Loading...
Resolution - 6684RESOLUTION NO.: 6684 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CERTIFYING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AND CON- SIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT -OF _ • THE WEST COVINA.VILLAGE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AMENDED PROJECT AREA) MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONHEN- TAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT:OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of West Covina ("Agency") proposes..to purchase certain real property known as the West Covina Village Site (the "Site") for redevelopment pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the Agency has caused to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report covering the development of the Site and other discretionary actions necessary to the development of the Site in implementing said Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), relating to the proposed development of the. Site has been.prepared and certified by the Agency; and WHEREAS,,the Agency and the City Council have held a duly noticed joint public hearing to consider a proposed Owner Participation Agreement by and between the Agency and Dighton Incorporated N.V. for the development of the Site; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in said Final Environmental Impact Report with respect to development of the Site pursuant to said Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. The City Council hereby certifies that the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed and considered by the Council. 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Report: a. That the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report, including those raised in comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, have been considered and recog- nized by the City Council. b. That based on information set forth in the Final Environmental Im- pact Report, the City. Council finds and determines that measures have been re- quired in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid each of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report, relating to light and glare (Vol. 1', pp. 90-91), surface water runoff (Vol. 1, p. 91), public services and utilities (Vol. 1, pp. 92-98). c. That the adverse environmental impacts relating to land use (Vol. 1, pp. 42-44), traffic/circulation (Vol. 1, pp. 46-69), air quality (Vol, 1, pp 72- 81), energy (Vol. 1, pp 88-89), and.traffic, demolition and construction noise (Vol, 1, pp. 83-87) identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and set forth in Section I of Attachment A (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is imple- mented. Res. No. 6684 Page 2 • d. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of the proposed development. 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report have been reduced to an acceptable level in that.: a. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in paragraphs 3.b and 3.c of this Resolution. b. Based upon the Final Environmental Impact Report and the documents in the record, and upon Section II of Attachment "A", specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in said Final Environmental Impact Report. c. Based upon the Final Environmental Impact Report and the documents in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant effects of the proposed development, as set forth in paragraph 3.c of this Resolution are overridden by the benefits of the project as described in Section III of Attachment "A", and the City Council hereby approves and adopts said Section III of said Attachment "A" as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed development project and implementing actions. • 5. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of Determination with respect to the Final,Environmental Impact.Report pertaining to the approval of the proposed Owner Participation. Agreement for the develop- ment of the Site and all other Agency actions taken in furtherance thereof be filed. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April 1983. ATTEST: A &'eZ.01 City Clerk I24L� Mayor I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No.6684 was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of West Covina at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of April 1983 by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Councilmen: Bacon, Shearer, Chappell,.Tice NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: Councilmen: Tennant t yClerk" APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney y 120/8-5 ATTACHMENT "A" • SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, INFEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, RELATING TO THE PROPOSED DEVEL- OPMENT OF THE WEST COVINA VILLAGE SITE I.. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE ENTIRELY MITIGATED OR AVOIDED A. Land Use 1. Environmental Impacts According to the City of West Covina's Zoning Ordinance, a number of different. types of retail commercial uses are allowed under service and neighborhood commercial zoning. The recent rezoning of Parcel 9 would allow service oriented businesses on that portion of the proposed site. However, because service oriented businesses such as tire stores, auto repair shops and service stations tend to have a higher impact on surrounding neighborhoods (higher noise levels, visually aesthetic degradation of occupied sites and potentially adding to poorer air quality) the participant upon recommendations of the City of West Covina will limit potential occupants to nonservice oriented businesses. [Final EIR, Vol. 1, p. 421 This exclusion should limit potential noise, air and visually aesthetic degradation as mitigating measures respectful of local residents. [Id.] In Phase lA (the southerly one-half of the Site), parcels 11, 13 and 14 will require zone changes. The location of these parcels is shown on Figure No. 8. The proposed rezoning from office professional, residential agricultural, and single family zoning to the neighborhood commercial zoning designation for these parcels is consistent with the second amendment to the Central Business District Redevelopment Plan for the City of West Covina. [Id.] The primary land use impact of approving the proposed development project will be displacement of existing owners and tenants. Approximately twenty (20) business establishments, thirteen of which are office related users and seven (7) are retail users, will be displaced by Development Phase II (Parcel 1A) of the development project. Possible hardships of many kinds may accompany occupant displacement, which could even result in total closure of a business. [ Final EIR, Vol. 1, p. 441 . Surrounding land uses will be affected by both short-term and long-term impacts. Demolition and construction traffic activities will cause an increase in noise and dust during the buildout period. Long-term impacts will generally include additional traffic on roadways, incremental increases in noise and air quality degradation, increased energy consumption, increased nighttime activity, and visual and aesthetic impacts. Each of these impacts is discussed in more detail in the appropriate section of this report. -1- The Agency will acquire all properties not owned .by the developer within Parcel 1A, excepting the three residential properties included in Site Plan A, and convey said properties to the developer. [Id.] • 2. Mitigation Measures 1. Administration of the Agency's relocation plan will maximize assistance to reduce any hardship on the displaced businesses by working with each business on an individual basis. Contact with relocated businesses will be maintained until they are satisfactorily settled, and follow-up calls will be made where necessary to ease the transition of the move. The following specific services will be provided: a. Each business required to move will be personally interviewed, and a detailed and clear explanation of benefits will be made. b. Informational statements for businesses will be delivered as appropriate. C. Agency staff or a relocation consultant will continuously make field surveys to locate business vacancies for referrals. Additionally, real estate brokers will be informed of the displacement and their cooperation will be solicited in making referrals. Referrals to commercial sites will be made relative to commercial operators' needs in location, square footage requirements, trade areas, and other business location criteria. d. If transportation is needed to field -check referrals, the Agency • staff member or consultant will provide such transportation. e. Assistance will be given in filing relocation claims and these claims will be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency. f. Payment of moving and related expenses will be made promptly. 2. Relocation benefits provided for in the State Relocation Assistance Law, Chapter 16, Sections 7260 et seq., California Government Code, will be paid to those businesses displaced by any project activities, in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in the Amended Redevelopment Plan, the California Community Redevelopment Law, and the rules and regulations for implementation of the California Relocation Assistance Law adopted by the Redevelopment Agency on May 12, 1980, Resolution 180. Briefly, these benefits are as follows: a. Actual moving expenses and/or personal property loss payment, b. Expenses of searching for a relocation site, up to $500, C. Cost of reinstalling leased equipment; i.e., telephones, burglar alarms, etc., d. Cost of reprinting printed materials made obsolete by the move, and • e. Cost of certain tenant improvements. -2- 3. The proposed Owner Participation Agreement requires the developer to provide reasonable preferences for commercial retail sales and service businesses presently located in the Project area, or the area added to Project area, to become lessees on the Site ahead of others from outside the Project area, to the extent such businesses are appropriate for the Site and at rental rates and other lease terms consistent with such rental rates and lease terms offered to similar lessees of the Site. (Section 702, Owner Participation Agreement). 4. If the developer acquires the three (3) single family residential lots included in Site Plan A, the proposed Owner Participation Agreement requires the developer to pay all costs and expenses incurred as a result of the acquisition of said lots. [ Id., pp. 45-461 Unavoidable adverse land use impacts are partially mitigated, but are still significant impacts. [Id. p. 51 B. Traffic and Circulation 1. Environmental Impacts The analysis of future traffic conditions in the project area was performed. The future roadway system was considered to be essentially the same as current roadway condition (i.e., no highway improvements were assumed to have been implemented). [ Final EIR, Vol. 1, p. 661 The traffic volumes for the analysis were developed as follows: • Traffic volumes for the the no -project condition were determined by combining the area traffic growth with related project traffic. Traffic volumes generated by the project were then added to these to form the basis for the "Project" traffic analysis. [Id.] Figure 19 shows future traffic conditions if the proposed project is developed. [Id.] In the assessment of the impacts of the proposed project as compared to the no - project conditions, the difference between '.'significant impact" and "critical impact" should be understood. A significant impact could be defined as any change in the ICU value of 0.03 or more. This should really not be considered a "critical impact" when the Level of Service remains C or better. A "critical impact" would be defined as one where there are significant changes in traffic operations, such as increases in the number and duration of stops, and much longer travel times. The impacts of even small changes become "critical" as the volumes begin to approach the capacity of an intersection (i.e., when dealing with Levels of Service D through F). [Id., pp. 66-681 Analysis of the two intersections that were a part of this study, showed the following results. (1) Azusa Avenue and Rowland Avenue and (2) Azusa Avenue and Workman Avenue, the first of these intersections will experience a limited impact (+0.01) during the AM peak hour, when the project is constructed, and will continue to operate at Level of Service A, with very little change in overall traffic operations. However, during the PM peak hour, this intersection will experience a critical impact -3- 9 ROWLAND WORKMAN KI ROWLAN0 WORKMAN 0 32 "' Co iD �-115 Com Co 109 38 A - 121 N Co Q1 60 = � Lo CD70 "' "' 112 '. = 165 60 O 112 ^ cn �D Cn 14 `— 65 CT O ^ v N 2G8 � 177 ♦ - 235 Cr-y CO Lo •^n O 263 154 `— 75 ^ Cn ^ °' � `) 4 r- 259 r-151 L♦ 121 253 189 1Tf Figure 19 Future (1984) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes — AVENUE AM PEAK HOUR RAFrIC NORTH AVENUE, AVENUE PM PEAK HOUR A rIC AVENUE -4- (+0.17). The second intersection is similar with a morning peak hour increase of 0.04. However, since the intersection is critically impacted (+0.20) during the PM peak hour, • the project will cause a change from Level C to Level E, with a significant degrading of traffic operating condition. [ Id., p. 681 Development project traffic impacts at the Azusa Avenue ramps to the San Bernardino Freeway and impacts on the San Bernardino Freeway have been determined for peak period conditions. This analysis reveals that project Site traffic using any (one) Freeway entrance or exit ramp will be insignificant. This is based on the calculation that less than one project related vehicle trip per minute will use any Freeway ramp during peak travel hours for the Azusa Avenue - San Bernardino Freeway ramps. [Id., p. 621 The cumulative impacts attributable to related projects and new or unusual growth in future traffic is expected to be insignificant with regard to traffic. Of the related projects identified in the study, less than 6% of their traffic generation will travel on study area streets. During the morning peak hour, it was estimated that 63 related projeet trips (peak direction) will use the Azusa Avenue westbound on -ramp to the San Bernardino Freeway and it was estimated that 56 related project trips (peak direction) will use the Azusa Avenue eastbound off -ramp from the San Benardino Freeway during PM peak hours. While it was determined that related project Site traffic will have an insignificant effect on ramp traffic, there will be minor cumulative effects to the San Bernardino Freeway. [Id., p. 661 There are a number of traffic engineering solutions that can be implemented to mitigate the traffic impacts on the surface streets. More attractive public transportation alternatives is a way of reducing vehicular trip demands. Alternatively, some trips will be diverted to other (under-utilized) paralleling routes and a more balanced highway network will result. [Id., p.*:691 2. Mitigation Measures There are a number of proposed highway system improvements which would be beneficial to traffic in the vicinity of the proposed development Site and which would be effective in. mitigating some of the adverse impacts caused by new traffic generated by the proposed project. Further, there are a number of mitigation measures which are more directly controllable by the project developer. The following measures are recommended to facilitate project traffic on the surrounding street system: [Id., p. 691 1. Increased Driveway Storage Area — Although this was discussed with primary regard to the main project driveway along Azusa Avenue, the designs of the other driveways should also be reviewed to insure adequate storage capacity.. Most importantly, sufficient on site storage should be provided so entering vehicles will not queue onto the adjacent roadways where they may cause a disruption to traffic flow or a potential safety problem. [Id.] 2. Restriping/Rechannelization of Azusa Avenue — As discussed earlier, there were three sets of improvements in the striping and channelization along • Azusa Avenue that were analyzed in terms of mitigating some of the project traffic impacts. The effectiveness of these improvements are summarized in Table 11: [Id.] -5- TABLE 11 0 Effectiveness of Restriping/Rechannelization Improvements Along Azusa Avenue AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS At Rowland Avenue and Azusa Avenue: - Existing Facilities: No Project 0.47 A 0.79 C With Project 0.48 A 0.93 E Improvement A 0.48 A 0.87. D Improvement B 0.41 A 0.82 D Improvement, C 0.42 A 0.77 C At Workman Avenue and Azusa Avenue: Existing Facilities: No Project 0.54 A 0.78 C With Project 0.57 A 0.98 E Improvement A 0.57 A 0.98 E Improvement B 0.49 A 0.82 D Improvement C 0.49 A 0.82 D As indicated by these ICU values and the corresponding levels of service, the suggested improvements can significantly reduce overall project traffic impacts, and in some cases can provide an actual betterment of traffic conditions over the "no project/no improvement" case. In terms of a specific recommendation, Improvement B, involving the removal of parking along Azusa Avenue and the restriping of this street as a six -lane facility, appears to be the most cost-effective. [Id., p. 701 3. Traffic Signal Timing Improvements — As discussed previously, Caltrans can make "fine tuning" improvements in the new signal system that they have recently installed along Azusa Avenue. Their timing plans are developed through the use of manual techniques and very little time is spent in surveying actual traffic operations. With computer -based traffic signal timing, optimization programs, such as TRANSYT, it is expected that stops and delays could be decreased by 10 to 15 percent. Other similar improvements in the surrounding traffic signal systems could also be made. [Id., pp. 70-711 .4. Elderly/Handicap Accessibility — The project will comply with State and Federal regulations making the project accessible to wheelchair and mobility -impaired persons through special design of curb cuts, wide doorways where appropriate, etc. [ Id., p. 71 5. The City and the Agency will work with CALTRANS to develop . a program of street improvement measures to be scheduled and implemented on Azusa Avenue. The developer shall bear all costs for the street improvements. (Id.] -6- 6. As conditions of approval of the Precise Plan for the project development, the City shall require developer to: • a. Post a bond in an amount equal to the estimated cost to erect a new traffic signal at the mid point of the center of Azusa Avenue, subject to ultimate concurrence of CALTRANS. b. Extend and reconstruct the median island northbound on Azusa Avenue at Rowland for potential double left turn capability onto Rowland Avenue. CALTRANS . has given its preliminary concurrence for this measure. C. Construct a left turn only at the midpoint of center northbound on Azusa Avenue: Preliminary concurrence has been received from CALTRANS. d. Remove on -street parking along Azusa Avenue and restripe. [Id.] 7. Project generated traffic will have a significant effect upon. traffic conditions at two study intersec.tions. The significant effect could be reduced or eliminated with the implementation of any combination of the suggested mitigation measures. [Id., pp. 71-721 C. Air Quality 1. Environmental Impacts Construction Activity Emissions. Construction activities; such as demolition of existing structures, excavation,. grading, earth removal and travel on unpaved surfaces, will generate fugitive dust into the, atmosphere. According to ARB estimates, construction activities in California generate about 80 pounds of dust per day per acre disturbed (without dust control), and commercial construction averages 11 months from groundbreaking to completion. By using water spray or other dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, dust generation can be reduced by about one-half. [Final EIR, Vol. 1, p. 771 Since much of this dust is comprised of large, inert particles readily filtered out by the human breathing passages, it does not comprise a significant health hazard. As these large particles settle out on nearby parked cars, foliage, or other surfaces, they will soil the surface and cause a temporary nuisance. These emissions will be of short- term duration and will vary depending upon the amount of daily grading activity and the effectiveness of dust mitigating measures. Upon completion of the project the dust emissions will cease. [Id.] During construction, onsite operation of heavy equipment and the offsite trucks that haul construction materials will generate combustion emissions from their diesel engines. The ARB estimates that an average of 295,000 horsepower -hours of equipment operation are required to build out one acre of property into commercial uses. [Id., p. 781 . If the three residential properties on Workman Avenue at the southwest corner . of the development Site are not acquired by the participant and incorporated into the development project, the short term impacts from construction activities will more heavily affect the residents of those properties because of their location immediately adjacent to the work site. [Id.] -7- Vehicular Emissions. The greatest project related air quality concern stems • from an increase in vehicular traffic. A comparison of the project -associated emissions of the region in which the project is located indicated the project contribution to be significant with respect to Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides. [Id., pp. 78-791 Stationary Source Emissions. Stationary on -site emissions from natural gas combustion associated with implementation of the project are presented, assuming a natural gas consumption factor of 50 cubic feet/month/square foot for the restaurant area, 3.5 cubic feet/month/square foot of bank floor space and 20 cubic feet/month/square foot for. all other buildings. The contribution of project on -site stationary emissions to the total emissions projected for the project area is not significant by itself, but does add to an overall significant emissions impact. [ Id., p. 80 The emissions resulting from the project's electrical energy demand will occur off -site at electrical power generating plants located throughout the utilities generating network. The total emissions resulting from the generation of electricity are presented, assuming the power is provided by an oil burning power plant and energy consumption factors on -site of an additional 5,870,234 kilowatt hours (KWH) per year. 2. Mitigation Measures 1. In accordance with AQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust) a dust control program shall be implemented during construction. 2. Increasingly strict State and Federal auto emission standards implemented by appropriate governmental agencies will partially offset the anticipated decrease in air quality associated with the proposed development. This mitigation measure is indicated by a decrease in South Coast Air Quality Management District pollution generation factors from automobiles for future years. 3. In addition to the above mitigation measures, compliance with measures contained in the Public Services and Utilities, Traffic/Circulation, and Energy sections of the EIR will also reduce project -related impacts on air quality. 4. A reduction in vehicle mile trips will likely occur in the area by providing shopping convenience to the area residents. 3. Adverse Impacts Long-term air pollution emissions from project related automobile generation, natural gas use and electrical generation will cumulatively impact air quality in the region. Short term impacts from construction activities will also occur. [Id., p. 821 D. Noise 1. Environmental Impacts Short Term Impacts. Noise impacts will occur during the project construction phase. Demolition of existing structures, excavation of earthen material on -site and is building construction activities are the primary noise producing factors associated with the construction phase of the project. [Final EIR, Vol. 1, p. 831 -8- N During the period of project construction, people in the immediate vicinity of • the Site, especially the three (3) residential properties on Workman Avenue included in Site Plan A, may experience verbal communication interference. Unfortunately, nearby residents who normally sleep during daytime hours, may experience sleep interference. [Id., p. 831 Since construction activities are limited to daytime periods, no significant adverse noise impacts are expected in the local community during the nighttime hours. However, because of the nature of construction equipment and demolition, short term significant impacts occur. [Id., p. 851 Long Term Impacts. No noise impacts are expected to result from the building's mechanical equipment as long as such equipment is located in acoustically adequate enclosures or is located on the roofs of the structures and is not vented or open directly to adjacent residential areas. Traffic associated with the proposed project will not result in a significant noise level increase in the local community. [Id., p. 851 The noise levels were measured and analyzed for six separate situations at the three receptor points for both present and future (1984) noise impacts. At present, the most highly impacted of the three receptor points is No. 3 which is closest to Azusa Avenue (approximately 100 to the nearest exposed open area). The first home along Workman Avenue, just west of Fleetwell Avenue, is receptor point No. 2. Because this point is located directly adjacent to the planned southern entrance to the Site (30 feet away) receptor point No. 2 will potentially experience the second greatest noise related impact. Finally, the first home west of Azusa Avenue along Rowland Avenue (receptor point No. 1) should experience the least noise impact since it is approximately 200 feet from any entrance to the proposed project site and approximately 400 feet from Azusa Avenue. [ Id., pp. 86-871 Based on measurements taken at the three receptor points, "worst case" analysis indicates that present noise levels are within normally acceptable limits for residential single .family areas near the proposed Site. In addition, receptor data indicates that 17 of the 18 future noise level measurements in the area will remain within normally acceptable levels. The only point at which the impact will become normally unacceptable is at receptor No. 3 during peak hour traffic (at 35 mpg). Despite the fact that acceptable noise levels are violated in .this single case, it should be considered a complete worst case situation since noise levels are not normally based upon specific one hour increments, but rather upon 15 hour averages of daytime noise levels. [Id., p. 871 2. Mitigation Measures 1. Construction activities will be accomplished according to local procedures and ordinances. This will include all diesel equipment being equipped with proper exhaust muffling equipment. Demolition and construction will be limited to daytime hours. [Id., p. 871 2. Project related truck traffic should be discouraged from using local residential streets near the project site as much as possible. [Id.] • 3. The proposed structures will be designed to meet California Noise Insulation Standards. [Id., p. 881 -9- 4. All building mechanical equipment will be appropriately enclosed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential areas. [Id.] • 5. An eight foot high block wall will remain along the westerly property line to screen auto noise from the existing single family residences. [Id.] n U 6. The project will conform to all noise related design factors set forth in the West Covina Village Development and Design Standards guidelines. [Id.] 3. Adverse Impacts Project related construction activities could significantly have an impact on nearby residents. Long term increases in traffic noise will be potentially audible, but will not significantly affect nearby residents. [Id.] E. Energy Conservation 1. Environmental Impacts During the process of completing the project, energy will be consumed through grading, site preparation, demolition and construction activities (short term effects). After completion, the project will consume energy for "lighting, heating, cooling and any other building equipment required in the various businesses. Based upon data provided by the South Coast Air Quality District, natural gas use for the proposed project will be an additional 34,000,000 cubic feet per year. The electrical energy use will be approximately 5,800,000 KWH per year over what the present Site utilizes. Vehicle generation will create approximately 69,200 vehicle miles travelled per day. This will use approximately 3,500 gallons of gasoline per day. 2. Mitigation Measures The following energy conservation measures should be incorporated into the proposed development project: 1. Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or exceed standards established by the State of California. 2. Use of tinted or heat reflective glass, blinds or drapery, where possible, to reduce solar loads. 3. Light switches and multiswitch provisions for control by occupants and building personnel to obtain optimum energy use. 4. Development of the project in accordance with passive and active solar energy requirements. 5. Variable air volume system HVAC. 6. Pre -cooling of the building by the use of timers. 7. Compliance with Title 24 of the State Energy Code. -10- 3. Adverse Effects The project's energy consumption will have an insignificant effect on local and regional energy supply and energy resources. Project implementation will result in an incremental increase in energy needs (primarily electricity and natural gas). Mitigation measures proposed will reduce the long-term consumption of energy. H. INFEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Project Alternatives Will Not Meet Objectives of Redevelopment Plan The project alternatives included in the EIR are socially and economically infeasible as it would prevent the carrying out'of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project adopted in December 1971 and, amended in May 1977 and July 1981. The West Covina Village Site is located within the Central Business District Project area. The objective of the Redevelopment Plan is to eliminate blighted areas by replacing existing underutilized or deteriorating land uses within the downtown area with land uses consistent with the environmental, economic and social needs of the community. The goal of the Redevelopment Plan is to revitalize the commercial core of the City to be more productive and economically viable through increased sales and business tax revenues, thus reducing the cost of providing city services and creating new jobs for area residents. The redevelopment of the Project area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan has been determined to be necessary to promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City and to effectuate the public/purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency and the City desire that the entire Site be developed as an integrated neighborhood commercial complex, and towards that end adopted Development and Design Standards for the Site. In designing and master planning West Covina Village, special consideration was directed toward maximum usage of the Site. The Development and Design Standards require that the West Covina Village be developed in an informal town and country style in order to compliment the existing residential character of the community surrounding it. Varying height roofs will be incorporated to break up the visual length of the Azusa Avenue elevation. All buildings will be limited to one story in height to achieve a low profile impact. The liberal use of wood siding, plaster, and shake roofs will give this texture and atmosphere of residential development. Overhanging roofs will be incorporated to provide continuous shelter for pedestrians and shade for store fronts. Solarbronze glass will be used on all store fronts to provide continuity of look and energy conservation. The development shall include large theme plaza areas that will create a focal point for activity, as well as creating atmosphere within the Center. Trellis, overhead structures, seating areas, and fountains are to define isolated quiet pockets within the plaza. The project alternatives would not accomplish the goals and objectives of the • Redevelopment Plan, nor the goals and objectives of City planning. -11- The construction of West Covina Village with the major anchors and wide variety of small tenants will greatly improve the retail amenities along Azusa Avenue and in turn reinforce the establishment of a large trade area for the existing Azusa Avenue retail facilities. Permanent employment at West Covina Village. at completion is estimated at approximately 800 persons. In addition, 290 full year jobs in construction will be required to complete the project throughout all of its phases. It is projected that approximately $265,000 in sales tax will be generated per year upon completion (in 1983 dollars) by the retail businesses and restaurants proposed for the project. Furthermore, annual business license fees would amount to approximately $15,000 annually and a one-time municipal revenue of $160,000 in building permit fees is anticipated. At completion, property taxes of $250,000 per year will be guaranteed by the developer. B. No Project The no project alternative would consist of the construction of a small shopping center on the 8.6 acre parcel located at the corner of Rowland and Azusa. The remainder of the Site presently improved with 68,167 square feet of building area would remain. The shopping center itself would be relatively small, 90,000 to 100,000 square feet, say 100,000 square feet. Questions exist as to whether major anchor tenants such as a supermarket could be attracted because of the physical limitation of the reduced Site. Even if an anchor tenant such as a supermarket could be attracted, the • shopping center would have a limited, neighborhood trade area and contain a few tenant shops. Thus, while the center itself, if a major anchor store could be attracted, would be an economic success, such a center would do little to enhance the trade area of Azusa Avenue or add to the tenant mix found along Azusa Avenue. Employment at the partially developed Site would rise from the estimated 150 employees at the present time to 500 employees after development. This alternative including sales tax from the southern portion of the Site would generate an estimated $175,000 in sales tax receipts annually to the City. Annual license fees would be $7,000 and one-time municipal revenues for building permit fees would be about $75,000. Annual property tax is estimated at $105,000 per year from this alternative. C. Alternative No. 1 This alternative would consist of new retail development on the entire Site except that the existing Miller's Outpost store, reduced in size to 26,000 square feet, would remain. This alternative would result in the development of 210,000 square feet of retail space of which approximately 184,000 square feet would be new development. While the owner has agreed to reduce the size of the Miller's Outpost store, the existence of even a reduced 26,000 square foot store fronting Azusa Avenue will not only impact the parking and circulation layout, but seriously impact the visibility of the retail stores to the ' rear. Serious questions arise therefore as to whether or not major tenants will accept a rear location with the restricted visibility with poor parking/circulation. If major anchor tenants can not be attracted, and the probability is high that they cannot, then there are major leasibility questions regarding the • development of upwards of 184,000 square feet of new retail development. Centers of -12- this size without multiple major anchors are uncommon and tend not to be successful. • Thus, the development of 184,000 square feet of new retail space with only one or two major anchors, poor parking layout and overall poor - traffic circulation is very ambitious and may not be achievable in the West Covina market area. This alternative would produce $215,000 annually in sales tax revenues while $225,000 per year in property tax would be generated. Additionally, $15,000 per year in business license fees can be expected. Permanent employment of 680 is anticipated under this alternative while 230 full year construction jobs will result from this alternative. D. Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 2 consists of total Site assemblage and construction of the 90,000 to 100,000 square foot shopping center on the northern half of the Site say 100,000 square feet and upwards of 200,000 square feet of office space on the southern half. While this alternative may eliminate the physical constraints of the retail center site and permit a better retail layout acceptable to major anchor stores, the Site is untested for major amounts of office space and the near term office market is expected to be very competitive. Thus, while the annual property tax is estimated at $350,000 per year the alternative does not appear to be feasible for near term implementation. E. Alternative No. 3 0 This alternative is similar to Alternative No. 2 except that the southern portion of the Site would be improved with residential units presumably condominium units. While the residential condominium market is showing signs of improvement, it is unlikely that residential development can afford the high commercial land values. Thus, without major amounts of financial assistance from the Agency, this alernative does not appear to be feasible. This alternative is not consistent with the zoning, General Plan or Redevelopment Plan. III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed development of the West Covina Village Site may have significant or certain adverse environmental impacts on the environment as discussed hereinabove. Thus, the benefits of the proposed development have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and set forth in Section I above, and the Agency and City make the following statement of overriding considerations. 1. The proposed development Site is located in the Central Business District Redevelopment Project and implements the Redevelopment Plan for said Project adopted in December, 1971 and amended in May, 1977 and July of 1981. 2. The reasons for the selection of the Project area for redevelopment was its unusually high accessibility from a large surrounding region because of its access from the San Bernardino Freeway and several other major arterial roads making the area of substantial value for development of commercial uses to serve the large region; the elimination of blighted and declining areas; to replace existing underutilized or • deteriorating land uses in the downtown area with land uses consistent with the -13- environmental, conomic and social needs of the community; and to revitalize the commercial core of the City to be more productive and economically viable. The • proposed development alleviates those conditions and supports the reasons for selection of the Project area. 3. The proposed development implements the uses for the Site designated in the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. 4. The proposed development implements the Design for Development and the Development and Design Standards for West Covina Village adopted January 1, 1982 pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan. 5. The proposed development will provide approximately 700 short term construction jobs, and in excess of 900 new permanent employment opportunities. 6. The proposed development will develop the Site in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan for a higher and more productive use. 7. The proposed development will provide to the City an increased annual tax base of $250,000-300,000; increased business license fees of $15,000 annually; and increased employee -community expenditures of $1,000,000 annually. 8. The proposed development will improve the functional and aesthetic quality of the overall Site. 9. The proposed development will upgrade retail activity along the Azusa Avenue corridor. C -14-