Loading...
Resolution - 8279RESOLUTION NO.8279 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE VICTORIA PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. (Miden Corporation) . WHEREAS, there were filed with the City of West Covina, verified applications on forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI, of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of an unclassified use permit, precise plan, tentative parcel map, zone change and General Plan Amendment on that certain property generally described as follows: That portion of Lot 4 of Tract No. 930, in the City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in book 17 pages 38 and 39 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said county, The Westerly 40 feet of the Southerly 125 feet of the Northerly 875 feet of Lot 3 of Tract No. 930, in the City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in book 17 pages 38 and 39 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county, That portion of Lot 3 of Tract No. 930, in the City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in book 17 pages 38 and 39 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said county. WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for said project; and WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the initial study, a Draft Environmental Impact report was prepared and distributed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local guidelines, rules, regulations and procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, during the environmental assessment process the City has encouraged open and broad public participation, and has provided the opportunity for citizens, professional disciplines and public agencies to critically evaluate the environmental documents and the environmental impacts of the • proposed actions through public hearing and consultation with public agencies and private organizations; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR°), relating to the proposed development of the site has been prepared pursuant to said statutes, guidelines, rules, regulations and procedures; and • Page 2 • 0 • Is WHEREAS, said Final Environmental Impact Report includes: 1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR from agencies or persons consulted, or who otherwise commented on the Draft EIR either at public hearing or by written communications to the City; 3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; Responses of City to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 2nd day of November, 1988, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said applications and environmental documents and did recommend certification to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council upon giving the required notice, did on the 28th day of November, 1988, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said applications and environmental document. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: SECTION NO. 1: That based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, mitigation measures have been required or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid each of the potential adverse environmental impacts as discussed in Attachment I (attached hereto and incorporated by reference). SECTION NO. 2: The Environmental Impact Report addresses the issues of traffic, circulation and parking, drainage, noise, aesthetics, and land use. In all cases the potential impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance after mitigation measures are included as conditons of approval for the proposed project in support of the finding that there will not be a significant effect on the environment due to this project. SECTION NO. 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ATTEST: ADOPTED AND APPROVED this City Cr 19th day of December.: , 1988. v� Mayor Page 3 • I, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December, 1988. AYES: Councilmembers: Tarozz, McFadden, Lewis, Bacon, Manners • NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None APPROVED AS TO FORM: • l/ City Cle FINDINGS OF FACT Background: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State • CEQA Guidelines pursuant thereto provide that: • "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the • public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR." The Initial Study prepared for this project identified several potential environmental effects and focused the environmental impact report to address water/drainage, traffic and circulation, noise, land use, and aesthetics. The EIR process developed and identified a variety of mitigation measures which will minimize the potential adverse effects of this project. All feasible measures are being imposed as conditions of project approval. Water/Drainage Finding: Regarding, water/drainage, changes in project design and conditions of approval substantially lessen or avoid the environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. It should be noted that no significant water/drainage impacts were identified. Attackrnent I Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) the applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City's Director of Public Works • for review and approval; 2) the applicant .shall coordinate construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge with future plans for a bikeway along the southern bank of the Walnut Creek Wash and with the county of Los Angeles Flood Control District and secure any required permits necessary to facilitate such construction. Traffic and Circulation Finding: Regarding traffic and circulation, changes in project design and conditions of approval substantially lessen or avoid the environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. It should be noted that no significant traffic and circulation impacts were identified. Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) a bus shelter shall be constructed on the east side of Azusa Avenue along the project frontage; 2) the applicant shall provide an additional five feet of right-of-way along Azusa Avenue as shown on proposed T.P.M. 1940 (Exhibit A); 3) the applicant shall provide signing to prohibit left turns in and out of the most northerly project access. This will prevent further conflicts for the heavy traffic on Azusa Avenue. Noise Finding: Regarding noise, changes in project design and conditions of approval substantially lessen or avoid the environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. It should be noted that the proposed project is not expected to generate nor be subject to significant noise impacts. Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) all construction equipment should be stored on the project site to eliminate heavy duty equipment truck trips; 2) all construction vehicles should be equipped with the most modern noise mufflers and all engines should be kept in proper tune; 3) • all construction activities including export of cut material, if any, will be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays; 4) project -related residential units along Azusa Avenue should be designed properly with the aid of an exterior to interior acoustical analysis in order to assure compliance with the City of West Covina's recommended interior noise level standard of 45 CNEL. i • Li 0 • • L� E • It should further be noted that there exists an open space area on the northerly development area of the proposed project at Walnut Creek Parkway and Azusa Avenue. Typically, such an area would be considered an outdoor usable area associated with residential use and be subject to a requirement of experiencing noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or less. Ambient and projected noise levels for this portion of the project are and will exceed this standard. However, since this area is expected to experience limited utilization by project residents, requirements for mitigation solely for this portion of the project are not deemed to be warranted. Finding: The proposed project is not expected to generate significant land use impacts.. Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) while the proposed project is residential in nature and not consistent with the current uses planned for the site in the West Covina General Plan, site design intends to minimize the transition in density differences between the project and surrounding single-family uses via the use of substantial open space areas and landscape buffers; 2) the proposed project is a residential project for the senior citizen and incorporates amenities for such residents at levels greater than typically found for other multi -family developments (e.g. emphasis on handicapped ramps and parking as well as the provision of on - site passive open space); 3) the proposed project will not alter existing circulation patterns, but makes provision for eventual Azusa Avenue improvements by setting back the original right-of-way by 5 feet; 4) the proposed project advocates the generous use of landscaping and natural open space (gardens and oak grove) which should enhance the aesthetic environment for residents; 5) the project is residential in nature, thus retaining the area's residential character; however, the zone change from R-1 and R-A to MF-I5 will allow for increased site density; 6) public facilities are adequate to accommodate this multiple -family development; 1) the rezoning of the property is to MF-15, well below the MF-45 threshold advocated by the City's general plan; 8) the project, as a development tailored for the senior citizen, complements the Housing Element which strongly focuses on the housing needs of lower -income, handicapped and elderly households; 9) the site of the proposed project is vacant land, represents residential development for senior citizens, and will be affordable; 10) the proposed project is consistent with and is representative of the City's policy to • El L� construct a senior citizen's complex on vacant buildable land in the City through zone reclassification; 11) the project is a new development and will be constructed in accord with City ordinances in that project design provides for safe access via the internal circulation pattern and pedestrian walkways, and that handicapped provisions are a part of project design and includes handicapped parking spaces and ground -floor unit conversion options; 12) prior to formal submission of the applications for various entitlements associated with the proposed project, the applicant has coordinated with the City in order to best design the proposed project n consideration of their concerns and in response to the ultimate needs of the future occupants, the elderly; 13) the City and applicant have appropriately examined standards and regulations in attempts to reduce building costs; 14) the proposed project represents an addition to the City's housing stock and has been designed to reflect good quality and conformity with surrounding neighborhood uses via the use of non -intrusive building materials, passive open space, and extensive landscaping; 15) the project provides equal opportunity for senior citizens to secure housing at an affordable cost; 16) the applicant has taken into consideration fair housing laws and actions and the project will be reflective of equal housing opportunities for senior citizens; 17) the project will comply with City and State accessibility standards with regard to the handicapped as it is new residential construction subject to such codes; 18) an amendment to the West Covina General Plan will be required to make the proposed project consistent with the Plan and to facilitate a subsequent change of zone to Low Density Multiple Family Residential (MF-15); and 19) mitigation measures set forth in the water/drainage, traffic, noise, and aesthetics sections of this report shall be adhered to in order to maximize the environmental compatibility of the proposed project with adjacent residential uses. Aesthetics Finding: Regarding aesthetics changes in project design and conditions of approval substantially lessen or avoid any environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. It should further be noted that no significant aesthetic effects were identified. Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for review and approval by the City; 2) the project shall retain the oak trees and incorporate them into the open space areas of the project; 3) the project shall replace each tree that must be removed for construction reasons as part of the landscaping plan; 4) landscaped buffers, which include trees, shall be placed along the north and east boundary to shield the existing single-family residences from the project; 5) the .project, as designed, places the ends of buildings to Cortez Street which provides • view corridors between the buildings; and 6) tall trees shall not be planted in the aforementioned view corridors. It should also be noted that the site presently detracts from the . area's aesthetic character. In this regard, development .of the proposed project represents a beneficial contribution to the area's aesthetic environment. Growth Inducement Finding: The proposed project is not expected to generate significant growth reducing impacts. Facts: The above finding is made in that: I. As a residential development, the proposed project will not create employment opportunities. As a result, project -induced growth in the area's housing supply, in order to meet immigrant needs, is not an issue. The future resident population associated with the proposed project would be expected to increase localized demand for goods and services. However, the extent to which this would occur is expected to be insufficient to induce growth in the nuImber of establishments providing the goods and services. Rather, existing establishments would be expected to experience an increase in demand for the goods and services they provide. 2. The proposed project has immediate access to local circulation and all required infrastructural elements including sewers, storm drains, and the like, as well as all utilities. The proposed project represents infill development and would not affect the extension of infrastructure and utilities to new areas. As a result, the proposed project would not induce peripheral growth . by virtue of having made the infrastructure which would be requisite for such development available. Alternatives Background: The EIR addressed four alternatives to the proposed project including the No Project Alternative pursuant to Section 15126(d) (2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The • • alternatives addressed in the Final EIR and the impacts associated with these alternatives are articulated below: No Pro.iect Alternative - Should the proposed project not be implemented, the site would retain its present relatively vacant character and would be subject to alternative future development options. None of the impacts associated with the proposed project would be realized and unsightly conditions currently present at the site will continue. Furthermore, no demands for City services other than those presently afforded to the site would be. expected. It should also be noted, however, that under this alternative, the fulfillment of various goals and objectives of the City's Housing Element as related to the provision of affordable housing for groups such as the senior citizens, which otherwise would be fulfilled with development of the proposed project, would not occur. This alternative is not preferred to the proposed project, as the unsightly condition of the site would remain. The proposed project represents a beneficial aesthetic effect for the site and vicinity. Alternative 1 - Non -Senior Citizen Project Consistent with Requested -15 Zoning - Under this alternative, a multi -family residential development at a maximum allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre is contemplated. Based upon a site area of 2.98 acres, a maximum of 43 dwelling units could be accommodated. With respect to drainage, this alternative would likely exhibit characteristics similar to the proposed project. This conclusion is based on the likelihood that the quantity of impermeable surfaces due to structures, pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking would be comparable. Regarding traffic and circulation, this alternative would be expected to reduce the PM peak hour volumes which would otherwise be associated with the proposed project by about 62 percent (from 86 to 33 PM peak hour trips, respectively). However, it should be noted that the proposed project's impacts upon traffic are not considered to be significant. With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, this alternative would incrementally reduce (by 53 trips) the cumulative PM Peak Hour trips as described in Section 5.2 of the Final EIR. With respect to land use, this alternative, while achieving • some of the goals and policies articulated in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's General Plan with regard to providing residential opportunities for City residents, would likely not be as conducive to being affordable to most senior citizens or a wide range of income groups. It is anticipated • that this would be the case primarily due to the fact that the reduced density (50% of that associated with the proposed project) would increase the per unit cost of development, a cost which would be passed on to the unit occupant(s). With regard to land use compatibility, from an environmental standpoint, this alternative would approximate the • compatibility of the proposed project. With regard to noise, this alternative would generate less noise due to vehicular sources than would the proposed project. However, since neither this alternative or the proposed project are expected to yield significant traffic volumes, the difference between resultant noise levels attributable to these volumes are negligible (0.1 dBA CNEL). Regarding distal view impairment, this alternative would yield impacts similar to the proposed project due primarily to the likelihood that the development of multi -family units under this alternative's density would also occur in multi -level structures. However, since the number of units would be 50 percent of the number associated with the proposed project (86) a greater flexibility in setting back structures away from existing single-family across from the site along Cortez Street would occur, thereby affording greater opportunities to reduce the extent of distal view impairment. It should be noted, however, that this impact is not considered significant for either the proposed project or this alternative. This alternative is not preferred to the proposed project because it would not meet the applicant's basic objective of providing residential opportunities affordable to senior citizens or a wide array of income groups. Alternative 2 - Single -Family Residential Proiect Consistent with R-1 Zoning - Development on the site in accord with R-1 Zoning could in the worst case, encompass up to 17 single- family dwellings (129,373 s.f. - 7,500 minimum lot size/lot). Since the northerly portion of the project site is permitted . to develop single-family residences with 7,500 square foot lot sizes as per Area District I development criteria, this alternative assumes that a zone change would be sought for the southerly portion from Area District IIA, which allows 9,450 square foot lots, to Area District I, in order to facilitate homogeneous project design and density. With respect to drainage, this alternative would likely yield runoff similar to the proposed project. However, the direction and means of conveying runoff would likely be different due to the subdivision and separate ownerships which would ultimately occur on the site. With regard to traffic and circulation, this alternative would • yield 170 daily trips with approximately 17 occurring during the PM Peak Hour, a PM Peak Hour volume which is about 20 percent of that estimated for the proposed project. A corresponding incremental reduction in total cumulative traffic volumes would also be expected. However, since neither Alternative 1 or the proposed project will yield significant traffic impacts, this would similarly be the case under this development scenario. With regard to land use, this alternative, while achieving some of the goals and policies articulated in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's General Plan. with regard to providing residential opportunities for City residents, would likely not be as conducive to being affordable to most senior citizens or a wide range of income groups. It is anticipated that this would be the case primarily due to the fact that the reduced density (20% of that associated with the proposed project) would increase the per unit cost of development, a cost which would be passed on to the unit occupants. Further, whereas the proposed project and Alternative 1 would likely be rental units, this alternative would likely exhibit units for sale, thus further reducing the opportunity for a wide variety of income levels or segments of the population, such as the senior citizen, to take advantage of this increase in the City's housing stock. With regard to land use compatibility, from an environmental standpoint, this alternative would generally be more compatible with surrounding uses than would the proposed project or Alternative 1 since the drainage, noise, and aesthetic effects would be reduced and since the prevalent land use in the area already exhibits a single-family residential character. With regard to noise, this alternative would generate less noise due to vehicular sources than would the proposed project. However, since neither this alternative or the proposed project are expected to yield significant traffic volumes, the difference between resultant noise levels attributable to these volumes is negligible (0.1 dBA CNEL). . Regarding distal view impairment, this alternative would yield impacts which would likely be comparable to those of the proposed project. This is due primarily to the likelihood that the development of single-family dwellings, if developed as two-story structures, would likely exhibit structure heights approximating those associated with the proposed • project (about 25 feet). This alternative is not preferred to the proposed project since it would not meet the applicant's basic objective of providing residential • opportunities affordable to senior citizens or a wide range of income groups. Furthermore, residential units under this alternative would most likely be sold rather than be retained • as rental units, thereby further reducing housing opportunities for these less financially privileged groups. Alternative 3 - Neighborhood Commercial (45,280 s.f.) - This alternative contemplates a use for the site which is not residential. Rather, 45,280 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses are envisioned. Most likely this would involve convenience outlets and other neighborhood and service type establishments (e.g. dry cleaner, etc.) With regard to drainage, this alternative would likely yield greater runoff than would the proposed project due to greater levels of impervious surfaces associated with structures and surface parking facilities. This alternative would yield about 4,900 daily vehicle trips of which 410 would be expected to occur during the PM Peak Hour. Both the daily and PM Peak Hour trips associated with this alternative are substantially greater than for either the proposed project (421 daily and 86 PM Peak Hour trips) or any of the other alternatives as discussed previously. Since noise levels are predominately influenced by traffic -related sources, this alternative would yield a greater effect upon area noise than would the proposed project or its aforementioned alternatives. Whereas the proposed project is expected to increase existing noise levels by 0.1 dBA CNEL, this alternative's contribution would approximate 0.5 dBA CNEL. Further, a neighborhood commercial center at the subject site would increase the frequency of intermittent noise associated with on -site human and vehicular activity to levels above which could be expected with the proposed project • wherein on -site vehicular and human activity would be expected to be relatively benign. With regard to land use, due to its commercial nature, this alternative does not meet any of the housing -related goals and policies of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's • General Plan, whereas the proposed project and its aforementioned alternatives (except that of No Project) would. With regard to land use compatibility from an environmental n L J • • L] • standpoint, since this alternative will generate more traffic and noise than the proposed project, and since this alternative use represents a distinct departure from the predominantly residential character of the surrounding area, it is expected that this alternative would be less compatible with surrounding uses than would the proposed project or any of the aforementioned alternatives. However, since neighborhood commercial developments are predominantly designed with structures to the rear and parking along the street, this alternative would likely result in a lesser extent of distal view impairment than would the proposed project. In other words, building setbacks would be greater. Further, commercial development on this site would likely consist of one-story structures, whereas the proposed project will exhibit two-story structures. This alternative is not preferred to the proposed project since associated drainage, noise, and land use impacts would be increased above levels identified for the proposed project. Furthermore, none of the housing -related goals and policies of the City's General Plan or the objectives of the applicant would be met.