Resolution - 8322RESOLUTION NO.8322
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1, EAST HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5, ZONE CHANGE
NO. 610 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 45768,
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. (C. W. POSS)
WHEREAS, there was filed with the City of West Covina,
verified applications on forms prescribed in Chapter 20 and 26,
Article VI, of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting
approval of a General Plan Amendment, East Hills Specific Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map on that certain
property generally described as follows:
Parcel 1
Those portions of Lot 5 of Tract No. 10330, in the city of
West Covina, as per map recorded in Book 161, Page 22 et
seq., of Maps, and of the Northerly 20 feet of Arroyo
Avenue (now Holt Avenue), vacated, adjoining said lot on
the South, described as a whole as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly prolongation
of the Easterly line of said lot with the North line of
said Holt Avenue, as now estabished; thence along said
prolongation and said East line, North 10 04' East 199.44
feet, more or less, to a point South 10 04' West 511.02
feet from the Northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence
North 600 50' 30" West 97.43 feet; thence South 87' 37' 50"
West 152.62 feet, thence South 660 14' 35" West 122.86
feet; thence South 50" 41' 56" West 15.10 feet, more or
less, to the North line of Holt Avenue, as now established;
thence Easterly along the North line to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 2
Lot 5 of Tract No. 10330, in the city of West Covina, as
per map recorded in Book 161 Page 22 et seq., of Maps, in
the Office of the County Recorder of said County, and also
that portion of Holt Avenue, formerly Arroyo Avenue,
adjoining said Lot 5 on the Southwest and lying between the
Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of said lot,
and the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly
line of said lot, as vacated by order of the Board of
Supervisors, June 13, 1932 and recorded in Book 11727
Page 4 of Official Records.
EXCEPT therefrom those portions described as follows:
• Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly prolongation
of the Easterly line of said lot with the North line of
Holt avenue as now established; thence along said
prolongation and said East line, North 10 34' East 199.44
feet, more or less, to a point South 10 04' West 5,11.02
feet from the Northeast corner of said Lot 5, thence North
600 50' 30" West 97.43 feet; thence South 870 37' 50" West
152.62 feet; thence South 660 14' 35" West 122.86 feet;
thence South 500 41' 56" West 15.10 feet, more or less, to
the North line of Holt Avenue, as now established; thence
Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning.
Page 2
ALSO EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land described
as follows:
• Beginning at the intersection of a line parallel with and
80 feet Northeasterly, measured at right angles, from the
Northeasterly line of Lot 3 of said tract, having a length
of 372.15 feet as shown on said map, with the Southwesterly
continuation of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5;
thence along said parallel line South 45" 57' 15" East
25.59 feet; thence North 270 02' 45" East 63.13 feet to a
point in a curve, concave to the Northwest and having a
radius of 545 feet, a radial line of said curve to said
point having a bearing of South 46° 55' 40" East; thence
Northeasterly along said curve 78.26 feet to a point, a
radial line of said curve to said point having a bearing of
South 55" 09' 18" East; thence North 52° 01' 09" East 95.48
feet; thence North 330 37' 42" East 25.00 feet; thence
Northerly in a direct line to a point in a line parallel
with and 10 feet Southerly, measured at right angles, from
the Northerly line of said lot, said point being Easterly
along said parallel line 39.97 feet from the Northwesterly
line of said lot; thence Westerly along said parallel line
39.97 feet to said Northwesterly line; thence Southwesterly
along said Northwesterly line and its continuation to the
place of beginning, as condemned by final decree in favor
of the Los Angeles County Flood Control Distraict, recorded
June 12, 1963 in Book D2062, Page 666, Official Records.
ALSO EXCEPT that portion of said land described as follows:
Beginning at the most Northeasterly corner of that parcel
of land described in that deed to the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District recorded in Book D2062 Page 666, in
the Office of the County Recorder of said County, said
point being in a line which is parallel to and 10.00 feet
Southerly, measured at right angles, from the Northerly
line of said Lot 5; thence Easterly along said parallel
fine; South 890 34' 50" East 533.81 feet to the Easterly
line of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along said Easterly
line of said Lot 5, South 00° 25' 10" West, 205.01 feet;
thence leaving said Easterly line South 420 54' 55" West,
195.73 feet; thence North 820 09' 34" West, 390.37 feet;
thence North 840 42' 21" West, 12.59 feet to the Northerly
terminus of that course described in the first above said
deed as having a bearing of North 330 37' 42" East and a
lenth of 25.00 feet, thence Northerly along the Easterly
line of first above said parcel of land in a direct line to
the point of beginning.
And that portion of said land described as follows:
Beginning at the Southerly terminus of that certain curve
described as aforesaid deed to the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District, as having a bearing of North 330 37' 42"
East and a length of 25.00 feet; thence Southerly along the
prolongation of said course South 330 37' 42" West, 45.00
feet; thence leaving said prolongation South 67° 04' 32"
• East, 54.66 feet; thence North 520 01' 09" East 95.48 feet
to the point of beginning, as granted to the State of
California in deed recorded May 7, 1971 in Book D5050
Page 295, Official Records.
Paqe 3
Parcel 3
That portion of Lot 6 of Tract No. 10330, in the city of
West Covina, as per map recorded in Book 161 Pages 22 to 31
• inclusive of Maps, records of said county, and that portion
of Holt Avenue, adjoining said Lot 6 of the South as vacted
by an order of the Board of Supervisors of said county,
recorded in Book 11727 Page 4 of Official Records of said
county, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Northerly line of said
Holt Avenue, as vacated with the Southerly prolongation of
the Westerly line of said lot; thence North 1° 04' East
along said Westerly line to the Northwesterly corner of
said lot; thence South 880 56' East along the Northerly
line of said lot to a line parallel with the tangent
portion of the Easterly line of said lot and distant
Westerly 185 feet at right angles from said tangent portion
of said Easterly line; thence Southerly along said parallel
line to an intersection with a line parallel with and
distant Northeasterly 100 feet, measured at right angles
from the Northerly line of said Holt Avenue as vacated;
thence Easterly along said last mentioned parallel line to
an intersection with a line parallel with the tangent
portion of said Easterly line and distant Westerly 85 feet
at right angles from said tangent portion of said Easterly
line; thence Southerly along said last mentioned parallel
line, to the Northerly line of said Holt Avenue as vacated;
thence Westerly along said Holt Avenue, to the point of
beginning.
EXCEPT therefrom that portion of Holt Avenue (formerly
Arroyo Avenue), now vacated, within the following described
boundaries.
Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly boundary of
that certain parcel of land described in deed to Vincent R.
Ericson et ux, recorded as Document No. 1003, on April 26,
1949 in Book 29926 Page 217, Official Records, in the
office of the recorder, with the straight line, in the
Southerly boundary of Lot 6, of said tract; thence North
750 26' 40" West along said straight line East 19 feet;
thence South 140 33' 20" West 20.00 feet; thence South
750 26' 40" East 229.23 feet to said Easterly boundary;
thence Northerly along said Easterly boundary 20.62 feet to
the point of beginning, as condemned by Final Decree in
favor of the County of Los Angeles, recorded September 18,
1969 in Book D4500 Page 871, Official Records.
ALSO EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said
Lot 6 with a line parallel with and 10.00 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from the Northerly line of said
Lot 6; thence along said parallel line, South 89' 34' 50"
East, 229.06 feet to the Westerly line of that parcel of
land described in the deed to the State of California
• recorded in Book D4173 Page 613, Official Records of said
county; thence Southerly along said Westerly line, South
00° 28' 35" East 380.05 feet; thence leaving said Westerly
line, North 630 07' 49" West, 147.13 feet; thence North 420
54' 55" West, 150.48 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot
6; thence Northerly along said Westerly line, North 00' 25'
10" East, 205.01 feet to the point of beginning, as granted
to the State of California, in deed recorded July 22, 1971
in Book D5132 Page 781, Official Records.
Page 4
Parcel 4
• That portion of Lot 6 of Tract No. 10330, in the city of
West Covina, as per map recorded in Book 161 Pages 22 to 31
inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of
said county, together with those portions of Holt Avenue
(formerly Arroyo Avenue) and Grand Avenue (formerly Oregon
Avenue) adjoining said Lot 6 on the South, as vacated by
Order of the Board of Supervisors of said county, recorded
in Book 11727 Page 4 of Official Records, in said office of
the county recorder, lying Easterly of a line that is
parallel with and distant Westerly 185 feet, measured at
right angles, from the tangent portion of the Easterly line
(and its Southerly prolongation thereof) of said Lot 6.
EXCEPT therefrom the Westerly 100 feet of the Southerly 100
feet of said land.
ALSO EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land lying
Northerly of a line that is parallel with and distant
Southerly 390 feet, measured at right angles, from the
tangent portion of the Northerly line of said Lot 6.
ALSO EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land included
within the following described lines.
Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly boundary of
that parcel of land described in deed to Vincent R. Ericson
et ux., recorded as Document No. 1003, on April 26, 1949 in
Book 29926 Page 217, Official Records, in the office of
said recorder with the straight line in the Southerly
boundary of Lot 6, said tract; thence South 75' 26' 40"
East along said straight line and its Easterly prolongation
65.54 feet to the Southeasterly boundary of that
certain parcel of land described as Parcel No. 3 in Order
of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, a
certified copy of which was recorded on June 29, 1932 in
Book 11727 Page 4 of said Official Records; thence
Southwesterly and Westerly along the Southeasterly and
Southerly boundaries of said last mentioned certain parcel
of land to said Easterly boundary; thence Northerly along
said Easterly boundary 20.62 feet to the point of
beginning, as condemned by Final Decree in favor of the
County of Los Angeles, recorded September 18, 1969 in Book
D4500 Page 871, Official Records.
Par(-P1 5
That certain portion of Grand Avenue (formerly Oregon
Avenue) as shown on Tract No. 10330, in the city of West
Covina, as per map recorded in Book 161, Pages 22 to 31,
inclusive of Maps, on file in the office of the county
recorder of said county, vacated by Resolution No. 5517 of
the City Council of West Covina and recorded August 15,
1977 as Instrument No. 77-893931, Official Records of said
• county, bounded as follows:
Bounded Westerly by the westerly line of said Grand Avenue,
described as follows:
Page 5
Beginning at the North(
of South 1° 04' West 5,
• last mentioned course,
tangent curve concave 1
feet; thence Southerly
angle of 7° 13' 44" an
beginning of a reverse
radius of 64.66 feet; i
mentioned curve, throw(
arc length of 73.41 fe(
Avenue, 80.00 feet wid(
prolongation of the So(
described in the deed {
on October 24, 1968 as
by the centerline of s�
by the Easterly prolong
Avenue, 80.00 feet wid4
rly terminus of that certain course
4.20 feet; thence Southerly along
544.20 feet to the beginning of a
asterly and having a radius of 1040
along said curve, through a central
arc length of 131.21 feet to the
curve concave Westerly and having a
hence southerly, along last
h a central angle of 650 02' 57" an
t to the Northerly line of Holt
; bounded Northerly by the Easterly
therly line of that certain parcel
o the State of California, recorded
Instrument No. 846; bounded Easterly
id Grand Avenue; bounded Southerly
ation of the Northerly line of Holt
EXCEPT therefrom that portion lying Easterly of a line that
is parallel and concentric, measured at right angles and
radially, 67.00 feet from the centerline of realigned Grand
Avenue per C.S.B 430.3; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended; 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, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
prepared as a Program Environmental Impact Report pursuant to
Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the e
City has encouraged open a
has provided the opportuni
disciplines and public age
environmental documents an
proposed actions through p
public agencies and privat
vironmental assessment process the
d broad public participation, and
y for citizens, professional
cies to critically evaluate the
the environmental impacts of the
blic hearings and consultation with
organizations; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"),
relating to the proposed development on the site has been
prepared pursuant to said statute, guidelines, rules,
regulations and procedures; and
WHEREAS, said Final
1. The Draft EIR;
• 2. Comments and recomm
from agencies or pe
commented on the Dr
written communicati
vironmental Impact Report includes:
tions received on the Draft EIR
s consulted, or who otherwise
EIR either at public hearing or by
to the City;
3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies
commenting on the Draft EIR;
Page 6
4. Responses of the City to significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process;
• 5. Addendums to the Final Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required
notice, did on the 15th day of March, 1989, 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 loth day of April, 1989, 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: The City Council does hereby certify that
the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and
completed in compliance with CEQA and State and local
guidelines, rules, regulations and procedures adopted pursuant
thereto.
SECTION NO. 2: The City Council does hereby find with
respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report:
a. That based on the information set forth in the Final
EIR, mitigation measures have been incorporated into
the project or included as conditions of approval
which mitigate or avoid each of the potential adverse
environmental impacts as discussed in Attachment I
(attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
b. 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.
SECTION NO. 3: The City Council does hereby find and
determine 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 2.a and 2.b of this
Resolution.
b. Based upon the Final Environmental Impact Report and
the documents in the record referenced therein, and
upon Attachment I, specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible all project
alternatives, except Alternative`,11 which shall
become the project.
SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution.
Page 7
•
ATTEST:
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this loth day of April, 1989.
41W�A(
City Cleric
Mayor
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 loth day of April, 1989
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
McFadden, Lewis, Bacon, Manners
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Tarozzi
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
0
V,
City Cle c
FINDINGS OF FACT
A-rrAo,4ME_N_F DL
INTRODUCTION
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 signif-
icant 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 incor-
porated 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."
(Section 15091)
BACKGROUND
The Draft Program EIR which addressed the proposed project as orig-
inally proposed was noticed and circulated for public and agency
review pursuant to section 15087 of the State EIR Guidelines, as
amended. The subject document was circulated for public and agency
review between April 13. 1988 and May 27, 1988. Notice of the
document's availability for public review was given in the San
Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, on
April 6, 1988. Copies of the Draft Program EIR were also made
available for review at the City of West Covina Planning Department
and Los Angeles County Library, West Covina Branch. Additionally, a
Notice of,Public Review was mailed to the seventy-six (76) owners of
property within 300 feet of the project site on April 4, 1988. Last,
public notice -of the subject document's availability for review was
posted on the site of the proposed project on April 6, 1988.
Thirteen (13) separate entities commented upon the document and
include four (4) public agencies, one (1) private organization, and
eight (8) individuals. In all, seventy (70) separate comments were
• identified and then responded to pursuant to Section 15088 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The comments and responses, and
other information in accord with Section 15132 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, as amended, were bound into a volume separate from the
Draft Program EIR. Together, the two volumes comprised. the Final EIR
for the proposed project. The proposed project was initially heard
by the West Covina Planning Commission as part of the agenda of its
regularly scheduled meeting on September 21, 1988. At that meeting,
and during the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting on August 17,
1988, additional comments were received regarding the proposed
project during the public hearing. Additionally, after the public
hearing was closed, additional comments were also advanced by the
Planning Commissioner. As a result, the case was continued until
October 26, 1988.
Based upon the input received during the two prior hearings, an
Addendum (dated October 17, 1988) to the final EIR was prepared which
addressed Alternatives 9 and 10 to the proposed project. Those
alternatives comprised a mixture of commercial uses without a hotel
component. Further, in order to address the additional comments
raised, the Response to Comments Volume of the final EIR was
augmented to include the additional comments and responses. Phy-
sically, these comments and responses were provided as an attachment
to the City's October 28, 1988 staff report for the continuance of
the subject case at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting on that date. At that meeting the Planning Commission voted
to recommend to the West Covina City Council the adoption of the
final EIR and Addendum, but denial of the cases pertaining to the
project as originally proposed.
The case went to the West Covina City Council for action at its
regularly scheduled meeting on November 28, 1988. During the
November 28th City Council meeting, in response to a request by the
applicant, the entire case was referred back to the Planning Commis-
sion. Subsequently, the applicant revised the proposed project and
sought input from the Planning Commission as to the appropriateness
of the direction the revision was heading during a study session with
• them on December 20, 1988. Based on input from the Planning Commis-
sion and members of the public during the study session, further
subsequent project revisions resulted. The resultant project
revision constituted Alternative 11 to the proposed project. In
order to assure the adequacy of the EIR under CEQA, an Addendum
(dated March, 1989) was prepared to address Alternative 11.
It is Alternative 11 which is being addressed in these Findings of
Fact in that it represents the proposed project, revised to address
concerns previously expressed by the public and decisionmakers, which
will serve as the basis upon which the Planning Commission will
exercises its' discretionary authority.
The Initial Study prepared for the project as originally proposed
• identified several potential environmental effects and focused the
environmental impact report to address earth (grading), water (drain-
age), traffic/circulation/parking, air quality, noise, aesthetics,
land use, biota, and services and utilities including electricity,
natural gas, sewer, water and solid waste disposal. The final EIR
Addendum for Alternative 11 also focused on these environmental
issues, compared the impacts of this Alternative to those of the
proposed project, and identified any new mitigation measures which
may be required in the event of its approval as the project. 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. As discussed below, these mitigation measures will reduce
all environmental effects to a level of insignificance, both for the
project specifically and on a cumulative basis.
FINDINGS
Earth (Grading)
Finding: With regard to earth (grading), conditions of approval
and changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that as with the
proposed project, the conceptual grading plan as
exhibited on the Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit 1) is in
compliance with applicable City codes. Since the site
will be graded level to approximately Holt Avenue's
street grade elevations, the volume of earth to be
moved under this alternative may increase by approx-
imately 10 percent over the 150,000 yds.3 estimated
for the proposed project. AS a result, a concomitant
increase in export (60,000t) yds.3 and associated
daily export truck trips (155t) can also be expected.
This increase is not considered significant.. All
mitigation measures for the project as proposed are
• also applicable to the project as revised (Alternative
11) with no additional measures required. They are as
follows: 1) export trucks will utilize the City's
established truck routes in order to minimize inter-
action with residential neighborhoods; 2) dust sup-
pression techniques will be employed during all
grading and construction activities and export trucks
will be covered, or their contents moistened, to
minimize fugitive dust; 3) all grading operations
shall be conducted in conformance with applicable City
of West Covina Ordinances: 4) all grading activities
shall adhere to the Grading and Foundation Design
Recommendations included within the Preliminary
• Geotechnical Report; 5) an Erosion Control Plan shall
be prepared and submitted to the City prior to October
15 of the year in which construction begins, if
construction commences after April 15, otherwise, the
Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted prior to
approval of the grading plan; and, 6) all grading
activities will be limited to weekdays between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday,
8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday and will be accomp-
lished within a schedule that minimizes the actual
number of days that the activities will occur.
Water (Drainage)
Finding: With regard to water (drainage), conditions of approv-
al and changes in project design will reduce all
impacts identified in the final EIR to insignificant
levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that this alterna-
tive would realign the drainage improvements associ-
ated with the proposed project northerly. In all
other respects it would remain essentially the same as
the project as originally proposed, except in length.
Due to its realignment, it's length would increase
approximately 100 feet as measured form its centerline
at the northwest curb face of the Holt/Grand inter-
section. However, the realigned drainage improve-
ments, while longer, will result in an overall net
reduction in the adversity of the environmental
consequences which would otherwise be associated with
the proposed project in that the City -owned property
at Oak Knoll Drive and (old) Holt Avenue through which
it was originally planned to be aligned would only
minimally be affected, thus preserving its resident
specimen tree population and natural character. Site
• related drainage for Alternative 11 will approximate,.
or be slightly reduced from, the 17.8 cfs estimated
for the project as originally proposed during a 50
year event. All mitigation measures identified in the
final Program EIR for the project as originally pro-
posed which are related to Water (Drainage) remain
valid and include: 1) the applicant shall submit a
conceptual site drainage plan to the City for review
and approval and implement any needed improvements to
properly control runoff and convey it to a suitable
point of disposal; 2) the applicant shall provide
energy dissipators at the westerly terminus of the box
culvert in order to minimize downstream erosion; and
3) for the improved drainage channel, the applicant
shall submit a drainage concept to the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District for their review and
approval.
Traffic/Circulation/Parking
Finding: With regard to traffic, circulation and parking,
conditions of approval and changes in project design
will reduce all impacts identified in the Final EIR to
insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that Alternative
11 will generate approximately 6,000 daily trips, with
520 occurring during the PM Peak Hour. This volume of
daily trips represents an increase of 11 percent over
the number -of daily trips forecast for the proposed
project as originally proposed. However, since daily
trips occur over a 24 hour period, they are not
representative of a project's true effects upon a
circulation system. Rather, it is the number of trips
a project contributes to vicinity roadways during the
times they are most heavily travelled (during the AM
and/or PM Peak Hour) which best reflects their true
impact. In this regard, this alternative generates 13
percent fewer PM Peak Hour trips than those associated
with the proposed project. It should be noted,
however, that neither the originally proposed project
or this alternative are projected to cause a signif-
icant impact to the area circulation system.
Review of the realigned Holt Avenue, the new resi-
dential frontage road (old Holt Avenue)(see Exhibit
2), project access design, and other features of the
site plan, did not reveal any problem areas. In fact,
this alternative represents an improvement to existing
vicinity circulation, particularly with regard to
• public safety, in that residents along the old Holt
Avenue alignment will have an essentially private road
from which to access both the vicinity road system as
well as their residences. Based on the foregoing,
traffic impacts associated with Alternative 11 repre-
sent an improvement over conditions which would be
associated with the project as originally proposed.
Additionally, due to this alternative's realignment of
Holt Avenue, the following mitigation measures recom-
mended in the final Program EIR for the originally
proposed project would not be applicable to
Alternative 11:
• - The westerly driveway to the project on Holt
Avenue should restrict left -turns out and the
easterly driveway should restrict right -turns
out.
- The eastbound left -turn lane at the intersection
of Grand Avenue and Holt Avenue will require a
235 foot pocket and the eastbound left -turn lane
at the westerly access to the project site on
Holt Avenue will require a 70 foot pocket.
- The internal roads should have a minimum curb -
to -curb width of 28 feet.
No U-turn signs (R34) should be installed on Holt
Avenue at both project driveways.
- An eight foot wide refuge area/parking lane
should be striped along the south side of Holt
Avenue.
- Refuge area along Holt Avenue should be signed to
prohibit parking for between the hours of 4:00 PM
to 7:00 AM on weekdays only.
- Regarding the driveways at 3314 and 3322 Holt,
connection of the two driveways in combination
with reciprocal easements could beneficially
affect vehicular turn arounds on the respective
residential properties and in effect create a
circular driveway. In the event that this
mitigation measure is implemented, the applicant
shall secure the subject resident's approval and
be responsible for drawing up the appropriate
documents prior to the issuance of building
permits.
• Further, since Alternative 11 encompasses a redesign
of the residential "service" road and realigns Holt
Avenue to be different than as planned for the orig-
inally proposed project, the following discussion, as
it occurs on Page 13 of the Responses to Comments
Volume of the final Program EIR, is also not applic-
able.
7
"In response to the above comment, the recom-
mended service road has been incorporated into
the proposed project as depicted in Figure 1. As
shown, Holt Avenue's alignment would be moved
_• northerly in order to accommodate a 26 foot wide
parallel service road fronting the homes between
Grand Avenue and Oak Knoll. A six foot wide
landscaped median strip would separate the
service road from Holt Avenue. The median would
be maintained by a landscape Maintenance Dis-
trict. Access to the service road would be via
Oak Knoll, whose intersection with Holt is also
proposed for modification. Essentially, the Oak
Knoll access would be moved northwesterly,
bisecting a City -owned parcel approximately
equidistant between a natural drainage channel to
the northwest and Oak Knoll's original inter-
section with Holt Avenue. The access to Oak
Knoll is designed with raised median within which
two existing trees will be retained. In order to
facilitate the realignment of Holt west of Grand,
the westbound approach on Holt to Grand east of
Grand will also require realignment by way of
moving the approach northerly. A 25 foot radii
is recommended on the northeast quadrant of the
intersection. This differs slightly from the
corner cut-off configuration presently shown on
Figure 1."
The mitigation measures which apply to the proposed
project, as revised (Alternative 11), are as follows:
1) the traffic signal at the Holt Avenue and Grand
Avenue intersection will be modified to provide split
phasing on Holt Avenue when warranted; 2) access on
Grand Avenue will be restricted to right turns in and
out only; 3) parking provisions will be reviewed when
a specific development plan is proposed with consider-
ation for a shared parking plan for any mixed use
plan; and 4) the eastbound approach to Grand Avenue on
Holt will be modified to include a seoarate left turn
pocket.
Further, in order to meet resident concerns on the
south side of Holt Avenue regarding the maintenance of
existing on -street parking and to afford safe driveway
ingress and egress, the applicant has redesigned the
alignment of Holt Avenue to accommodate a separate
service road. Exhibit 2 illustrates the afore-
mentioned concept. As shown, Holt Avenue would be
realigned northerly, just west of its intersection
E
---
U
a
u
0
•
with Grand Avenue. Holt Avenue's old alignment would
remain improved and become a residential frontage road
cul-de-saced just east of the second house along its
southerly frontage west of Grand Avenue. The resi-
dential frontage road extends east from this cul-
de-sac, along the old Holt Avenue alignment for a
distance of about 875 feet, where it then intersects
realigned Holt Avenue. Oak Knoll Drive's future
intersection with the residential frontage road (the
old Holt Avenue) will be slightly modified to facil-
itate improved vehicular operations and movements.
Air Quality
Finding:. With regard to air quality, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) normal wetting
procedures or other dust palliative measures shall be
followed during the site excavation and grading
operations to reduce fugitive dust emissions and in
order to meet District Rule 403 requirements; 2)
trucks exporting fill shall be sprinkled prior to
entering public streets to minimize potential fugitive
dust; 3) construction equipment engines will be
maintained in proper tune; 4) future site employees
will be encouraged to engage in carpooling, van -pool-
ing and the use of public transit in order to reduce
vehicle miles associated with their employees; and 5)
the applicant shall inform all employers with 100 or
more employees which may eventually occupy a project
structure of the requirement to comply with South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 15.
Noise
Finding: With regard to noise, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
• Facts: The above finding is made in that over the long-term,
noise will continue to be primarily attributable to
vehicular traffic associated with the I-10 Freeway,
Grand Avenue and Holt Avenue, and, to a lesser extent,
from general maintenance activity to be performed on
the project site. Freeway noise levels at each of the
receptor locations depicted in Exhibit 3, without any
attenuation, would be expected to range from 71.1 CNEL
in
•
i`
m
Go
z
O
U
O
J
Q
O
I. -
a
LLl
U
w
m
w
_W
O
z
at Receptor Location #3 to 73.8 CNEL at Receptor
Location #4. Each of these values would exceed the
City's exterior residential noise standard of 65 CNEL
for outdoor usable areas. However, the applicant
• proposes an earthen berm to serve as an acoustical
barrier, ranging in height from 12 feet at the western
end of the project site to 18 feet at the site's
eastern end (see Exhibit 3). This barrier is esti-
mated to attenuate approximately 5.8 to 9.6 dB. In
addition to the barrier, project improvements (pri-
marily buildings) would provide further attenuation of
3 to 5 dB. With the barrier in place, the resultant
freeway noise levels are estimated to range from 59.2
CNEL at Receptor Location #2 to 61.5 at Receptor
Location #1. Overall future noise levels are expected
to range from 61.4 CNEL at Receptor Location #2 to
66.8 CNEL at Receptor Location #3. While the resul-
tant overall noise level at Receptor Location #3 will
exceed City Standard after project completion, it
should be noted that the ambient noise level at this
location (6.8 CNEL) currently is in excess of standard
and that the project will result in an overall reduc-
tion in noise levels at this location.
Over the short-term, noise will be generated by
equipment and activities during the construction phase
of the proposed project. The construction phase of
the project is primarily comprised of two major
activities: 1) site preparation which includes all
earthwork, and 2) building construction. Construction
equipment noise comes under the control of the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program
(Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations).
Figure 4 shows the noise characteristics associated
with typical construction equipment. During grading
operations for this project, residents to the south
can be expected to experience short-term and inter-
mittent noise levels in excess of 80 dBA. Once
grading is completed, removal of the aforementioned
temporary berm would be required in order to accom-
modate construction of those structures with foot-
prints encroaching upon it. This would expose resi-
dences to the south to non -intermittent noise levels,
generated primarily by freeway traffic, in excess of
70 CNEL. Though this noise level would exceed 65
CNEL, it will be relatively short-term in nature,
however.
12
While the mitigation measures in the final Program EIR
for the originally proposed project remain valid,
their content has been modified. Further, new miti-
gations are also provided. The modified and new
. mitigations which are also conditions of approval
include: 1) excavation, grading and other construction
activities related to the proposed project shall be in
compliance with Section 9-17 of the West Covina
Municipal Code, and the time limitations cited therein
shall also apply to the servicing of all construction
related equipment; 2) during the earth -moving phase of
the project, a temporary continuous acoustical
barrier, varying in height from 12 feet at the western
end of the site to 18 feet at the eastern end, shall
be established to compensate for the elevation reduc-
tion of the site's existing terrain; 3) after the
earth -moving phase of the project, the temporary
barrier shall be replaced by a permanent continuous
acoustical barrier of comparable or higher height as
each incremental project structure is constructed; 4)
buildings along the southern boundary of the site
shall, if possible, be constructed early to provide
additional attenuation; 5) all retail store deliveries
and pick-ups shall be restricted to between the hours
of 7:00 AM and 7.00 PM; and, 6) trash pick-ups,
parking lot sweeping and cleaning, and other mainten-
ance -related activities shall be restricted to between
the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Aesthetics
Finding: With regard to aesthetics, conditions of approval and
changes in site design lessen the significant impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is made in view of the facts which
follow. While the proposed project would place an 18
foot high earthen berm/wail along Holt Avenue's entire
length (except at the two access driveways), thus
eliminating all distal views to the north from the
residences fronting Holt, this alternative does not
• contemplate such a berm/wall. Also, the originally
proposed project proposes to allow 45 foot high
structures set back 69 feet from the current Holt
Avenue property line. Under this scenario such
project structures would be clearly visible to resi-
dents across Holt Avenue for several years. Under
Alternative 11, however, 45 foot high structures would
be set back at least 100 feet from Holt Avenue as
realigned, thereby more than tripling the possible
distance between such a structure and the nearest
residence. Further, Alternative 11 exhibits a site
design which doesn't cluster its structures. Given
• this, and since the site and its.structures will be at
street grade, local opportunities for engaging a
substantive distal view corridor would be enhanced
beyond even existing conditions.
Another aesthetic concern associated with the orig-
inally proposed project EIR was related to the poten-
tial for headlight encroachment into living areas at
residences fronting the easterly project entrance on
Holt Avenue. Due to the realignment of Holt Avenue,
and the future structures, landscaping and wall
treatment which will occupy the resulting island
between it and existing residences, such an occurrence
would be highly unlikely under this alternative.
Given the above, all mitigation measures associated
with the originally proposed project, would not apply
to this Alternative. They are as follows:
- Site design should be retained as is with
respect to the landscaped earthen berm and
wall buffer' at its periphery along Holt
Avenue.
- Consider deleting the wall portion of the
site's buffer along Holt Avenue and replac-
ing it with additional earth material. This
will facilitate additional landscape vegeta-
tion which could enhance the natural quality
of the buffer. However, the mass of the
berm will increase if this mitigation
measure is implemented.
Should it -be desired that structures on -site
not be visible to residents along Holt
Avenue as the landscaping matures on the
site's berm along Holt Avenue, set back
requirements could be increased. In this
• regard, a slope/height limitation of 1:4
(vertical:horizontal) is recommended. In
essence, forevery four feet from the
nearest residential property line, struc-
tures on the subject site can gain 1 foot in
height to a cap of 45 feet as measured from
the top of curb to the roofline. See Figure
20A.
Trees planted along the site's Holt Avenue
periphery should be of specimen size (24
inches and 36 inches boxes) and be provided
at a ratio of approximately three 24 inch
• boxed trees for each 36 inch boxed tree.
In order to preclude encroachment of light
shed by headlights of stationary vehicles at
the site's easterly access into the resi-
dence directly fronting the project drive-
way, alignment of the driveway should be
such so that headlights do not shine
directly onto this residence's living area
(e.g. bedrooms, living rooms).
At the site's easterly access, in order to
preclude encroachment of light shed by
headlights of vehicles turning left onto
Holt Avenue on residences across Holt
Avenue, the raised median between the
easterly access and Grand Avenue should be
planted with hedge -type vegetation up to
four feet in height.
For aesthetic impacts associated with this Alterna-
tive, the following mitigation measures shall be
adhered to: 1) all landscaping shall be implemented in
a manner consistent with Specific Plan Landscaping
criteria and be subject to a landscaping plan prepared
by a licensed landscape architect to be submitted for
review and approval by the City's Planning Director;
2) all street tree planting shall be conducted in
accord with City requirements; 3) all structures
fronting the residences along the residential frontage
road (old Holt Avenue) shall exhibit roofing and
exterior building materials, as well as window and
door treatments, reflective of quality residential
development; 4) building setbacks shall be incorpor-
ated into the ordinance crating specific plan zone No.
2 oursuant to the provisions of Exhibit 4; and, 5) a
sign program will be developed pursuant to the pro-
posed Specific Plan and signage design criteria will
be articulated in the accompanying Specific Plan
Development Design Guidelines. The sign program and
signage design criteria will be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission. At a minimum,
all signage will conform to Chapter 26, Article 7 of
the West Covina Municipal Code, the City's Sign
Ordinance.
15
EXHIBIT 4
Maximum Building
• Height/Minimum
Building Setbacks
Building setbacks from
P.L. adjacent to
Holt Avenue
Building setback from P.L.
adjacent to Grand Avenue
Building setback from
P.L. adjacent to freeway
Building setback from P.L.
adjacent to drainage
channel
Building setback from P.L.
adjacent to frontage road
•
15'
10'
Min.
15'
Avg.
7'
Min.
15'
Avg.
5'
Min.
10'
Avg.
5'
Min.
10'
Avg.
15'
Min.
20'
Avg.
NPUN
10'
Min.
20'
Avg.
5'
Min.
10'
Avg.
5'
Min.
10'
Avg.
15'
Min.
20'
Avg.
35'
70'
Min.
5'
Min.
15'
Avg.
5'
Min.
10'
Avg.
1r
Land Use
Finding: With regard to land use, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
• identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is made in that with regard to Land
Use, this alternative encompasses a generally similar
plan consistency basis as that described for the
proposed project. This alternative's consistency
evaluation is as discussed below: 1) the West Covina
General Plan advocates the provision for a wide range
of non-residential uses that will ensure a strong
economic base for the City. This Alternative would
provide employment, sales and other tax revenues which
will contribute to the City's general fund; 2) the
West Covina General Plan advocates the arrangement of
land uses which regard the health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the residents of the City. This
Alternative is consistent with, and represents an
extension of, the established arrangement of land uses
present in the City generally, and the I-10 corridor
specifically. Further, this Alternative has incorpor-
ated many of the suggestions presented by residents of
the immediate vicinity; 3) the West Covina General
Plan advocates that shopping center and other neigh-
borhood and service commercial uses should be compat-
ible with adjacent residential areas. This alterna-
tive proposes to buffer the majority of the project's
land uses from adjacent residential uses via the
realignment of Holt Avenue which creates an island
whereon two-story garden office structures will occur
which will manifest a residential appearance con-
sistent with the neighborhood. Further, this alter-
native envisions its specialty retail, restaurant, and
financial institution components as single -story
structures, which would be in keeping with the scale
of development prevalent in the surrounding resi-
dential area. As with the garden office structures,
these components would be desiqned pursuant to a set
of Specific Plan development guidelines which would
provide for architectural and design homogeneity; 4)
the West Covina General Plan advocates that plans for
the freeway corridor area should be brought into line
with economic reality. This alternative represents an
extension of commercial uses predominant along the
I-10 corridor and will yield sales and other tax
revenues to the City; 5) the East Hills Specific Plan
advocates that the City should discourage and/or
17
prohibit incompatible commercial uses in the East
Hills Specific Plan area. This alternative provides
site design and development design guidelines which
serve to minimize incompatibility; 6) the East Hills
• Specific Plan advocates that the City should be aware
of the noise problems caused by the San Bernardino
Freeway. This alternative represents a type of
development which would be less sensitive to freeway
noise that the residential uses presently advanced by
zoning. Additionally, this alternative will act as a
noise buffer between the I-10 Freeway and existing
residential uses to the south of the site in that a
continuous barrier ranging in height from 12 to 18
feet will exist along the site's freeway frontage and
western boundary; and 7) regarding land use compati-
bility from an environmental perspective, this alter-
native is not expected to yield significant adverse
impacts related to traffic, noise or air quality, and
distal views would not be impaired to the same extent
as with the originally proposed project. Given this,
and the fact that the current site design to a large
extent incorporates input from adjacent residents, on
the whole, this alternative would clearly be more
environmentally compatible with adjacent land uses
than would the previously proposed project.
Biota
Finding: With regard to biota, conditions of approval and
changes in project design reduce all impacts identi-
fied in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that as with the
proposed project, this alternative would also com-
pletely remove all flora and fauna from the project
site and the associated effects of Alternative 11 and
the proposed project upon the site's biological
resources would, therefore, be identical. However,
the proposed project contemplates aligning a buried
reinforced concrete drainaqe channel through a City -
owned parcel across Holt Avenue upon which are located
• approximately 20 specimen trees. Three trees would
require complete removal while up to seven others
could be indirectly affected by drainage channel
construction. Alternative 11 realigns the drainage
improvements away from the City -owned parcel. Thus,
no loss of specimen trees would be expected. Further,
with the originally proposed project, a revised Holt
Avenue/Oak Knoll Drive intersection configuration
would occur which would further encroach upon the
in
City -owned parcel affecting the loss of yet an addit-
ional two trees. Again, under this alternative,
although minor adjustments to the Oak Knoll Drive/
(old) Holt Avenue intersection are contemplated. No
• tree loss would be experienced.
This Alternative's drainage improvements terminate
just south of the (old) Holt Avenue bridge. The
outlet and appurtenant energy dissipator are aligned
directly toward a specimen oak tree of exceptional
proportions (trunk diameter of 42 inches, height of 56
feet and crown diameter of 96 feet) which at present
has a partially exposed root structure due to prior
bank erosion. Under high flow conditions, it is very
possible that outlet discharge velocities could exceed
natural flow conditions, which in turn could
accelerate bank erosion in the vicinity of the subject
tree to a degree where its health and integrity could
be adversely affected.
In summary then, although the originally proposed
project and Alternative 11 will identically affect the
project site's biological resources, the originally
proposed project's potential effects on the City -owned
parcel's biota would clearly be greater than those
associated with Alternative 11.
Given this, the following biological mitigation
measures for the originally proposed project would not
be required for this Alternative.
- The applicant shall replace each specimen tree
removed on a two for one basis using 36-inch
boxed trees.
The applicant shall protect tree Nos. 16, 11, 12,
10, 6, 4, 3 and 2 from construction related
-activity. The means of protection shall be
developed by a qualified arborist and be approved
by the City prior to the implementation of any
earth movement activities.
• - The applicant shall plan and implement restor-
ation of disturbed resources on City -owned
property due to construction in a manner subject
to approval by the City Planning Director.
For Alternative 11, the following mitigation measures
are also conditions of approval: 1) the applicant
shall protect tree No. 2 (as identified on page 28 of
the Responses to Comments Volume of the final Program
EIR) from erosion which may be caused by the directed
discharge of runoff from his upstream drainage im-
provements. The means of protection shall be devel-
oped by a qualified arborist, approved by the City,
and implemented prior to completing construction of
the subject drainage improvements; 2) the applicant
will reintroduce key native shrubs and trees to the
developed site which would provide for the re-entry of
some native birds presently on the site and enhance
the ultimate species diversity of property when
developed; and, 3) the applicant shall make current
his secured Section 1601 permit from the California
Department of Fish and Game.
Public Services/Utilities
Finding: With regard to public services and utilities which
include electricity, natural gas, sewer, water and
solid waste disposal, the conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that: 1) with
regard to electricity the project (Alternative 11)
will comply with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code; 2) with regard to natural gas -
a) Alternative 11 will establish applicable energy
conservation programs as recommended by the Southern
California Gas Company; b) the applicant will provide
the gas company with construction plans and scheduling
information as they become available; c) the revised
project (Alternative 11) shall comply with Title 24 of
the California Administrative Code, as amended, and,
d) should alteration to existing gas lines be. required
as a result of the proposed storm drain, the developer
will reimburse the gas company to relocate the
affected line; with respect to sewer service, a)
connection fee to the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County will be required to help meet future
• expansion needs, b) the developer shall install
additional sewer lines if required by the City, c) the
applicant shall monitor the flow of the sewer lines in
the project area for one week to determine existing
flows, and, d) temporary pump will be installed to
by-pass lines if the City sewer line flow is inter-
rupted by construction; with regard to water, a) the
Developer shall coordinate with the Valencia Heights
Water District to provide for system improvements, if
51n
needed and the applicant shall incorporate all applic-
able water system and water conservation measures in
accordance with pertinent code requirements; and, with
regard to solid waste disposal, a) commercial trash
• compactors shall be used where feasible to reduce
solid waste bulk and site tenants shall coordinate
with local solid waste disposal and recycling inter-
ests in efforts to establish and participate in a
recycling program.
Growth Inducement
Finding: The project (Alternative 11) is not expected to
generate significant growth inducing impacts.
Facts: The above finding is made in that:
1) As a new commercial development, the proposed
project may create in excess of 600 employment
opportunities. It is expected, however, that
immigration to the area to fill these employment
opportunities would be minimal. That is, most
future site employees are expected to already
reside within a reasonable commuting distance
from the site. As a result, project -induced
growth in area's housing supply in order to meet
immigrant needs is not anticipated.
2) The daytime population (workers) associated with
the revised proposed project (Alternative 11)
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 number 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;
3) The proposed project, as revised (Alternative 11)
has immediate access to local circulation and all
• required infrastructural elements including
sewers, storm drains, and the like, as well as
all utilities. The project represents. infill
development and would not affect the extension of
infrastructure and utilities to new areas. As a
result, the revised project (Alternative 11)
would not induce peripheral growth by virtue of
having made the infrastructure which would be
requisite for development available.
Alternatives
Background: The Final EIR and subsequent Addendums address twelve
• alternatives to the proposed project, as revised
(Alternative 11) including the No Project Alternative
pursuant to Section 15126(a)(2) of the State EIR
Guidelines, as amended and the project as originally
proposed. The alternatives addressed in the Final EIR
and Subsequent Addendums besides the revised project
(Alternative 11) are as follows:
CJ
1) No Project Alternative
2) Alternative 1 - Office Only
(206,000 s.f. of commercial office uses)
3) Alternative 2 - Mixed Use
(45,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant space and 26,300 s.f. of
office uses)
4) Alternative 3 - Mixed Use
(45,000 s.f. of retail space, a 150 room hotel,
15,000 s.f. of restaurant space and 60,500 s.f.
of office uses)
5) Alternative 4 - Mixed Use
(30,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 room hotel,
15,000 s.f. of restaurant space and 53,550 s.f.
of office uses)
6) Alternative 5 - Mixed Use
(30,000 s.f. of retail space, a 150 room hotel,
7,500 s.f, of restaurant space and 116,650 s.f.
of office uses)
7) Alternative 6 - Mixed Use
(15,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant space and 80,500 s.f. of
office uses)
8) Alternative 7 - Single Family Residential
(Forty-four dwelling units)
9) Alternative 8 - Single Family Residential/Commer-
cial
(Fourteen dwelling units and 100,000 s.f, of
office uses)
91)
10) Alternative 9 - Mixed Use
(17,000 s.f. of retail space, 15,000 s.f. of
restaurant, and 32,000 s.f.,of office uses)
• 11) Alternative 10 - Mixed Use
(89,000 s.f, of retail space, 7,500 s.f. of
restaurant, and 22,000 s.f, of office uses)
12) Proposed Project (as originally submitted)
(15,000 s.f, of retail space, a 150 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant, and 157,000 s.f. of
office uses)
Facts: Alternatives 1 thru 6, and Alternatives 9 and 10, as
well as the Proposed Project (as originally
submitted), represent alternative development
scenarios which could be developed pursuant to the
provisions of West Covina Specific Plan Zone No. 2.
It should be noted that each of these attains the
basic objectives of the project, would yield impacts
which are neither substantially greater or less than
those associated with the proposed project, and would
not require mitigation measures substantially
different than, or in excess of, those articulated for
the revised proposed project (Alternatives 11).
Neither the No Project Alternative, or Alternatives 7
and 8 as defined above, feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project, nor are they preferred
alternatives. However, it should be noted that of all
alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative is
the environmentally superior alternative. Impacts
associated with the No Project Alternative and Alter-
natives 7 and 8 are articulated below:
No Project 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 as
originally proposed, or as revised at present
• (Alternative 11) would be realized. Furthermore, no
demands for City services other than those presently
afforded to the site would be expected. It should
also be noted that under the proposed project, the
City would receive recurring bed tax revenues
associated with the proposed hotel and sales tax
revenue associated with proposed retail and restaurant
activities. Under a No Project scenario, such
revenues would not accrue to the City.
23
Alternative 1 - This alternative would be consistent
with the City of West Covina General Plan and East
Hill Specific Plan. Additionally this alternative is
in conformance with the existing R-A zoning for the
• site which permits a density of up to 4.0 dwelling
enits per acre.
It should be noted that development of this alterna-
tive would likely not occur in the same configuration
as the proposed project with respect to building pad
locations and profiles and associated grading and
drainage channel improvements. In other words, less
site disturbance may be likely. As a result, this
alternative would likely have less impact upon Earth
(Grading), Water (Drainage) and Biota than the pro-
posed project. However, a greater impact regarding
these issues is also possible depending on the ulti-
mate project design. With respect to Aesthetics, the
impacts associated with this alternative would to a
large extent depend upon the ultimate site design. In
the absence of such a design, meaningful conclusions
as to aesthetic impact cannot be made. However, it
can be concluded that should this alternative's
single-family residences be developed along Holt
Avenue, after the maturation of associated land-
scaping, distal views from existing residences along
Holt Avenue may be impaired to an extent similar to
the proposed project, as revised (Alternative 11).
Development of this alternative would yield 400 daily
trip ends, about 6.6 percent of the number which would
be associated with the proposed project, as revised
(Alternative 11). Corresponding reductions in air
quality and noise impacts would be expected to occur
in comparison with the proposed project. Utility and
service impacts associated with this alternative would
be substantially less than with the proposed project,
as revised (Alternative 11). With respect to noise,
it should be noted that this alternative would be much
more sensitive to noise generated by the 1-10 corridor
than would the current proposal. For this reason, the
• fact that carbon monoxide concentrations and exhaust
fumes are respectively higher and more noticeable
along freeway corridors, and that the general intens-
ity of freeway activity is comparatively greater than
low density single family residential development
where people spend much time outdoors, it is highly
unusual to see relatively low density single-family
residential developments adjacent to major trans-
portation corridors.
24
Furthermore, development of low -density single-family
residences adjacent to the I-10 freeway is not
encouraged by the General Plan's Land Use Element
which among other things advocates arranging land uses
with regard to the health, safety, convenience and
• welfare of the residents of the City. In this regard,
locating low -density residential development at this
subject location would expose those residents to
exterior noise levels in excess of State and local
standards. In order to alleviate this condition,
substantial mitigation measures would be required.
This notion is further reinforced by the East Hills
Specific Plan which indicates that the City should be
aware of the noise problems caused by the San
Bernardino Freeway. As a result, where the proposed
project would generally not be sensitive to freeway
related noise, this alternative would be.
While consistent with the site's land use designation
presently in the General Plan and east Hills Specific
Plan, this alternative would represent a departure
from the prevailing pattern of land use along the I-10
corridor found elsewhere in the City. As noted
elsewhere in the final EIR, the prevalent use along
the I-10 corridor is commercial. While the proposed
project would represent an easterly extension of this
pattern, this alternative would not.
Lastly, this alternative is expected to generate
minimal revenues to the City. In fact, as with any
residential development, the City would experience an
increase in cost, albeit small, to provide required
police and fire protection, as well as other govern-
mental services.
Alternative 8 - Earth (Grading), Water (Drainage) and
Biota impacts associated with this alternative would
be comparable to those of the proposed project, as
revised.
On a daily basis, this alternative would generate
• 1,570 vehicle trips, or about 16 percent of the
volumes anticipated for the revised project
(Alternative 11). A corresponding reduction in
emissions from mobile sources would also be
anticipated.
25
This alternative would not have a berm along the
site's Holt Avenue periphery due to the presence of
single-family homes, although some type of buffer
would likely exist between the residential and
• commercial portions of this alternative. In any
event, existing residences along Holt Avenue would
experience similar exposure to freeway noise with this
alternative than under the revised proposed project
(Alternative 11).
With regard to aesthetics, distal views from existing
residents would improve to a level comparable to those
associated with Alternative 11 due to the removal of
the existing hills onsite. With regard to Land Use,
this alternative yields different plan consistency and
land use compatibility effects as associated for the
revised proposed project (Alternative 11). Selected
examples are provided below:
1) The West Covina General Plan advocates the
provision for a wide range of non-residential
uses that will ensure a strong economic base for
the City. This alternative has a residential
component. However, its commercial component
would provide employment and sales and other tax
revenues which will contribute to the City's
economic base. The extent of these revenues
would be substantially less than with the
proposed project, as revised (Alternative 11).
2) The West Covina General Plan advocates the
arrangement of land uses which regard the health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the residents
of the City. With the exception of the
residential component, this alternative is
consistent with and represents an extension of,
the established arrangement of land uses present
in the City generally, and the I-10 corridor
specifically.
3) The West Covina General Plan advocates that
• shopping center and other neighborhood and
service commercial uses should be compatible with
adjacent residential areas. This alternative
proposed low density residential uses immediately
adjacent to commercial uses. Potential
incompatibilities due to the intensity of
vehicular and human activity at the commercial
component could be experienced.
so
4) The West Covina General Plan advocates that plans
for the freeway corridor area should be brought
into line with economic reality. While this
alternative's commercial component represents an
• extension of commercial uses predominant along
the I-10 corridor, the residential component is
inconsistent with the objective of this policy.
5) The East Hills Specific Plan advocates that the
City should discourage and/or prohibit
incompatible commercial uses in the East Hills
Specific Plan area. This alternative would
provide site design and development design
guidelines which serve to minimize
incompatibility.
6) The East Hills Specific Plan advocates that the
City should be aware of the noise problems caused
by the San Bernardino Freeway. This alternative
could increase exposure to freeway noise for both
adjacent and on -site residential uses.
Regarding land use compatibility from an environmental
perspective, this alternative is not expected to yield
adverse impacts related to traffic or air quality and
will improve distal views. However, this alterna-
tive's residential component and adjacent residences
along Holt Avenue could be subject to periodic
exterior noise levels in excess of existing standards.
For this reason, this alternative would not be as
environmentally compatible with surrounding land uses
as would the proposed project, as revised (Alternative
11).
With regard to Services and Utilities, this
alternative is expected to consume less electricity,
natural gas and water, while generative less sewage
and solid waste than the proposed project, as revised
(Alternative 11). Also, this alternative has no
retail, hotel or restaurant uses. This indicates that
substantially less tax revenue would accrue to the
• City under this development scenario than would occur
with the proposed project, as revised (Alternative
11), or alternatives 2 through 6 and 9 and 10, as well
as the originally proposed project.
0
•
ATTACHMENT 1
Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
(Originally Proposed Project)
Note: Provided for informational
and cooperative purposes only.
C J
• FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMEA iF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
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 signi-
ficant 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 environ-
mental 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 consider-
ations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR."
(Section 15091)
The Initial Study prepared for this project identified
several potential environmental effects and focused
the environmental impact report to address earth
(grading), water (drainage), traffic/circulation/park-
ing, air quality, noise, aesthetics, land use, biota,
and services and utilities including electricity,
natural .gas. sewer, water and solid waste disposal.
The EIR process developed and identified a variety of
• mitigation measures which will minimize the potential
adverse effects of this project. All feasible meas-
ures are being imposed as conditions of project
approval. As discussed below, with the exception of
potential aesthetic impacts, these mitigation measures
will reduce all environmental effects to a level of
1
insignificance, both for the project specifically and
on a cumulative basis.
• Earth (Grading)
Finding: With regard to earth (grading), conditions of approval
and changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that: 1) export
trucks will utilize the City's established truck
routes in order to minimize interaction with residen-
tial neighborhoods; 2) dust suppression techniques
will be employed during all grading and construction
activities and export trucks will be covered, or their
contents moistened, to minimize fugitive dust; 3) all
grading operations shall be conducted in conformance
with applicable City of West Covina Ordinances: 4) all
grading activities shall adhere to the Grading and
Foundation Design Recommendations included within the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report; 5) an Erosion Control
Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City prior
to October 15 of the year in which construction
begins, if construction commences after April 15,
otherwise, the Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted
prior to approval of the grading plan; and, 6) all
grading activities will be limited to weekdays between
the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through
Friday, 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday and will be
accomplished within a schedule that minimizes the
actual number of days that the activities will occur.
Water (Drainage)
Finding: With regard to water (drainage), conditions of approv-
al and changes in project design will reduce all
impacts identified in the final EIR to insignificant
levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that: 1) the
a,p':icant sha'.': :u`=" _ ccnceptual site drainage plan
to the City for review and approval and implement any
• needed improvements to properly control runoff and
convey it to a suitable point of disposal; 2) the
applicant shall provide energy dissipators at the
westerly terminus of the box culvert in order to
minimize downstream erosion; and 3) for the rerouted
drainage channel, the applicant shall submit a drain-
age concept to the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District for their review and approval.
2
•
�J
1.
V11"
's3
Oil
ZJ
¢z
>2
Q O
z�
uj
j
�� w
�W U
w
•
I
1 �
I
ppWitt
lw3 A.
0
Ik
Q
Zv
¢
G
O
>
UU)
C/)CL
1 N
J W
LU
¢�
U
Lj
E
•
Fo
zu
Oak Knoll is designed with raised median within which
two existing trees will be retained. In order to
facilitate the realignment of Holt west of Grand, the
west -bound approach on Holt to Grand east of Grand
will also require realignment by way of moving the
• approach northerly. A 25 foot radii is recommended on
the northeast quadrant of the intersection. This
differs slightly from the corner cut-off configuration
presently shown on Exhibit 1.
Air Quality
Finding: With regard to air quality, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) normal wetting
procedures or other dust palliative measures shall be
followed during the site excavation and grading
operations to reduce fugitive dust emissions and in
order to meet District Rule 403 requirements; 2)
trucks exporting fill shall be sprinkled prior to
entering public streets to minimize potential fugitive
dust; 3) construction equipment engines will be
maintained in proper tune; 4) future site employees
will be encouraged to engage in carpooling, van -pool-
ing and the use of public transit in order to reduce
vehicle miles associated with their employees; and 5)
the applicant shall inform all employers with 100 or
more employees which may eventually occupy a project
structure of the requirement to comply with South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 15.
Noise
Finding: With regard to noise, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) excavation and
other construction activities related to the, proposed
projects should be restricted to 7 AM to 6 PM Monday
through Friday and between 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays;
2) Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance will be
required; 3) the proposed landscaped earthen berm and
• wall presently contemplated along Holt Avenue as part
of the proposed project shall be retained at a height
of 18 feet.
4
W
Aesthetics
Finding: With regard to aesthetics, conditions of approval and
changes in site design will substantially lessen the
significant impacts identified in the Final EIR.
• However, it should be noted that the potential pre-
clusion of distal northerly views from residences
along Holt Avenue may be perceived as significantly
adverse by the occupants.
Facts: The above finding is made in view of the facts which
follow. Additionally, the significance of the poten-
tial adverse impact identified above has been weighed
and balanced against the needs of the City as a whole
as addressed in the Statement of Overriding Consid-
erations which follow these Findings. Facts support-
ing the above findings include: 1) site design will be
retained as is with respect to provision of a land-
scaped earthen berm and wall buffer at its periphery
along Holt Avenue as realigned and will be constructed
as part of the first phase of any site development; 2)
building setbacks shall be incorporated into the
ordinance creating specific plan zone No. 2 pursuant
to the provisions of Exhibit 2; 3) trees planted along
the site's Holt Avenue periphery shall be of specimen
size (24 inch and 36 inch boxes) and be provided at a
ratio of approximately three 24 inch boxed trees for
each 36 inch boxed tree and will be planted as part of
the first phase of any site development; 4) in order
to preclude encroachment of light cast by headlights
of stationary vehicles at the site's easterly access
into the residence directly fronting the project
driveway, alignment of the driveway shall be such so
that headlights do not shine directly onto this
residence's living area (e.g. bedrooms, living rooms);
5) at the site's easterly access, in order to preclude
encroachment of light shed by headlights of vehicles
turning left onto Holt Avenue on residences across
Holt Avenue, the raised median between the new service
road and Holt Avenue shall be planted with hedge -type
vegetation up to 4 feet in height; and, 6) a sign
program will be developed pursuant to the proposed
Specific Plan and signage design criteria will be
articulated in the accompanying Specific Plan Devel-
opment Design Guidelines. The sign program and
• signage design criteria will be subject to review andr
approval by the Planning Commission.. At a minimum,
all signage will conform to Chapter 26, Article 7 of
the West Covina Municipal Code, the City's Sign
Ordinance.,
5
EXHIBIT 2
MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT*/MINIMUM
15'
25'
35'
BUILDING SETBACKS
• Building setbacks from
40'
70'
100'
P.L. adjacent
Min.
Min.
Min.
to Holt Avenue
( V A
R I
E S)
Building setback from
10'
15'
20'
P.L. adjacent to
Min.
Min.
Min.
Grand Avenue
15'
15'
20'
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Building setback from
5'
5'
5'
P.L. adjacent to
Min.
Min.
Min.
Freeway
15'
15'
15'
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Building setback from
5'
5'
5'
P.L. adjacent to
Min.
Min.
Min.
drainage channel
10'
10'
10'
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Building setback from
5'
10'
15'
internal collector
Min.
Min.
Min.
drive" (edge of curb)
10'
15'
25'
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
* Building heights measured from top
of curb on Holt Avenue
directly adjacent to
building.
** The final alignment
of the internal
collector
drive
shall be subject to
the approval of the
Planning
Commission at the Precise Plan level of
design.
0
M
Land Use
Finding: With regard to land use, conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
•
Facts: The above finding is made in that: 1) while the
proposed project is commercial in nature and not
consistent with the current uses planned for the site
in the West Covina General Plan, site design intends
to minimize differences in the project's character
from that of the residential uses to the south and
southwest; 2) as a commercial project, the proposal
would provide employment and sales and other tax
revenues which will contribute to the City's economic
base; 3) due to the high incidence of commercial uses
along the I-10 Corridor, the proposed project, for the
most part, is consistent with and represents an
extension of the established arrangement of land uses
present in the City; 4) the proposed project provides
for segregated on -site circulation via an internal
collector loop and utilizes the public circulation
system for site access only; 5) the proposed project
advocates the generous use of landscaping and shrub-
bery which should enhance the aesthetic environment
for on -site employees and adjacent residents; 6) while
the project is commercial in nature and does not
reflect the area's residential character, through a
set of development design guidelines, the project
provides for architectural and design homogeneity; 7)
the proposed project proposes to create a landscaped
natural buffer between itself and adjacent residential
uses; 8) development subject to specific plan zoning
provisions and development design guidelines are more
specific and restrictive and provide greater controls
than traditional zoning controls; 9) the proposed
project will provide circulation and drainage improve-
ments which are superior to existing circulation and
drainage facilities for the general area; 10) site
design and development design guidelines associated
with the proposed project serve to minimize incompat-
ibility; 11) the proposed project will include an
equestrian trail at its periphery along Holt Avenue;
. 12) commercial development at the site would be less
sensitive to freeway noise than residential develop-
ment currently advanced by the —General Plan and East
Hills Specific Plan and, the proposed project will act
as a noise buffer between the I-10 Freeway and exist-
ing residential uses; and, 14) mitigation measures
7
related to grading, traffic, air quality, noise and
aesthetics shall be adhered to in order to maximize
the environmental compatibility of the proposed
project with adjacent residential uses.
• Biota
Finding: With regard to biota, conditions of approval and
changes in project design reduce all impacts identi-
fied in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The above finding is hereby made in that; 1) the
applicant will reintroduce key native shrubs and trees
to the developed site which would provide for the
re-entry of some native birds presently on the site
and enhance the ultimate species diversity of property
when developed; 2) the applicant has secured a Section
1601 permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game; 3) on the City -owned site, the applicant shall
replace each specimen tree removed on a two- for -one
basis using 36-inch boxed trees; 4) also on the
City -owned site, the applicant shall protect tree Nos.
16, 11, 12, 10, 6, 4, 3, and 2 (as shown on Exhibit 3)
from construction related activities via means devel-
oped by a qualified arborist and subject to approval
by the City prior to the implementation of any earth
movement activities; and, 5) the applicant shall plan
and implement restoration of disturbed resources on
City -owned property due to construction in a manner
subject to approval by the City Planning Director,
City Engineer, and Building and Safety Director.
Public Services/Utilities
Finding: With regard to public services and utilities which
include electricity, natural gas, sewer, water and
solid waste disposal, the conditions of approval and
changes in project design will reduce all impacts
identified in the Final EIR to insignificant levels.
Facts: The aoove ringing is hereby made in that: 1) with
regard to electricity the project will comply with
Tit'.- ''A cf t a California Administrative Code; 2)
with regard to natural gas - a) the project will
• establish applicable energy conservation programs as
recommended by the Southern California Gas Company;
b). the applicant will provide the gas company with
construction plans and scheduling information as they
become available; c) the project shall comply with
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, as
0
n
u
amended, and, d) should alteration to existing gas
lines be required as a result of the proposed storm
drain, the developer will reimburse the gas company to
relocate the affected line; with respect to sewer
• service, a) connection fee to the Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County will be required to help meet
future expansion needs, b) the developer shall install
additional sewer lines if required by the City, c) the
applicant shall monitor the flow of the sewer lines in
the project area for one week to determine existing
flows, and, d) temporary pump will be installed to
by-pass lines if the City sewer line flow is inter-
rupted by construction; with regard to water, a) the
Developer shall coordinate with the Valencia Heights
Water District to provide for system improvements, if
needed and the applicant shall incorporate all applic-
able water system and water conservation measures in
accordance with pertinent code requirements; and, with
regard to solid waste disposal, a) commercial trash
compactors shall be used where feasible to reduce
solid waste bulk and site tenants shall coordinate
with local solid waste disposal and recycling inter-
ests in efforts to establish and participate in a
recycling program.
Growth Inducement
Finding: The proposed is not expected to generate significant
growth inducing impacts.
Facts: The above finding is made in that:
1) As a new commercial development, the proposed
project may create in excess of 830 employment
opportunities. It is expected, however, that
inmigration to the area to fill these employment
opportunities would be minimal. That is, most
future site employees are expected to already
reside within a reasonable commuting distance
from the site. As a result, project -induced
growth in area's housing supply in order to meet
inmigrant needs is not anticipated;
• Z) The daytime population (workers) associated with
the proposed project would be expected to in-
crea.se- localized demand for goods and services.
However, the extent to which this would occur is
expected to be• insufficient to induce growth in
the number of establishments providing the goods
2
- and services. Rather, existing establishments
would be expected to experience an increase in _
demand for the goods and services they provide;
3) The proposed project has immediate access to
local circulation and all required infrastruc-
• tural 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 infras-
tructure 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 Final EIR addressed nine alternatives to the
proposed project including the No Project Alternative
pursuant to Section 15126(a)(2) of the State EIR
Guidelines, as amended. The alternatives addressed in
the Final EIR are as follows:
1) No Project Alternative
2) Alternative 1 - Office Only
(206,000 s.f. of commercial office uses)
3) Alternative 2 - Mixed Use
(45,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant space and 26,300 s.f. of
office uses)
4) Alternative 3 - Mixed Use
(45,000 s.f. of retail space, a 150 room hotel,
15,000 s.f, of restaurant space and 60,500 s.f.
of office uses)
5) Alternative 4 - Mixed Use
(30,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 roam hotel,
15,000 s.f. of restaurant space and 53,550 s.f.
of office uses)
6) Alternative 5 - Mixed Use
• (30,000 s.f. of retail space, a 150 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant space and 116,650 s.f.
of office uses)
10
'107) Alternative 6 - Mixed Use
(15,000 s.f. of retail space, a 300 room hotel,
7,500 s.f. of restaurant space and 80,500 s.f. of
office uses)
8) Alternative 7 - Single Family Residential
• (Forty-four dwelling units)
9) Alternative 8 - Single Family Residential/Commer-
cial
(Fourteen dwelling units and 100,000 s.f. of
office uses)
Facts: Alternatives 1 thru 6, as well as the proposed pro-
ject, represent alternative development scenarios
which could be developed pursuant to the provisions of
West Covina Specific Plan Zone No. 2. It should be
noted that each of these alternatives (1 thru 6)
attains the basic objectives of the project, would
yield impacts 'which are neither substantially greater
or less than those associated with the proposed
project, and would not require mitigation measures
different than, or in excess of, those articulated for
the proposed project in the Final EIR.
Neither the No Project Alternative, or Alternatives 7
and 8 as defined above, feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project, nor are they preferred
alternatives. However, it should be noted that of all
alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative is
the environmentally superior alternative. Impacts
associated with the No Project Alternative and Alter-
natives 7 and 8 are articulated below:
No Project 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. Furthermore, no demands for City services
other than those presently afforded to the site would
be expected. It should also be noted that under the
proposed project, the City would receive recurring bed
"x rt!veftuca aa4c.zioLcu tz 'v _"w hctcl and
sales tax revenue associated with proposed retail and
• restaurant activities. Under a No Project scenario,
r such revenues would not accrue to the City.
11
n
L�
Alternative 7 - This alternative would be consistent
with the City of West Covina General -.Plan and East
Hill Specific Plan. Additionally this alternative is
in conformance with the existing R-A zoning for the
• site which permits a density of up to 4.0 dwelling
units per acre.
It should be noted that development of this alterna-
tive would likely not occur in the same configuration
as the proposed project with respect to building pad
locations and profiles and associated grading and
drainage channel improvements. In other words, less
site disturbance may be likely. As a result, this
alternative would likely have less impact upon Earth
(Grading), Water (Drainage) and Biota than the pro-
posed project. However, a greater impact regarding
these issues is also possible depending on the ulti-
mate project design. With respect to Aesthetics, the
impacts associated with this alternative would to a
large extent depend upon the ultimate site design. In
the absence of such a design, meaningful conclusions
as to aesthetic impact cannot be made. However, it
can be concluded that should this alternative's
single-family residences be developed along Holt
Avenue, after the maturation of associated land-
scaping, distal views from existing residences along
Holt Avenue may be impaired, but likely to a lesser
extent than with the proposed project.
Development of this alternative would yield 400 daily
trip ends, about 7.5 percent of the number which would
be associated with the proposed project. Correspond-
ing reductions in air quality and noise impacts would
be expected to occur in comparison with the proposed
project. Utility and service impacts associated with
this alternative would be substantially less than with
the proposed project. With respect to noise, it
should be noted that this alternative would be much
more sensitive to noise generated by the I-10 corridor
than would the proposed project. For this.reason, the
fact that carbon monoxide concentrations and exhaust
fumes are respectively hiqher and more noticeable
along freeway corridors, and that the general intens-
ity of freeway activity is comparatively greater than
• low density single family residential development
where people spend much time outdoors, it is highly
unusual to see relatively low density single-family
residential developments adjacent to major trans-
portation corridors.
12
Furthermore, development of low -density single-family
residences adjacent to the I-10 freeway is not encour-
aged by the General Plan's Land Use Element which
among other things advocates arranging land uses with
regard to the health, safety, convenience and welfare
• of the residents of the City. In this regard, locat-
ing low -density residential development at this
subject location would expose those residents to
exterior noise levels in excess of State and local
standards. In order to alleviate this condition,
substantial mitigation measures would be required.
This notion is further reinforced by the East Hills
Specific Plan which indicates that the City should be
aware of the noise problems caused by the San Bernar-
dino Freeway. As a result, where the proposed project
would generally not be sensitive to freeway related
noise, this alternative would be.
While consistent with the site's land use designation
presently in the General Plan and East Hills Specific
Plan, this alternative would represent a departure
from the prevailing pattern of land use along the I-10
corridor found elsewhere in the City. As noted
elsewhere in this EIR, the prevalent use along the
I-10 corridor is commercial. While the proposed
project would represent an easterly extension of this
pattern, this alternative would not.
Lastly, this alternative is expected to generate
minimal revenues to the City. In fact, as with any
residential development, the City would experience an
increase in cost, albeit small, to provide required
police and fire protection, as well as other govern-
mental services.
Alternative 8 - It was assumed that the grading
concept for this alternative would be similar to that
of the proposed project with the exception of the
berm. Given this, the Earth (Grading), Water (Drain-
age) and Biota impacts associated with this alterna-
tive would oe comparable to those of the proposed
project. However, without the proposed berm and
assuming pad elevations comparable to the proposed
project, an approximate 4,006 aaoitionai cuoic yards
of earth would require export. This equates to
approximately 800 in and outbound export truck trips.
Over the anticipated earth movement period of 90 days,
• this equates to an additional 10-11 export truck trips
daily.
13
•On a daily basis, this alterna .ve would generate
1,570 vehicle trips, or about 30 percent of the
volumes anticipated for the proposed project. A
corresponding reduction in emissions from mobile
sources would also be anticipated.
• This alternative would not have a berm along the
site's Holt Avenue periphery due to the presence of
single-family homes, although some type of buffer
would likely exist between the residential and commer-
cial portions of this alternative. In any event,
existing residences along Holt Avenue would experience
greater exposure to freeway noise with this alterna-
tive than under the proposed project. This is due to
the fact that the berm has an attenuation effect of
about 11.2 dBA. Such attenuation would not exist
under this alternative. The net result would be
periodic exposure of both site and adjacent residences
to noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL, the current
exterior residential noise standard.
With regard to aesthetics, distal views from existing
residents would improve to a level better than under
existing conditions due to the removal of the existing
hills onsite. However, some distal view impairment
could occur due to the commercial office component of
this alternative. With regard to Land Use, this
alternative yields different plan consistency and land
use compatibility effects as described for the pro-
posed project in the Final EIR. Selected examples are
provided below:
1) The West Covina General Plan advocates the
provision for a wide range of non-residential
uses that will ensure a strong economic base for
the City. This alternative has a residential
component. However, its commercial component
would provide empaoyment and sales and other tax
revenues which will contribute to the City's
economic base. The extent of these revenues
would be substantially less than with the pro-
posed project.
2) The West Covina General Plan advocates the
• arrangement of land uses which regard the health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the residents
of the City. With the exception of the residen-
tial component, this alternative is consistent
with and represents an extension of, the esta-
blished arrangement of land uses present in the
14
pq
City generally, and the I-10 corridor specific-
ally. It should be noted that the residential
component of this alternative would be subject to
exterior noise levels periodically in .excess of
• existing standards due to I-10 Peak Hour traffic.
3) The West Covina General Plan advocates that
shopping center and other neighborhood and
service commercial uses should be compatible with
adjacent residential areas. This alternative
proposes low density residential uses immediately
adjacent to commercial uses. Potential incom-
patibilities due to the intensity of vehicular
and human activity at the commercial component
could be experienced.
4) The West Covina General Plan advocates that plans
for the freeway corridor area should be brought
into line with economic reality. While this
alternative's commercial component represents an
extension of commercial uses predominant along
the I-10 corridor, the residential component is
inconsistent with the objective of this policy.
5) The East Hills Specific Plan advocates that the
City should discourage and/or prohibit incompat-
ible commercial uses in the East Hills Specific
Plan area. This alternative would provide site
design and development design guidelines which
serve to minimize incompatibility.
6) The East Hills Specific Plan advocates that the
City should be aware of the noise problems caused
by the San Bernardino Freeway. This alternative
would increase exposure to freeway noise for both
adjacent and on -site residential uses.
Regarding land use compatibility from an environmental
perspective, this alternative is not expected to yield
adverse impacts related to traffic or air quality and
will improve distal views. however, this alterna-
tive's residential component and adjacent residences
along Holt Avenue would be subject to periodic exter-
ior noise levels in excess of existing standards. For
• v this reason, this alternative would not be as environ-
mentally compatible with surrounding land uses as
would the proposed project.
15
i
With regard to Services and Utilities, this alterna-
tive is expected to consume less electricity, natural
gas and water, while generating less sewage and solid
waste than the proposed project. Also, this alterna-
tive has no retail, hotel or restaurant uses. This
indicates that substantially less tax revenue would
accrue to the City under this development scenario
than would occur with the proposed project or alterna-
tives 2 thru 6.
L
0
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to
balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.
The City of West Covina has determined that the unavoidable adverse
impact risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against the
benefits. In making this determination, the following facts, econ-
omic and social factors and public benefits were considered:
A. The proposed project will create in excess of 830 new
jobs which will have a beneficial impact on the local
economy.
B. The proposed project represents an extension and
expansion of a land use type already prevalent along
the I-10 corridor and fulfills many of the land use
concepts promulgated in the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan and East Hills Specific Plan.
C. The proposed project beneficially impacts annual
revenues accruing to the City. The proposed project
and its commercial alternatives yield benefit/cost
ratios ranging from 2.2:1 to 35.0:1. This translates
to net revenues ranging from between $34,740 to
$588,620.
D. The proposed project will improve existing drainage
facilities on and adjacent to the site via the con-
struction of a buried dual box culvert. This fulfills
long-term objectives for improvement of this portion
of what is referred to as the Holt Avenue Drain by the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
E. The proposed project will improve the circulation
system of the immediate area by providing for the
realignment of Holt Avenue further away from existing
residences, fronting the site along Holt Avenue,
creating a separate service road paralleling Holt
Avenue for the exclusive use of residences along Holt
between Oak Knoll and Grand Avenue, and by enhancing
the intersection of Oak Knoll at Holt Avenue.
• F. The specific plan zone will afford greater architec-
tural, landscaping, signage, and other development
controls than presently afforded by City Ordinances
governing the proposed use or its commercial alterna-
tives.
17
f
G. Any of the foregoing benefits outweigh any identified
unavoidable adverse impacts of the project.
810
4357/345
18