 acres (100 percent) of it on the Project site. (Ibid.) The proposed
Project would also result in no impacts to southern willow scrub and would preserve 2.34 acres (100
percent) of it on the Project site. Southern willow scrub is listed as a Rare Natural Community by
the CDFG. (Ibid.) In addition, although the proposed Project may impact 0.79 acres of walnut
woodland, the Project has been designed to preserve approximately 5.07 acres (87 percent) of walnut
woodlands on the Project site. Walnut woodland is listed as a Rare Natural Community by the
CDFG. (Ibid.) Additionally, the proposed Project will fully avoid impacts to non-native grassland
since it is not within the area of grading. The Project may result in potential impacts to 328.2 acres
of areas developed for the nursery operations, which would not be considered significant or adverse.
(Ibid.)
Although Project implementation may result in the potential loss of a limited number
of individuals of Plummer’s mariposa lily on the Project site, potential impacts to no more than a few
individuals would be considered less than significant. Fuel modification within 2.6 acres of coastal
sage scrub/chaparral is not expected to impact any individuals. (Ibid.) However, to ensure that no
impacts occur, surveys will be conducted prior to implementation to avoid removal of these plants
during fuel modification activities. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project site has been designed to avoid
native trees and cluster development outside of native plant communities whenever possible. Only
0.98 acres of habitat supporting trees may be removed by the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Oak trees
located within fuel modification zones will not be subject to removal. In addition, the preservation
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -56-
of numerous native trees and the preservation of 155.55 acres of high-quality native habitats, along
with replacement of native oaks and walnut trees within the onsite riparian corridor will reduce
impacts to less than significant. (Ibid.)
Wildlife
Implementation of the Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the
Cooper’s hawk. (Ibid.) In addition, there will be no Project-related adverse impacts to the Ashy
Rufous-Crowned Sparrow, the Bell’s Sage Sparrow, the Coast Horned Lizard, the Silvery Legless
Lizard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20.) These species were not detected on the Project site. Also, for the
lizard species, suitable habitat is absent on the Project site. (Ibid.) A few individual Coastal Western
Whiptail individuals were identified on the Project site. However, potential adverse impacts to 5.65
acres of potential habitat for this species will not be considered significant or adverse due to
preservation of approximately 155.55 acres of higher quality habitat. (Ibid.)
In addition, there will be no direct impacts to the American black bear or mountain
lion associated with the Project, nor will there be a loss of habitat that is regularly used by bears or
lions. (Ibid.) Any potential impacts associated with bears would be limited to possible incursions by
bears into backyards, resulting in removal of the animal by animal control officers and relocation to
an appropriate area. (Ibid.) No mitigation for this issue is required and no interactions with
mountain lions are expected. (Ibid.) Additionally, mitigation described above will reduce any
potential impacts regarding the loss of an active nest of a migratory bird to a less than significant
level. Further, Project implementation will not prevent the regional movement of wildlife. (Ibid .)
Overall, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to biological
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Regarding cumulative impacts to biological resources, the majority of related projects
are proposed or currently under construction in highly urbanized areas. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.) Based
on the prior disturbance of those areas, habitat value is considered to be low. Potential cumulative
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -57-
adverse impacts will be limited to those associated with the proposed Project and the proposed
mitigation measures will reduce those potential adverse cumulative impacts to a less than significant
level. (Ibid.)
H. Transportation and Traffic
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The proposed Project, at build-out, is expected to
generate an addition 6,537 daily trips, with 1,013 trips generated in the AM peak hour and 1,186
trips in the PM peak hour. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-10.) In addition, the Draft EIR analysis shows that
the proposed Project, in combination with existing and future background traffic, may have a
potential significant adverse impact at 10 of the 29 signalized study intersections and at five of the 17
unsignalized study intersections, when compared to the City of Azusa Level of Service ("LOS")
standards and the significant traffic impact criteria defined in the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-14
- 4.11-15.) Further, under the Congestion Management Program system analysis of the proposed
Project, two intersections showed potential significant adverse impacts as follows: (1) Foothill
Boulevard at San Gabriel Avenue - potential impact during the PM peak period; and (2) Azusa
Avenue at Arrow Highway - potential impact during the AM and PM peak hours. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.11-15 - 4.11-16.) The traffic study for the Draft EIR also evaluated the potential benefits/impacts
of a third southern connection to the Project site at Cerritos Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16.) The
analysis shows that the connection of Cerritos Avenue at Foothill Boulevard is forecast to operate at
unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic. (Ibid.) This
potential impact would result from the redistribution of Project-related traffic that is forecast to occur
as a result of the additional southern access connection. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to transportation and traffic to a less than significant level:
TT1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall conduct a Project
Impact Sensitivity Evaluation to determine the level of development that will
necessitate the implementation of the following intersection improvements
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -58-
listed in TT2 trough TT16. If Phase II of the Gold Line commuter rail is a
reasonably foreseeable project based on documentation available when the
Sensitivity Evaluation is commenced, the Sensitivity Evaluation shall account
for the projected ridership on the Gold Line. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-17.)
TT2 Todd Avenue at Foothill Boulevard: Re-stripe the southbound approach to
provide an option left-through lane and two exclusive right-turn lanes. These
improvements will require modifications to the traffic signal to implement a
split-phase in the north-south direction. (Ibid.)
TT3 Azusa Avenue at 9th Street: Install a two-phase, semi-actuated traffic signal
and implement all related signing and striping modifications. (Ibid.)
TT4 San Gabriel Avenue at Foothill Boulevard: Re-stripe the westbound approach
to provide a second westbound left-turn lane, while maintaining the two
through lanes. This improvement will require a modification to the existing
raised median on the east leg of the intersection. (Ibid.)
TT5 Azusa Avenue at 1st Street: Re-stripe the eastbound approach to provide an
exclusive eastbound right-turn lane, while maintaining the through lane and
left-turn lane. This improvement will require the elimination of the raised
median on the west leg. In addition, re-striping on the east leg will be
required to minimize through lane offsets. (Ibid.)
TT6 I-210 WB Ramps at 1st Street/Alameda Street: Re-stripe the eastbound
approach to provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane, while
maintaining the two through lanes and single left-turn lane. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -59-
TT7 Azusa Avenue at I-210 EB Off-Ramp: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (i.e.,
I-210 Off-Ramp) to provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, a shared
left-right lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane (from two left-turn lanes and
one right-turn lane). (Ibid.)
TT8 Azusa Avenue at Gladstone Street: Re-stripe the northbound approach to
provide an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. This improvement will
require the loss of approximately three on-street parking spaces along the east
side of Azusa Avenue, south of Gladstone Street. (Ibid.)
TT9 Azusa Avenue at Arrow Highway: Re-stripe the eastbound approach to
provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right-
turn lane, while maintaining the two eastbound through lanes. No loss of
parking or street widening will be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18.)
TT10 Stein Lane at Foothill Boulevard: Install a two-phase, semi-actuated traffic
signal and implement all related signing and striping modifications. (Ibid.)
TT11 Citrus Avenue at Alosta Avenue: Re-stripe the westbound approach to
provide a second westbound left-turn lane. This improvement will require the
modification of a raised median on the east leg, as well re-striping the east leg
to minimize through lane offsets. The raised median on the south leg will
need to be modified to accommodate the dual westbound left-turn
movements. (Ibid.)
TT12 Citrus Avenue at Mauna Loa Avenue: Install a semi-actuated traffic signal
and implement all related signing and striping modifications. (Ibid.)
TT13 Citrus Avenue at Baseline Road: Re-stripe the westbound approach to
provide an exclusive westbound right-turn lane. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -60-
TT14 I-210 WB Off-Ramp at Baseline Road: Install a fully actuated traffic signal
and implement all related signing and striping modifications. (Ibid.)
TT15 Citrus Avenue at I-210 EB Ramps: Widen the eastbound off-ramp to provide
dual left-turn lanes. The eastbound off-ramp has a paved width of 28-feet
and an existing right-of-way of 48-feet wide. Hence, this improvement can
be accomplished without requiring additional right-of-way, but will require
widening on both sides. In addition, this improvement will require
modification of the existing signal and striping improvements. (Ibid.)
TT16 Palm Drive at 10th Street: Install stop signs and all associated striping
modifications to implement an all-way stop controlled intersection. This
improvement will act as a traffic-calming measure within the existing
residential neighborhood. (Ibid.)
Any recommended intersection improvements that require approval from agencies
other than the City of Azusa may be substituted with alternative improvements that provide
equivalent or better mitigation depending on the results of the Sensitivity Evaluation and
consultation with those agencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Although the proposed Project may have impact at or on 10
of the 29 signalized study intersections, the remaining 19 key signalized study intersections are
forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours
with the addition of Project traffic. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14.) In addition, under the CMP analysis, the
proposed Project will not have a potential significant adverse traffic impact at the study intersection
of Foothill Boulevard at Azusa Avenue during the PM peak period. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16.) This
intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E, which meets the minimum acceptable LOS standard for
intersections located within the downtown district, as well as meeting the minimum acceptable LOS
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -61-
that should be maintained at intersections that are part of the CMP network. (Ibid.) In addition,
CMP analysis on potential impacts to the freeway system indicates that the proposed Project may add
a maximum of 121 freeway trips, which is well below the threshold of 150 trips required for the
CMP freeway segment analysis. (Ibid.) Therefore, an additional mainline freeway analysis is not
required for the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Moreover, the traffic study on the Cerritos Avenue
Connection concludes that mitigation measures addressing the Project’s impacts at other
intersections without the Cerritos Avenue Connection between the Project site and Foothill
Boulevard will be sufficient to mitigate the Project’s impact with the Cerritos Avenue Connection as
well. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-17.) With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Project
will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system, nor will it exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the level of
service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways.
The Project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The Project will not
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses or result in inadequate
emergency access. The Project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. The Project will not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Thus, the
Project will not have any significant impacts related to any of these impact categories.
Regarding cumulative transportation and traffic impacts, the traffic analysis in the
Draft EIR is cumulative in nature and takes into account ambient traffic growth as well as the effect
of future planned and proposed projects. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) The traffic impact analysis revealed
that these cumulative traffic increases, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not
result in significant impacts. Thus, no cumulative significant adverse traffic impacts are anticipated.
(Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -62-
I. Water Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts: According a study of groundwater levels in 1993-1994,
the potential exists for groundwater to rise near to or at the ground surface during periods of intense
precipitation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12.) High groundwater levels have the potential to undermine
building foundations which represents a potentially significant adverse impact. (Ibid.) In addition,
the Covina Canal conveys water in an open channel through a portion of the Project site. Currently,
public access to this water is limited because of active nursery operations, which minimizes the risk
of contamination or unauthorized recreational activities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-5.) However,
development of the Project will expose Covina Canal to greater public access, which may increase
the risk of contamination to an important potable water source and the risk of injury or drowning
associated with unauthorized access into the Canal. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-5 - 4.13-6.) If relocation of
the water to an underground pipe is not feasible, a potential significant adverse impact may occur.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12.) Additionally, the Project has a potential significant impact related to water
supplies.
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to water resources to a less than significant level:
WR1 The groundwater contour map prepared by John M. Tettemer & Associates
for the Monrovia Nursery Company (1995) shall be used as appropriate to
determine what necessary subdrain facilities are required, if any, to maintain
groundwater levels below points which eliminate the potential for surface
seepage or interference with building foundation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-13.)
WR2 The water currently located in the Covina Canal shall either be placed in an
underground pipe or the Covina Canal shall be fenced to minimize
unauthorized access. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -63-
WR3 Prior to grading, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent ("NOI") with the
State Water Resources Control Board and prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") consistent with the City's municipal storm water
permit. The SWPPP shall include construction and post-construction best
management practices to manage water quality during and after construction.
(Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: With the implementation of the above mitigation measures,
the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding; substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff; or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed Project includes development and
storm drain improvements, including detention basins, within each of the existing drainage
boundaries, referred to in the Draft EIR as Drainage Areas 1 through 6. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-2, 4.13-
7.) The proposed Project would mitigate developed drainage flows in the southwest corner of the
Project site (Drainage Area 1) with three detention basins acting in a series along the BNSF railroad
line at the southern Project boundary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-2, 4.13-8, 4.13-9.) In addition, for
Drainage Area 2 (extending primarily offsite to the east in the City of Glendora, the proposed Project
will provide sufficient detention facilities to reduce the projected drainage flows for a 10-year storm
event in that area to equal to or less than the existing flows of 662 cubic feet per second ("cfs").
(Ibid.) Developed runoff in Drainage Area 4 (the center portion of the Project site) is conveyed
offsite through an existing neighborhood by means of an open channel. The detention basin in
Drainage Area 4 has the capacity to mitigate the developed flow to substantially less than existing
flows. (Ibid.) The developed runoff to Drainage Area 6 is estimated to exceed existing runoff by
approximately 30 percent. Therefore, post-development flows will be detained in the proposed park
north of Sierra Madre Avenue to reduce post-development flows to equal or less than existing
conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9.) In all cases, the proposed detention basins will reduce flows in
the developed condition equal to or less than the existing condition. (Ibid.) Moreover, the proposed
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -64-
detention basins will serve a dual purpose to not only detain peak flows, but also act as water quality
basins. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-10.)
Regarding water supplies, their issues analyzed extensively in the water supply
assessment, which was attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix J and incorporated therein by
reference. The annual average daily water demand for the proposed Project is anticipated to be
approximately 354 gallons per minute ("gpm"). The maximum daily demand is projected to be 674
gpm and the estimated peak hour demand is projected to be 1,347 gpm. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-10.) The
Water Supply Assessment ("WSA") found that Azusa Light and Water has sufficient water available
to serve the Project from existing entitlements; however, the water supply assessment was expressly
conditioned on the Nursery water rights transferring its existing to Azusa Light and Water to offset
the increased water demand generated by the Project. The Monrovia Nursery Company has rights to
pump water from the San Gabriel Basin and produces water under the Azusa Agricultural Water
Company. (Ibid.) Since 1981, the Monrovia Nursery Company has been able to produce between
approximately 828 to 1,516 acre-feet per year without incurring a Replacement Water Assessment.
(Ibid.) Based on the assumed acquisition of sufficient water rights to serve the proposed Project,
Azusa Light and Water will have sufficient water reliability to serve the proposed Project during
normal, dry and multiple-dry years. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12.)
The current undeveloped condition of the Project site allows for groundwater
recharge. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in substantial covering of the site
with impervious surfaces that would limit percolation area. (Ibid.) However, the existing
groundwater recharge area is currently located to the west of the Project site. No recharge areas are
located within the Project site. Thus, development on the Project site would not affect the recharge
areas and no adverse impact is anticipated. (Ibid.) Hence, the Project will 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 level.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -65-
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure WR3, the Project will not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water
quality. As indicated above, the Project will prepare a SWPPP consistent with the City's NPDES
permit. The SWPPP shall include construction and post-construction Best Management Practices
that will reduce the potential for adverse stormwater quality impacts to a less than significant level.
The Project applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the San Gabriel River
Water Committee ("Committee of 9") to relocate the water in the Covina Canal to an underground
pipe. (Ibid.) Public streets will be temporarily impacted during trenching, installing the underground
pipe, and backfilling the trench. On the Project site, construction of the underground pipe would
occur during development of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project applicant will be
working with the Covina Irrigating Company and the Committee of 9 to divert the water from the
Covina Canal near the San Gabriel River into a pipe that follows the public right-of-way and crosses
the Project site toward its original destination. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project includes the realignment of Sierra Madre Avenue, which will
require the reconstruction of three water lines. Azusa Light and Water owns and operates a 16-inch
line that connects to the Nursery reservoir. This line will be re-routed and incorporated into the new
backbone system serving the proposed development and the City’s new water reservoirs. (Ibid.) The
other two water lines in Sierra Madre Avenue serve facilities beyond the City of Azusa. In both
cases the water lines will be realigned consistent with the new alignment of Sierra Madre Avenue
and construction of those facilities will be coordinated to meet appropriate specifications and to
minimize any service disruptions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-13.)
In addition, Azusa Light and Water has two other facilities that traverse the
southwestern portion of the Project site. Both of these facilities will be realigned consistent with the
location of new public streets in the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Construction of these facilities will be
coordinated to meet appropriate specifications and to minimize any service disruptions. Thus, a less
than significant adverse impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -66-
Annexation of the proposed development into the City of Azusa will require
reorganization of the water service boundaries. (Ibid.) The Project site has potable water
connections to both the City of Azusa and the City of Glendora. As part of Project development,
water service boundary lines will be reorganized. (Ibid.) With implementation of the above
mitigation measures, potential impacts to water resources will be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Regarding cumulative impacts, no unavoidable significant cumulative adverse
impacts to water resources would result from the proposed Project, assuming that the Nursery's water
rights are transferred to Azusa Light and Water as part of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) All
potential impacts related to hydrology, drainage, water quality and water supply will be mitigated to
less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project will not contribute to any significant adverse
cumulative effect. (Ibid.)
SECTION 4: RESOLUTION 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 Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant
level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. Aesthetics and Visual Quality
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -67-
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The proposed Project would result in substantial
changes to the visual environment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.) The totality of the changes to the visual
environment of the Project site would result in a significant change in character from a sprawling
horticultural operation with areas of rural character and broad viewsheds to a residential community
with homes, streets, commercial uses, parks, infrastructure, and a school. (Ibid.) This substantial
change in character of the Project site would result in a significant adverse visual and aesthetic
impact. Specific changes could include removal of the palm trees along Palm Drive north of the
railroad tracks to remediate a liquefaction hazard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.) In addition, the proposed
relocation of Sierra Madre Avenue could reduce scenic vistas for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
traveling along the relocated road. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13.) Also, the relocation of Sierra Madre
Avenue could result in the loss of the road's existing rural-like two lane road character. (Ibid.) In
addition, will be either 24 or 32 feet high. (Draft EIR, p 4.1-9.)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to aesthetics and visual quality to the extent feasible:
AV1 Prior to construction of the Beatty Reservoir, detailed landscape plans for the
Reservoir shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The
landscape plans shall include an earth tone color for the Reservoir and
perimeter landscaping to screen the south, east and west exposures of the
Reservoir. The northern exposure may remain open for access during
construction. (Draft EIR, p. 2-2.)
AV2 The fan palm trees along Palm Drive shall be retained in place to the extent
feasible. Should geotechnical and/or noise mitigation measures require the
removal of the palm trees, the trees shall be boxed and transplanted on the
Project site. To the extent feasible, the character of the tree-lined Palm Drive
shall be recreated with either transplanted or newly planted palm trees of a
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -68-
similar variety and size. Transplanting of the palms shall be in accordance
with mitigation measures CR3 and CR4. (Ibid.)
AV3 Prior to issuance of a building permit for lot 751 located north of Sierra
Madre Avenue, south of existing residences, a focused visual analysis shall
be conducted to minimize view impacts. Techniques such as lowering the
pad elevation, restricting the height of the structure to one story, and structure
placement on the lot shall be considered as means to minimize visual
impacts. The techniques chosen must ensure that the existing homes on
Sierra Madre retain a view.
3. Supporting Explanation: The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista, nor will it substantially damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or
historic buildings within a state-designated scenic highway. Mitigation Measure AV1 will ensure
that Beatty Reservoir is visually screened to the extent feasible. The use of landscaping and earth
tone paint colors will minimize the appearance of the water tank and screen it from view. Mitigation
Measure AV2 requires the preservation of existing palms except as removal might be required to
comply with geotechnical or noise mitigation measures. When removal is required, this mitigation
measure requires transplanting the trees onsite. This mitigation measure will ensure that the palms
remain a prominent visual feature of the Project site. Mitigation Measure AV3 requires design
modification to the structures proposed for the triangular shaped parcel north of Sierra Madre
Avenue, to ensure that the existing homes on Sierra Madre retain a view. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project does not include residential development in the foothills beyond
the existing Nursery operations. The 168 acres of land in the foothills are proposed for conservation
as open space. Limiting grading or building structures into the foothills preserves this scenic
resource. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.) In addition, the palm trees along Palm Drive will be retained to the
extent feasible between Foothill Boulevard and the railroad tracks. (Ibid.) Regarding preservation of
the different viewsheds, the proposed Project will not block existing views of the foothills and palm
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -69-
trees for land uses along the southern boundary of the Project site. (Ibid.) Further, the residences
that border the eastern boundary of the Project site do not have views of the San Gabriel Valley or
the palm trees because the topography rises to the south of these homes. (Ibid.) These residences
will continue to have views of the foothills to the north. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-12.)
Several different land uses have views to the east across the Project site, which in
many instances will change from views of existing nursery operations to views of residential
development. Such a change does not constitute the loss of a scenic vista. In addition, some of the
Lakeview Terrace Condominiums have views to the east from the second story. The views from
these units will be preserved because they are at a substantially higher elevation than the existing
nursery. (Ibid.) For the existing homes bordering the Project site on the west, north of Sierra Madre
Avenue, the views of the foothills to the north will not be altered due to the setback of the proposed
new structures. (Ibid.)
The majority of the existing residents north of Sierra Madre will not have any change
to their current views of the San Gabriel Valley to the south. (Ibid.) Also, all of these residences
have views of the foothills to the north across the Beatty Detention Basin. Development of the
Project site will not block these views. New homes will be visible, but not out of character of the
urban environment. (Ibid.)
The foreground of distant views of the Project site is dominated by urban uses. The
San Gabriel Mountains and foothills provide a prominent visual resource. Limiting development to
locations currently farmed by the Monrovia Nursery protects the views of this important visual
resource. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 - 4.1-13.)
The proposed Project includes a proposed open space arroyo which could make
possible a new south-facing scenic vista, although this potential view corridor may primarily benefit
pedestrians. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13.) The arroyo will provide a multi-purpose trail along the
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -70-
roadway's southerly edge to take advantage of the scenic resources. In certain locations, the trail may
include rest stops with benches oriented toward the view. (Ibid.)
The development of the Project will change the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings. While the Project retains several hundred acres of land in their natural
unaltered state, it also proposes the development of the land where the Nursery operations currently
take place. This modification of the existing rural visual character and quality of the land may be
construed as substantially degrading the existing site aesthetics.
In addition, the City has an existing water reservoir known as the Nursery Reservoir
with a pad elevation of 860 feet above sea level. (Ibid.) A second reservoir, known as the Expanded
Nursery Reservoir, is proposed next to the Nursery Reservoir. The proposed Project will create a
beneficial visual impact by burying both reservoirs at a pad elevation of 823 feet (lower than the
existing pad elevation) and covering the area with a park. (Ibid.) Additionally, the proposed Project
incorporates into its design two existing terraces that create formative landform features. (Ibid.) One
terrace is located west of the Nursery headquarters, in the vicinity of the current water treatment
facilities. The second terrace is located northeast of the Dhammakaya facility. (Ibid.) The western
terrace will be lowered, but would remain as a formative landform. The western north/south road
that traverses the slope of this terrace will be split level to minimize landform alteration by
accommodating the slope between the two travel lanes. The eastern terrace is also incorporated into
the land plan to create views from new development (Ibid.)
The Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The conversion of the Project site into a
residential community will introduce illumination into the area. The level of illumination from
backyards, street lights, homes, and commercial uses is not anticipated to be substantial. (Ibid.) The
proposed school and joint use park may be constructed with lights to illuminate the associated
ballfields for evening use. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.) Nighttime sports lighting will include light shields
designed to direct light rays onto the fields and minimize light spill. Since the proposed school and
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -71-
joint use park would be located in the middle of the Project site, away from existing residents, the
addition of sports lighting is not expected to be a source of glare for neighboring residences. (Ibid .)
Regarding cumulative impacts, the proposed Project will not have a cumulative
impact on aesthetics and visual quality because such an impact is site-specific and will not be
compounded by other projects in the surrounding area. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.) With implementation of
the above mitigation measures, impacts to aesthetics and visual quality will be reduced to the extent
feasible. However, even with all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project will result in
substantial changes to the visual environment which cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
B. Air Quality - Construction Emissions
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The analysis on air quality of construction emissions in
the Draft EIR shows that the proposed Project may exceed construction emissions thresholds for
nitrogen oxide ("NOx") and particulate matter ("PM10"). (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-10.)
2. Finding. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce air quality
impacts related to construction emissions to the extent feasible:
AQ1 Where possible during construction, electricity from power poles shall be
used rather than temporary diesel power generators. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-15.)
3. Supporting Explanation. Because the proposed development is a six-year phased
construction plan, the construction activities for development of the Project site would not occur
simultaneously. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-10.) Thus, construction equipment would be used in an
incremental fashion within each planning area. Additionally, it would be unlikely that all
construction phases would occur in close proximity to each other. (Ibid.) Project construction will
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -72-
in non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
However, Project construction will not comply with applicable air quality standards
relating to PM10 and NOx. the proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust,
which restricts fugitive emissions. This rule will reduce the amount of particulate matter (PM10)
released into the air as a result of construction activities at the Project site. (Ibid.) Under Rule 403,
the developer is required to use the applicable best available control measures to minimize dust
emissions. Rule 403 also includes measures to prevent fugitive dust that is visible in the atmosphere
from an active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area from being emitted in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-10 - 4.2-11.) In
addition, Rule 403 requires that bulk material tracked out onto public paved roadways must be
removed within one hour. Also, at the end of each workday, all visible roadway dust is required to
be removed from public paved roadways. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-11.) Rule 403 also contains options for
maintaining a stabilized surface for construction equipment and installing a track out control device
to control fugitive dust. (Ibid .)
Mitigation Measure AQ1 will require the use of cleaner-burning fuel. This will
reduce potential air quality impacts stemming from Project construction.
Implementation of Rule 403 and the above mitigation measure will substantially
reduce construction phase PM10 and NOx emissions, although not to less than significant levels.
Construction emissions related to PM10 and NOx emissions may violate SCAQMD air quality
criteria and therefore will have a potentially significant air quality impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.)
Regarding cumulative impacts, the potential exists for related projects to be in various stages of
construction during the construction period of the proposed Project. Therefore, significant adverse
cumulative construction air quality impacts could result. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.)
C. Cultural Resources - Palm Drive and Covina Canal
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -73-
1. Potential Significant Impacts. Palm Drive has been important feature of the Azusa
community since 1908. A total of 226 fan palms, the only palm tree native to California, currently
line the drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-4.) Although the segment of Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard
to the railroad tracks is planned to be preserved, if noise mitigation requires reconstruction of that
area of Palm Drive, the palm trees will be removed and replanted elsewhere on the Project site.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-8 - 4.3-9.) This may result in a potentially significant unavoidable adverse
impact and a cumulatively adverse impact. In addition, the above ground portion of the Covina
Canal that is located between the existing abandoned City water tank and runs east to the
Dhammakaya site may be impacted as a result of grading. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.)
2. Finding. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to
the cultural resources identified above to the extent feasible:
CR3 If Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard to the railroad tracks is impacted, in
the event Palm Drive must be reconstructed to go underneath the rail tracks,
the palms will be removed, stored in a secure location, and replanted
elsewhere on-site upon the completion of roadway construction. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.3-9.) Transplanting of the palms shall be in accordance with mitigation
measure CR4.
CR12 An architectural historian shall be hired to further evaluate and document all
standing structures built prior to 1952, including the Covina Canal, in context
with the history of the site. This mitigation measure will ensure that a
historical record of the Canal is created. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-10.) The above-
ground portion of the Canal shall be retained.
3. Supporting Explanation. The portion of Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard to the
railroad tracks is planned to be preserved unless noise mitigation requires reconstruction and
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -74-
depression of the roadway segment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.) If this mitigation measure is required by
the Public Utilities Commission or any other responsible agency, the mitigation measure will have a
substantial adverse impact on Palm Drive, a recognized historical resource. This impact will be
mitigated somewhat by the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR3, which will require
transplantation of the palms and their preservation onsite. While this mitigation measure will allow
preservation of the palms within the community, it will not mitigate impacts to Palm Drive below a
level of significance.
The above-ground portion of the Covina canal that runs along the western boundary
of the nursery property from Pioneer Park and ends at an intake structure adjacent to the abandoned
water tank will not be impacted by the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.) The Canal is also
recognized as a historically significant structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.) To maintain the safety of the
potable water supply, it is proposed to replace a portion of the Canal with a new underground pipe.
Although the Project will be required to retain the above-ground portion of the Canal, it will no
longer be used for transporting potable water. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will
reduce the potential impacts to those portions of Palm Drive and the Covina Canal described above.
However, even with the above mitigation measures, the potential impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable. (Ibid.) In addition, when considered cumulatively with related projects, the proposed
Project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact to cultural resources. (Draft EIR, p. 5-
3.)
D. Noise - Construction Phase
1. Potential Significant Impacts: Pursuant to the City of Azusa Municipal Code, noise
generated by construction equipment must not exceed 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the
operating equipment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-5.) Additionally, a significant adverse impact would result
if Project construction causes an increase in the ambient noise levels of five decibels or more at any
sensitive receptor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.) For the proposed Project, although construction noise
levels at sensitive receptor locations would be below the City’s established threshold of 85 dBA for
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -75-
construction noise, the analysis in the Draft EIR shows that changes from ambient noise levels due to
construction would exceed the five (5) decibel maximum in most instances. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9.)
Thus, Project construction may cause a potential significant adverse noise impact.
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise
impacts related to the construction phase of the proposed Project to the extent feasible:
N1 Site grading shall be balanced to eliminate haul truck trips associated with the
import or export of earth material. Haul trucks shall use City approved haul
truck routes, as shown in the General Plan circulation element truck route
map, when traveling to and from the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
N2 Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment shall be
equipped with mufflers, radiator baffles, and other suitable noise attenuation
devices. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.)
N3 Pursuant to the City of Azusa Municipal Code Section 88-675(c)(3), noise
generated by construction equipment shall not exceed 85 dBA at a distance of
100 feet from the operating equipment. Additionally, construction activities
shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of
the next day. (Ibid.)
N4 Construction operations shall be staged as far from noise-sensitive land uses
as possible. (Ibid.)
N5 All residential units and schools located within 500 feet of the construction
site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed
Project. All notices shall indicate the dates and duration of construction
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -76-
activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire
about the construction process and register complaints. (Ibid.)
N6 If grading equipment will operate more than three consecutive work days
within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, such as residential structures, schools,
or the Dhammakaya International Meditation Center, temporary noise walls
at least 12 feet high shall be constructed between the construction activities
and the sensitive receptors, unless waived by all contiguous sensitive
receptors. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Mitigation Measure N3 ensures compliance with the City of
Azusa Noise Ordinance. Additionally, Mitigation Measure N5 requires that nearby residents be
notified of the construction schedule as well as given a number to call to register complaints. This
will promote enforcement of the Project's compliance with applicable date and hour restrictions.
Thus, these mitigation measures ensure that Project construction will not expose persons or generate
noise in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Construction activities on the Project site will occur in phases over several years.
Construction activities will also vary in location and intensity. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-8.) For example,
constructing a home is stationary, but lower in noise intensity. Grading produces more noise, but
grading activities do not occur in only one location. (Ibid.) The analysis in the Draft EIR regarding
construction noise shows the estimated construction noise levels assuming the receptor is 100 feet
away from the noise source. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9.) This constitutes a "worst case" analysis for
nearby sensitive uses, since the predominant construction noise will almost always be more than 100
feet from the receptors. (Ibid.)
Residences that border the Project site will experience temporary, periodic increases
in noise at various times during the construction of the proposed development. In general,
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -77-
construction activities related to development on the Project site may increase ambient noise levels
in the vicinity on an intermittent, but temporary, basis. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measure N1 requires onsite balance of grading, truck routes and hours of
hauling as specified in the City code. This mitigation measure will reduce the number of trips per
haul truck, and, thus, general construction noise. Mitigation Measure N2 requires construction
equipment used for the Project to be equipped with noise attenuation devices, thereby reducing the
noise levels during construction. Mitigation Measure N4 requires that construction operations be
staged as far as possible from noise-sensitive uses. Because noise attentuates exponentially over
distance, Mitigation Measure N4 will minimize noise impacts to surrounding uses. Mitigation
Measure N6 accomplishes the same aim. This mitigation measure requires the construction of
temporary sound walls when construction activities will take place within 100 feet of a sensitive
receptor for more than three consecutive work days. The temporary sound walls will be designed to
reduce noise levels and, thus, impacts to sensitive receptors.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce potential construction
noise impacts to the extent feasible. However, even with the above mitigation measures, the
potential construction noise impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16.)
Thus, even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will have significant
noise impacts because it will result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
Project construction does not involve blasting or other methods that would create
groundborne vibrations. Therefore, construction of the Project will not expose persons or generate
excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. Likewise, the Project is not located
within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within
the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, Project construction will not have any noise impacts
related to airstrip uses.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -78-
Regarding cumulative construction noise impacts, few of the proposed related
projects are located close enough together that they would likely combine together to increase overall
construction related noise so that it would affect a single neighborhood or sensitive land use area.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-4.) However, the possibility remains that simultaneous construction and associated
heavy truck traffic at multiple sites could occur. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the
Project’s cumulative construction noise impacts are presumed to be significant and unavoidable.
(Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 - 5-5.)
E. Utilities and Service Systems - Solid Waste
1. Potential Significant Impacts: At buildout, the proposed Project will generate
approximately 2,137 tons of solid waste per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-5.) This additional waste will
incrementally reduce the life expectancy of landfills serving the site. Given the size of the Project
and amount of waste to be generated, and given the fact than landfill space is in increasingly short
supply, Project solid waste generation is considered a potential significant adverse impact. (Ibid .)
2. Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential
impacts to utilities and service systems to the extent feasible:
Solid Waste Disposal
U1 The proposed Project shall include provisions for recycling to reduce the
waste stream associated with the Project in accordance with the Integrated
Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9.)
3. Supporting Explanation: Many programs are in place at local and Countywide levels
to reduce solid waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites).
(Draft EIR, p. 4.10-5.) In an effort to meet the AB 939 diversion goals of 50 percent by year 2000,
Azusa established a recycling program requiring the transfer and processing of waste at a Material
Recovery Facility ("MRF"). (Ibid.) For the year 2000, approximately 66,025 tons of solid waste
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -79-
were generated in the City of Azusa with a diversion rate of 44 percent. Although final data is not
yet available from the State for 2001, the City of Azusa expects that it achieved a diversion rate of
close to 55 percent for 2001 due to the new recycling program implemented in October 2000. (Ibid.)
The City’s success in meeting the AB 939 goal of 50 percent diversion and implementation of the
above mitigation measure will reduce solid waste impacts to the extent feasible.
However, even though the Project will comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations related to solid waste, it is not clear that the landfill serving the Project will have
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs over time.
Therefore, solid waste impacts from the proposed Project will remain significant and adverse.
Regarding cumulative impacts, when solid waste generation is considered cumulatively with the
related projects’ solid waste generation, a potential significant adverse cumulative impact may result.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-7.)
SECTION 5: RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.
Irreversible environmental changes are not anticipated for the proposed Project or any
of the Project alternatives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.) Construction and operation of the proposed Project
will rely on the use of nonrenewable resources. Use of fossil fuel derived energy sources such as
gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, and natural gas will be necessary for transport of workers and
materials during construction and provision of electricity, natural gas and fuel for vehicles during the
life of the Project. (Ibid.) Although the fossil fuel consumption associated with the Project will
constitute the depletion of a resource which is irretrievable and irreversible, the amount of the
resources consumed will not be of an extraordinary nature in a regional context. (Ibid.) Therefore,
the proposed Project’s use of nonrenewable energy sources is not considered to constitute a
significant impact. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -80-
SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.
The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to address the ways in which the
proposed Project could be growth-inducing. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA
Guidelines states that an EIR must describe the "ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surround environment." (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) The proposed Project will extend
infrastructure such as roads, utilities and public facilities, beyond that which already exists and meets
the needs of existing development in the Project area. Further growth into the foothills of the San
Gabriel mountains would be greatly constrained by natural features. (Ibid.) However, the possibility
exists that a limited number of homes could be constructed further into the hills in the future, given
the newly created proximity to utility infrastructure created by the proposed Project. (Ibid.) The
proposed Project inherently represents growth within the area, including the provision of new
housing, the creation of new facilities, the demand for new services, and localized job growth. With
such a substantial addition of people and housing, the proposed Project is anticipated to foster
economic growth within its locality and the region. (Ibid.)
SECTION 7: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES.
CEQA requires than an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or
to the location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project
proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR
must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of the project
objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases the consideration of
alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not required to choose the
environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not provide
substantial advantages over the proposed project and: (1) through the imposition of mitigation
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -81-
measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are
social economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
Although the State CEQA Guidelines directs lead agencies to consider the feasibility
of an alternative location, that alternative is not required: "[i]f the lead agency concludes that no
feasible alternative location exists." (Draft EIR, p. 6-1) However, the lead agency "must disclose the
reasons for this conclusion and should include the reasons in the EIR." To the best of the City’s
knowledge and understanding, the Project applicant neither owns nor controls any other sites within
the City or nearby areas suitable for the development of a 1,575-unit residential project. (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR identified the City of Azusa’s objectives for the Monrovia Nursery
Specific Plan and Project, which are:
• Develop a high quality residential community that enhances the existing surrounding
neighborhoods and also caters to the housing demands of the local marketplace. (Draft EIR,
p. 3-1.)
• Provide a variety of housing types in different price ranges, allowing for a variety of home
ownership opportunities. (Ibid.)
• Provide an opportunity for a future light rail transit station onsite to serve the new
development and the surrounding community. (Ibid.)
• Maximize the roadway and pedestrian connections between the proposed development and
the existing community to disperse traffic and avoid isolating the new development. (Ibid .)
• Design railroad crossings that promote pedestrian and vehicular safety but do not physically
divide the community, constrain access to existing properties, or require infeasible
acquisition of off-site property. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -82-
• Incorporate design amenities that attract buyers, contribute to the quality of life of future
residents, and maintain property values. (Ibid.)
• Create a financially successful development that is fiscally responsible and equitably
contributes to the improvement or expansion of those public services and facilities impacted
by the Project. (Ibid.)
• Design a residential community consistent with the Guiding Principles established by the
citizens of Azusa at Citizen Congress Meetings for the development of the Monrovia Nursery
property. The Guiding Principles include the following:
• Natural and Community Environment - Protect the foothills, preserve natural habitat
and terrain and integrate nature into future development and use. (Draft EIR, p. 3-2.)
• Quality Neighborhoods and Homes - Maintain Azusa’s family-oriented community
identity by offering diversity of home ownership opportunities and reflecting
traditional neighborhood patterns. (Ibid.)
• Mobility of Mix Uses - Create a walkable business campus adjacent to a future Gold
Line light rail stop connected with adjacent residential neighborhoods and the
emerging University District. (Ibid.)
• Green Spaces and Public Uses - Build on the green and open character of the natural
setting and history by incorporating passive green space and active recreational
facilities. (Ibid.)
• Implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, such as:
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -83-
• Provide an orderly, functional, and compatible land use pattern to guide the future
growth and development of Azusa and its planning area. (Ibid.)
• Ensure that the type, amount, design, and pattern of all land uses within the City
serve to protect and enhance the character and image of Azusa as a desirable
residential urban community. (Ibid.)
• Provide for an orderly pattern of future development and change throughout the City
that will be both compatible with and beneficial to existing land uses and will ensure
residents of a desirable urban environment in which to live, work, shop, and play.
(Ibid.)
• Allow development in the San Gabriel Mountain foothills only when proper
consideration has been shown for all environmental and safety factors. (Ibid.)
A. Alternative 1 - "No Development" Alternative
1. Description: With respect to the proposed Project, analysis of the "No Development"
Alternative ("Alternative 1") includes existing environmental impacts on-site, as well as those that
would be expected to occur given the continued operation of the Monrovia Nursery. (Draft EIR, p.
6-2.) Alternative 1 would not require grading or the construction of new structures. As a result, the
aesthetics and visual character of the existing Project site would not be expected to change from
existing conditions. In addition, no short term adverse air quality impacts would occur from
construction. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-2 - 6-3.) Alternative 1 would retain the current nursery operations on
site. Therefore, operational emissions would remain the same under this alternative. (Draft EIR, p.
6-3.) Alternative 1 would not disrupt the biological resources and native habitat on the site and no
agricultural impacts would occur. (Ibid.) Alternative 1 would also not destroy or substantially alter
any cultural resources and historic features would remain on-site. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -84-
This alternative would not result in landform alteration, nor would it expose an
increased number of residents to seismic or other geologic hazards. (Ibid.) However, Alternative 1
would not have the benefit of remediation of on-site contamination to current safety levels. Under
this alternative, exposure to contaminants and risk of upset would remain unchanged. (Ibid .)
Because Alternative 1 proposes no new development on the Project site, it is consistent with the
Azusa General Plan, which currently designates the site for conservation, rural residential and
agricultural resources. (Ibid.) In addition, this alternative would not require construction and
therefore would not generate construction noise. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) Moreover, Alternative 1 would
not increase the intensity of operations on site or result in increased traffic volumes. Alternative 1
would also not result in an increase in noise levels, since operational noise levels are primarily
associated with vehicular traffic. (Ibid.) Housing, population and employment under this alternative
would remain at existing levels. (Ibid.) With no increase in population, Alternative 1 would not
place any additional demand on public services. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) Further, because the Project
site would continue with its current use under this alternative, no additional vehicle trips would be
generated. (Ibid.) Demands on utilities and service systems, water, hydrology and drainage would
remain generally unchanged under Alternative 1. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-7 - 6-8.)
2. Finding: The City Council finds that although the "No Development" alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet any and all
Project objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation: While Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the
proposed Project because it would result in no environmental impacts, it would not meet any of the
Project objectives. Most significantly, this alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives to
develop a high quality residential community and provide a variety of housing types in different price
ranges to allow for a variety of home ownership opportunities. (Draft EIR, p. 3-1.) Alternative 1
would also not fulfill other Project objectives which center on providing an orderly, functional and
compatible land use pattern for the future growth of Azusa and ensuring residents of a desirable
urban environment in which to live, work, shop and play. (Draft EIR, p. 3-2.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -85-
Moreover, with this alternative the current on-site contamination from hazardous
materials would remain at existing unsafe levels. Exposure to contaminants and the risk of upset
would remain unchanged. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that
Alternative 1 fails to meet Project objectives and is infeasible. On this basis, the City Council rejects
Alternative 1.
B. Alternative 2 - "No Project" Alternative (Development Consistent with Existing General Plan
and Zoning)
1. Description: Consistent with existing land use policies, plans and regulations, the
"No Project" Alternative ("Alternative 2") assumes that the Project site, with the exception of areas
designated for open space uses (241 acres), would be developed solely as single-family housing at
two dwelling units per acre. The estimated number of residential units under Alternative 2 is 558.
(Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
This alternative would involve less grading compared to the proposed Project and
would not realign Sierra Madre. This alternative would impact the open space character of the site,
resulting in similar, although fewer, impacts as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative would
also require grading and construction similar to, but less than, the proposed Project. As substantial
grading would be involved, it is expected that this alternative would result in adverse short term air
quality impacts during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative
2 would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for operational emissions. (Ibid.)
This alternative would result in adverse biological impacts similar to the proposed
Project and no agricultural adverse impacts. (Ibid.) Alternative 2 would not adversely affect Palm
Drive or the Covina Canal and presumably these historic features could be preserved through site
planning. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) Under this alternative, less landform alteration would occur and any
seismic faults or other geologic constraints could be avoided. Fewer residents would be exposed to
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -86-
potential geologic and seismic hazards. (Ibid.) Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would
remediate the existing contamination on the Project site to required safety levels. (Ibid.) This
alternative is also compatible with surrounding low-density residential uses and is consistent with the
Azusa General Plan and the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Because this alternative involves substantial construction, it is expected to result in
adverse short term noise impacts, but no adverse operational noise impacts, which is similar to the
proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative does not propose non-residential uses and would not
provide any employment opportunities. A net loss of employment on site would result. However, no
adverse employment impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) Alternative 2 would also result in lesser
impacts to public services and payment of fair-share impact fees would reduce any adverse impacts
to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) This alternative would add 602 new students to
the AUSD, but it does not include the addition of a school on site. The increase in students would
contribute to existing overcrowding at AUSD schools, resulting in a significant adverse impact.
(Ibid .) Payment of fair-share impact fees would reduce the adverse impact to a less than significant
level. (Ibid.) Alternative 2 would generate a smaller number of vehicle trips due to the decreased
number of residences. Similar to the proposed Project, adverse traffic impacts would be mitigated to
less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require the need for on and off
site improvements to electric and natural gas utilities. Again, similar to the proposed Project, if the
water system for this alternative requires new systems to be designed to provide adequate capacity
and delivery capabilities, Alternative 2 will require provision of water storage and distribution
facilities and/or payment of fees to fund improvements. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) In addition, the
County's sewage collection system should have adequate capacity to accommodate the effluent to be
generated by Alternative 2 and, similar to the proposed Project, impacts would be less than
significant. (Ibid.) This alternative would result in a smaller portion of the Project site covered by
impervious surfaces. Appropriate mitigation measures would be adopted and impacts would be less
than significant. (Ibid.) However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would generate
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -87-
substantial amounts of solid waste. Despite implementation of a recycling program to reduce the
waste stream associated with Alternative 2, this alternative would result in a significant adverse
impact related to landfill capacity. (Ibid.)
Alternative 2 would include features to allow groundwater to recharge at current
levels. Impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.) Alternative 2
would also reduce the level of water consumption and runoff compared to the proposed Project, due
to lower development densities and reduced impervious surfaces. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: The City Council finds that Alternative 2 (the "No Project" alternative) is
infeasible because it fails to meet most of the basic Project objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation: In comparison with the proposed Project, Alternative 2
would result in lower demand on public services and utilities and would require less grading and
construction due to its reduced density. (Draft EIR, p.6-9.) However, CEQA excludes the "No
Project" alternative from consideration as the environmentally superior alternative. Moreover,
Alternative 2 would result in four significant unavoidable impacts to the Project site. (Ibid.) This
alternative would also result in some impacts being similar to the proposed Project, including
impacts to aesthetics and visual resources; air quality - operational emissions; biological resources;
land use and planning; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems. (Draft EIR, pp.6-
2 - 6-7.) These similarities indicate that Alternative 2 would not provide a substantial benefit over
the proposed Project. In addition, this failure to improve upon the proposed Project is amplified by
Alternative 2's inability to achieve Project objectives. Specifically, Alternative 2 would not achieve
any of the following Project objectives:
• Develop a high quality residential community that enhances the existing surrounding
neighborhoods and also caters to the housing demands of the local marketplace. (Draft EIR,
p. 3-1.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -88-
• Provide a variety of housing types in different price ranges, allowing for a variety of home
ownership opportunities. (Ibid.)
• Provide an opportunity for a future light rail transit station onsite to serve the new
development and the surrounding community. (Ibid.)
• Design railroad crossings that promote pedestrian and vehicular safety but do not physically
divide the community, constrain access to existing properties, or require infeasible
acquisition of off-site property. (Ibid.)
• Incorporate design amenities that attract buyers, contribute to the quality of life of future
residents, and maintain property values. (Ibid.)
• Design a residential community consistent with the Guiding Principles established by the
citizens of Azusa at Citizen Congress Meetings for the development of the Monrovia Nursery
property. (Ibid.) The Guiding Principles include the following:
· Natural and Community Environment - Protect the foothills, preserve natural habitat
and terrain and integrate nature into future development and use. (Draft EIR, p. 3-2.)
· Quality Neighborhoods and Homes - Maintain Azusa’s family-oriented community
identity by offering diversity of home ownership opportunities and reflecting
traditional neighborhood patterns. (Ibid .)
· Mobility of Mix Uses - Create a walkable business campus adjacent to a future Gold
Line light rail stop connected with adjacent residential neighborhoods and the
emerging University District. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -89-
· Green Spaces and Public Uses - Build on the green and open character of the natural
setting and history by incorporating passive green space and active recreational
facilities. (Ibid.)
In addition to failing to meet the above Project objectives, Alternative 2 would also
fail to provide specific benefits and amenities contained in the proposed Project. Specifically, this
alternative would not provide employment opportunities from commercial uses, nor would it
provide a school. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-5 - 6-6.) Alternative 2 would also not provide a transit center
which would give residents opportunities for alternate transportation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9.) All of
these benefits and amenities are provided by the proposed Project. In addition, the proposed Project
will provide an arroyo which will serve as both a recreational amenity, with a walking trail along a
riparian corridor, and as a technical amenity, by functioning as a flood control and water quality
feature. (Draft EIR, p. 3-7.) Because Alternative 2 would only consist of 558 residential units, no
such benefits and amenities would be available to residents under this alternative.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 2, although
environmentally superior, fails to meet Project objectives and is therefore infeasible. On this basis,
the City Council rejects Alternative 2.
C. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density Alternative
1. Description: Alternative 3 considers a development scenario at a substantially
reduced density compared to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) Alternative 3 includes
development of 1,000 residential units. Although Alternative 3 is a scaled-down version of the
proposed Project, it will include features similar to the proposed Project such as a school, parks, and
limited commercial uses (approximately 50,000square feet). (Ibid.)
This alternative would involve less grading compared to the proposed Project and
would not realign Sierra Madre. This alternative would impact the open space character of the site,
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -90-
resulting in similar, although fewer, impacts as the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) This
alternative would also require grading and construction similar to, but less than, the proposed
Project. As substantial grading would be involved, it is expected that this alternative would result in
adverse short term air quality impacts during construction. (Ibid.) Similar to the proposed Project,
Alternative 3 would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for operational emissions. (Ibid.)
This alternative would result in adverse biological impacts similar to the proposed
Project and no adverse agricultural impacts. (Ibid.) Because of the space required to develop 1,000
housing units and associated public services such as a school, parks and commercial uses, the same
adverse impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed Project would likely occur under
Alternative 3. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) Under this alternative, less landform alteration would occur and
fewer residents would be exposed to potential geologic and seismic hazards. (Ibid.) Similar to the
proposed Project, Alternative 3 would remediate the existing contamination on the Project site to
required safety levels. (Ibid.) This alternative is also similar to the proposed Project in that it would
be consistent with surrounding land uses and would not result in land use conflicts. Therefore, no
land use impacts would occur, similar to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Because this alternative involves substantial construction, it is expected to result in
adverse short term noise impacts, but no adverse operational noise impacts, which is similar to the
proposed Project. (Ibid.) Alternative 3 would generate 3,495 new residents, which is within SCAG
projections. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) This alternative contains a limited commercial component that
would provide a reduced number of new employment opportunities when compared with the
proposed Project. However, no adverse employment impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) Alternative 3
would result in lesser impacts to fire, paramedic and police services. This alternative would also
include a school on site. If the addition of a school does not sufficiently serve the area, payment of
fair-share impact fees to AUSD would reduce impacts to less than significant. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -91-
Alternative 3 would generate a smaller number of vehicle trips due to the decreased
number of residences. Similar to the proposed Project, adverse traffic impacts would be mitigated to
less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would require the need for on and off
site improvements to electric and natural gas utilities. Again, similar to the proposed Project, if the
water system for this alternative requires new systems to be designed to provide adequate capacity
and delivery capabilities, Alternative 3 will require provision of water storage and distribution
facilities and/or payment of fees to fund improvements. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) Similar to the proposed
Project, design capacities of the County's sanitation facilities would be capable of serving the Project
site under Alternative 3 and no impacts would occur. (Ibid.)
This alternative would result in a smaller portion of the Project site covered by
impervious surfaces. Appropriate mitigation measures would be adopted and impacts would be less
than significant. (Ibid.) However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would generate
substantial amounts of solid waste. Despite implementation of a recycling program to reduce the
waste stream associated with Alternative 3, this alternative would result in a significant adverse
impact related to landfill capacity. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
Alternative 3 would include features to allow groundwater to recharge at current
levels. Impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Alternative 3 would also
reduce the level of water consumption and runoff compared to the proposed Project, due to lower
development densities and reduced impervious surfaces. (Ibid.)
2. Finding: The City Council finds that although the "Reduced Density" alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet most of the
basic Project objectives.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -92-
3. Supporting Explanation: Alternative 3 would result in impacts of lesser degrees than
the proposed Project because of the reduced density, but would also result in the same amount of
significant adverse unavoidable impacts as the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) Like
Alternative 2, this alternative would result in certain impacts being similar to the proposed Project,
including impacts to aesthetics and visual resources; air quality - operational emissions; biological
resources; land use and planning; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems. (Draft
EIR, pp.6-2 - 6-7.) These similarities indicate that Alternative 3 would not provide a substantial
benefit over the proposed Project. In addition, this failure to improve upon the proposed Project is
amplified by Alternative 3's inability to achieve Project objectives. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
not achieve any of the following Project objectives:
· Develop a high quality residential community that enhances the existing surrounding
neighborhoods and also caters to the housing demands of the local marketplace. (Draft EIR,
p. 6-9.) This alternative would have no "lower" price housing ($280,000 range) and would
be priced out of most of the local market.
· Provide a variety of housing types in different price ranges, allowing for a variety of home
ownership opportunities. (Ibid.)
· Create a financially successful development that is fiscally responsible. (Ibid.)
· Design a residential community consistent with the Guiding Principles established by the
citizens of Azusa at Citizen Congress Meetings for the development of the Monrovia Nursery
property. (Draft EIR, p. 6-10.) The Guiding Principles include the following:
· Quality Neighborhoods and Homes - Maintain Azusa’s family-oriented community
identity by offering diversity of home ownership opportunities. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -93-
· Mobility of Mix Uses - Create a walkable business campus adjacent to a future Gold
Line light rail stop connected with adjacent residential neighborhoods and the
emerging University District. (Ibid.)
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that Alternative 3, although
environmentally superior, fails to meet Project objectives and is therefore infeasible. On this basis,
the City Council rejects Alternative 3.
SECTION 8: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Project to the City
Council. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant
effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except
for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section IV of this Resolution.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort
to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -94-
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR and/or Specific Plan could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures
are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the
realization of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set
forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives
and/or specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any
environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the
benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has
determined that the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh
the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
· A high quality residential community that enhances the existing surrounding neighborhoods.
(Draft EIR, p. 2-16.)
· A variety of housing types in different price ranges, allowing for a variety of homeownership
opportunities. (Ibid.)
· An opportunity for future light rail transit to serve the new development and the surrounding
community. (Ibid.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -95-
· A new Azusa Unified School District kindergarten through eighth grade school which will
result in a beneficial cumulative effect on public school services. (Draft EIR, pp. 2-16, 5-6.)
· Over 28 acres of public parks open to the community and the region, resulting in a
cumulative benefit. (Ibid.)
· New roadway and pedestrian connections to disperse traffic throughout the community.
(Ibid.)
· Railroad crossings that promote pedestrian and vehicular safety but do not physically divide
the community, constrain access to existing properties, or require infeasible acquisition of
off-site property. (Ibid.)
· Opportunity for LACFD to relocate or place a new fire station outside of the Sierra Madre
Fault Zone setback zone. (Ibid.)
· Design amenities that attract buyers, contribute to the quality of life of future residents, and
maintain property values. (Ibid.)
· A financially successful development that is fiscally responsible and equitably contributes to
the improvement or expansion of those public services and facilities impacted by the Project.
(Ibid.)
· An increase in residential development in a jobs-rich area, improving the jobs to housing
balance. (Ibid.)
· The existing pad elevation of the Nursery Reservoir would be lowered from 860 feet to 823
feet and covered by a park, resulting in a beneficial landform modification. (Draft EIR, p.
4.1-13.)
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -96-
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public
through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Project, which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each
of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR
and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 9: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE EIR.
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating
the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies
with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which
would require recirculation.
The City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the following findings and
conclusions:
A. Findings. The following significant environmental impacts have been
identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but
cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: Air Quality (Construction Emissions);
Aesthetics and Visual Impacts; Noise (Construction Impacts); Cultural Resources (Palm Drive and
Covina Canal); and Utilities and Service Systems.
B. Conclusions.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -97-
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified, will be mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in
Section A above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project which could
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project have been considered and rejected in
favor of the proposed Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives
to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed
Project.
SECTION 10: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts
the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall control.
SECTION 11: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD.
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
Findings have been based are located at the City of Azusa, 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa,
California. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Director. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
RVPUB\NGS\646021 -98-
SECTION 12. RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION.
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within five
(5) working days of final Project approval.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 21st day of January, 2003.
____________________________________________
Cristina Cruz-Madrid, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January 2003, by the following
vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________________
Vera Mendoza, City Clerk