Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02. Downtown Downey Specific PlanAPPROVED BY CITY MANAGER AGENDA MEMO TO: Mayor and Members Of The City Council DATE: September 28, 2010 FROM: Office of the City Manager By: Brian Saeki, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN- 10 -08T4 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074). A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY APPROVING THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074). A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (VISION 2025). Additionally, staff is recommending that the City Council introduce the following ordinances: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074). AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY REPEALING SECTION 9326 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY REVOKING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR DOWNEY'S HISTORICAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking. Due to the limited success of this plan, the City Council directed staff to prepare a new specific plan for the downtown area. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new specific plan for Downtown Downey. As a result of this action, staff and the City's consultant began a CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown, which culminated with a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on July 6, 2010. On July 15, 2010, staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR. On September 15, 2010, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 10 -2662, 10 -2663, 10 -2664, and 10 -2665 (attached), thereby recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, adopt the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and repeal Section 9326 of the Municipal Code. DISCUSSION The vision for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is to create a pedestrian- oriented mixed -use environment, in which residents live and work in the same area. Additionally, the downtown vision is to create a destination for the community and region, where visitors can park once and patronize multiple businesses. To accomplish this, the boundaries of the downtown area have been expanded to Brookshire Avenue to the east, the Union Pacific railroad right -of -way to the south, Paramount Boulevard to the west, and an irregular northern boundary along Fourth Street, extending to Fifth Street in areas and including the former Gallatin Medical site. The Rives Mansion, located at the northwest corner of Third Street and Paramount Boulevard, has also been included in the project area. To further guide development, the downtown area has been subdivided into five (5) districts with varying densities, uses, and development standards. A detailed discussion of the Specific Plan is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 15, 2010. The proposed actions before the City Council are as follows: • Final Environmental Impact Report — The City Council is being asked to certify the Final EIR, including all related studies (water supply, green house gas, traffic, etc.) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. • General Plan Amendment — The General Plan Amendment will revise the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow the proposed densities and to alter the Land Use Designation of several parcels to Mixed Use. • Downtown Downey Specific Plan — Adoption of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan will effectively rezone all of the properties within the Specific Plan boundaries and make the subject to the development standards and uses contained therein. • Code Amendment — The Code Amendment will repeal Section 9326 of the Downey Municipal Code, thereby revoking the Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District. Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 28, 2010- Page 2 Staffs complete analysis of the proposed actions and all of the required findings are contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 15, 2010. As previously noted in this report, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Downtown Downey Specific Plan on September 15, 2010 (see attached minutes). During the public hearing, five (5) people spoke on the proposed Specific Plan. The primary concern raised by the public speakers was parking, including a concern about allowing residential uses at the Gallatin Medical site and ensuring sufficient parking is provided for said residences. As part of the Specific Plan, a parking study was completed. While the parking study noted small areas of deficiency (particularly the Civic Center) it concluded that there is sufficient parking available. Furthermore, the Specific Plan requires the City to restudy parking once the utilization of public parking reaches 60% (currently around 40 -45 %). It is staffs opinion that the parking standards, as proposed in the Specific Plan, will provide a necessary catalyst for redevelopment of the area. In addition to the parking concerns, one resident raised a concern about including the Rives Mansion in Downtown Downey Specific Plan, in which she felt it should remain in the residential zone and remain as a residential use. During the public outreach for the Specific Plan, it was noted that the community felt that the Rives mansion was an important landmark of the downtown area and should be included in the Specific Plan. Furthermore, staff is of the opinion that reuse of the Rives Mansion as a cultural facility, professional office, or banquet facility will provide a needed amenity to Downtown Downey. At the conclusion of the public hearing and after considering all written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission voted 3 -0 to recommend approval of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan and all accompanying applications to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 28, 2010- Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 The City Council of the City of Downey hereby FINDS, DETERMINES and DECLARES that: A. In August, 2009 the City Council of the City of Downey initiated the preparation of a specific plan for the community's downtown district, the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which is intended to revitalize and guide the development of the 131 -acre downtown (85 acres excluding rights -of -way). The community's downtown, or specific plan planning area is bounded by Brookshire Avenue on the east, the Union Pacific railway line on the south, Paramount Boulevard on the west, except for the site that the Rives Mansion occupies, which is located at the northwest corner of Paramount Boulevard and 3` Street, and various east/west aligned street segments, which together extend from Brookshire Avenue to Paramount Boulevard and include sections of 4th 5 and 7 Streets. B. The City of Downey, as the Lead the Agency for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, caused a Draft Environmental Impact Report [(Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2010051008)] to be prepared for the proposed specific plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, the State CEQA Guidelines. C. The Draft Environmental Impact Report evaluated the probable and potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. D. The City of Downey independently reviewed the Draft EIR and concluded that it reflects the independent judgment of the City of Downey. E. The City of Downey conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on the May 26, 2010, for the purpose of soliciting input on the content and scope of the environmental analysis that would be included in the DEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15082(c)(1). F. Also pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15105, the Draft EIR was distributed to the appropriate state, regional and county agencies, neighboring cities, interested parties and also made available for public review for a 45 -day public comment period. The review period began on May 15, 2010 and extended to and included August 30, 2010. G. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received by the City during the 45 -day public review period and were fully and adequately responded to, in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The comments and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR have been included in the Final EIR. H. The Planning Commission gave required notice and held a public hearing on September 15, 2010, to receive testimony on the Final EIR and proposed specific plan. I. The Planning Commission fully reviewed and carefully considered the Draft EIR, the comments, and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR and all other environmental documents that comprise the Final EIR and by Resolution No. 10- 2662, recommended the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan that it is complete and adequate, and was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and reflects the City of Downey's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 2 That the City Council has fully reviewed and carefully considered the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR and all other environmental documents that comprise the Final EIR, at a public hearing on September 28, 2010, including all the information presented at said public hearing. SECTION 3 That the Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Downey, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. SECTION 4 In view of the foregoing, the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is complete and adequate, and was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for implementing CEQA. SECTION 5 The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day of September, 2010. ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk ANNE M. BAYER,Mayor HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Member: ABSENT: Council Member: ABSTAIN: Council Member: City Council Resolution No. Downtown Specific Plan FEIR Resolution Page 2 KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY APPROVING THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074) WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 610 in 2002, amending the State Water Code to include requirements that the increased demands on water systems are adequately addressed and that a reliable source of water supply is available for certain new developments, prior to their approval; WHEREAS, Section 15155(b) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 10910(g) of the California Water Code requires that a governing body of a public water system that will serve a "water demand project" shall approve a Water Supply Assessment at a regular or special meeting; WHEREAS, the City of Downey is a public water supplier within its city limits and the City Council of the City of Downey is the governing body of the City's public water system; WHEREAS, the City of Downey recommends that landscaping for projects be drought tolerant and requires that recycled water be used for irrigation when the properties are proximate to recycled water resources in an effort to reduce the cumulative use of potable water; WHEREAS, in August 2009, the City Council directed Community Development Department staff to prepare a specific plan, known as the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (" Project "), with the intent of guiding growth and development in Downtown Downey, encouraging economic revitalization and creating a lively and livable pedestrian- oriented, mixed -use district that will serve as a residential area, a place of employment and an entertainment destination; WHEREAS, under Section 15155(a)(I)(G)of the CEQA Guidelines and Section10912(a)(7) of the Water Code, a development that would require an amount of water greater than or equivalent to the amount required by a mixed -use project with more than 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space and more than 500 dwelling units, such as the proposed project, requires a Water Supply Assessment; and WHEREAS, in July 2010, Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA), an environmental consulting firm, prepared the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed specific plan, under the direction and review of the City of Downey's Public Works Department, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Water Supply Assessment with its data and conclusions set forth therein. Based on its conclusions, the City's existing and additional groundwater entitlements, the City's existing and prospective recycled water supplies, and its water conservation measures, comprise the City's water supply for the projected demand of the proposed Project, and WHEREAS, the Water Supply Assessment concludes that the City's projected water supply, consisting of existing and additional supplies, is sufficient at this time to meet the proposed project's projected water demand, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Downey approves the Water Supply Assessment for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day September, 2010. ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Member: ABSENT: Council Member: ABSTAIN: Council Member: ANNE M. BAYER, Mayor I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 28 day of September by the following vote, to wit: : KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (VISION 2025) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking; and, B. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey; and, C. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan; and, D. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010; and, E. On July 15, 2010, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR; and, F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted Resolution No. 10 -2663, thereby recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment; and, G. On September 18, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press - Telegram; and, H. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The City Council further finds, determines and declares that an EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised RESOLUTION NO. PAGE TWO Procedures for Implementing CEQA. On September 28, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. , certifying the EIR. SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the City Council further finds, determines and declares that: 1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments, which include text changes to allow higher residential densities in the downtown area and land use designation changes for several parcels to allow mixed use, are being proposed as part of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. As part of the Specific Plan, an analysis of all of the goals and policies was conducted. Appendix A of the Specific Plan (incorporated herein by reference) denotes 42 individual goals and policies of the General Plan that the Specific Plan is consistent with. Based on the consistency with these 42 goals and policies, the proposed General Plan Amendment will be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the surrounding environment. The proposed General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. These changes will be compatible with and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining properties, since development standards have been incorporated into the specific plan to safeguard neighboring properties. Additionally, mitigation measures are being recommended as part of the Final EIR that will lessen the impacts that were identified in the Final EIR. 3. That the proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed General Plan Amendments will allow the creation of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which envisions a pedestrian oriented mixed use environment. This environment will allow people to live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. This mixed use environment will promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with provisions of Article IX. The General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. Since the Specific Plan is a stand alone document, which allows an array of uses, it does not alter Article IX of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the General Plan Amendments will not conflict with the Municipal Code. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designation within the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Mixed Use (MU) for the following properties: 10600 Paramount Blvd (AINs 6251 - 035 -05, 6251 - 035 -016, 6251 - 035 -017), 10612 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 035 -041), 10626 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251- 035 -040), 10720 Paramount Blvd (AINs 6251 - 035 -022, 6251 - 035 -037, 6251 - 036 -036, 6251 - 036 -037), 10734 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 036 -031), 10921 -10933 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 020 -002), 8025 Fifth Ave (AIN 6251 - 036 -038), 8020 Seventh Ave (AIN 6251 - 035 -014), 10625 Parrot Ave (AIN 6251 - 035 -021), RESOLUTION NO. PAGE THREE 10630 Parrot Ave (AIN 6251- 035 -038), and 10700 Parrot Ave (AINs 6251- 036 -035 and 6251- 036 -030). SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends the "Balance of Land Uses" and "Livable Communities" chapters of the Land Use Element as noted on Exhibit 'A' of this resolution. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day of September, 2010. ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Member: ABSENT: Council Member: ABSTAIN: Council Member: ANNE M. BAYER, Mayor I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. PAGE FOUR BALANCE OF LAND USES EXHIBIT `A' The following list text changes to the "Balance of Land Uses" and "Livable Communities" chapters of the Land Use Element (new text is bold and underlined and deleted text is 81r-ikothrough): Issue 1.1. Persons who live, work, and visit Downey need areas for living, working, shopping, and playing. To meet the needs of residents, a variety of land uses must be provided within the city. When land uses within the city cannot meet this demand, residents will travel outside the city to meet this need. This situation typically results in added vehicle trips and traffic congestion, plus the secondary effects of worsening air quality, using valuable energy resources, and impacting social interactions. The under - concentration of certain uses creates impacts by not meeting resident demands and creating longer travel to meet this demand, while over - concentration of land uses has a potential negative effect by utilizing properties that would otherwise be used for other uses needed to serve the community. Therefore, it is important to provide for a balance of land uses to serve the public needs. Although it may be impossible for a suburban city in a large metropolitan region to be truly self- sufficient, Downey Vision 2025 proposes a diverse land use policy as shown on the Downey Vision 2025 Land Use Diagram. The Downey Vision 2025 Land Use Diagram divides the city into various land use designations, such as residential, commercial, industrial, are most appropriate. Although the Land Use Diagram may appear to be similar to a zoning map, there are several important differences between the two. A zoning map is parcel specific with definitive boundaries between designations and is intended to implement development proposal, the Land Use Diagram is not parcel specific and its boundaries are not definitive since the intent of the Land Use Diagram is to provide a guide for the approximate locations for land uses. The Land Use Diagram for Downey Vision 2025 divides the city into the following 12 land use designations. o Low Density Residential The Low Density Residential designation allows typically for detached single - family residential units at densities of 1 to 8.9 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to a maximum of one housing unit for a standard 5,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population will not exceed 28 persons for each acre in this designation. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -1, Single Family Residential, which includes several variations based on lot size, such as R -1 5000, R -1 6000, R -1 7500, R -1 8500, and R -1 10,000. The zoning also permits accessory living quarters on properties that are not considered separate dwelling units. Typically, a maximum of one housing unit is allowed on each individual lot, regardless of size. In some areas designated as Second Unit Development (SUD) areas however, more than one housing unit may be permitted provided that the maximum allowable density is not exceeded. The SUD areas are important in order RESOLUTION NO. PAGE FIVE to focus population growth and additional housing onto these areas without impacting other residential neighborhoods. In other instances, planned unit developments and other projects whereby housing units share driveways and other facilities may be proposed instead of conventional subdivisions to provide added flexibility in providing a viable project. In both instances however, the project must include units that are detached and convey a single - family residential image. o Low /Medium Density Residential O Office The Low /Medium Density Residential designation allows for a range of housing types that involve densities at 9 to 17 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to two housing units for each standard 5,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population is 29 to 53 persons for each acre. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -2, Two Family Residential. The housing types consistent with the designation range from two detached units on the same property to attached units (duplex), either placed side by side (in a townhouse floor plan form) or stacked with one on top of another. In certain instances, other housing types such as planned unit developments and second unit developments may be permitted provided that the overall density is not exceeded. o Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential designation allows for a range of housing types that involve densities at 18 to 24 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to three housing units for each standard 6,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population is 57 to 76 persons for each acre. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -3, Medium Density Multiple - Family Residential. The housing types consistent with the designation range from three or more attached (or detached) units on the same property (triplex) to larger apartments to townhouse design condominium to low -rise condominiums, provided that the overall density is not exceeded. Certain nonresidential land uses, such as churches, are considered consistent within this designation. The Office designation allows for professional and medical office uses. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -P, Commercial — Professional Office zone. In the vicinity of the Downey Regional Medical Center where medical offices and other medical- related uses are promoted, the corresponding zone for this designation is H -M, Hospital - Medical Arts. The intensity of the Office designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.5:1 and 5:1. o Neighborhood Commercial The Neighborhood Commercial designation allows for commercial uses that draw from a customer base from the immediate surrounding neighborhood and not from areas outside the city or region. Consistent with this intent, uses are typically small in scale in terms of floor area size, building height, and operational activities. Examples include grocery stores, dry cleaners, barber shops, bakeries, and convenience markets. Uses are intended to serve adjacent neighborhoods and are intended to be located in "neighborhood nodes" such as properties adjacent to street intersections. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -1, Neighborhood RESOLUTION NO. PAGE SIX O Public o School Commercial zone. The intensity of the Neighborhood Commercial designation should not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25:1. O General Commercial The General Commercial designation allows for a full range of commercial uses including shopping centers, automobile dealerships, hotels, offices, and automobile repair. In a contrast to the Neighborhood Commercial designation, uses are not necessarily small in scale or oriented solely towards the immediate neighborhood for its customer base. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -2, General Commercial. Since uses consistent with the General Commercial designation are typically more intense, the General Commercial designations are appropriate in areas with larger lot sizes which afford greater buffers to adjacent land uses. The intensity of the General Commercial designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.25:1 and 4:1. O Commercial Manufacturing The Commercial Manufacturing designation is intended to provide greater flexibility for providing land uses that generate employment such as shopping centers, major offices, and light industrial. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -M, Commercial Manufacturing. The intensity of the Commercial Manufacturing designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.5:1 and 0.6:1. O Manufacturing The Manufacturing designation is intended for manufacturing, wholesaling, and other industrial land uses. The corresponding zone for this designation is M -1/ M -2, Light/ General Manufacturing. Since uses consistent with the Manufacturing designation have potential for creating traffic, noise, odor, vibration and other impacts, areas designated Manufacturing should be separated from other land uses by a major natural or physical barrier and screen. The intensity of the Manufacturing designation should not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.6:1. The Public designation is intended for areas occupied by public agencies for facilities that support community services. This includes the Civic Center, the City Public Works Yard, SEACCA (SouthEast Animal Control), Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center and the MTA bus yard on Telegraph. o Open Space The Open Space designation is intended for areas that provide relief from the built environment. This includes the 106 acres of public parks in the city. Due to the limited supply of park areas, it is important that park areas are preserved. The open space designation also includes areas that utility easements, river, beds, parks, cemetery and golf courses. The School designation is intended for public schools offering K through 12 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE SEVEN instruction. The corresponding zone for this designation is the Public School subzone of the O -S, Open Space. o Private School The Private School designation is intended for locating private- operated schools offering education comparable to the K through 12 instruction offered by public schools. Three such areas have been designated by the Land Use Diagram: St. Matthias, St. Raymond, and Our Lady of Perpetual Help. The corresponding zone for this designation is the Private School subzone of the O -S, Open Space. o Mixed Use The Mixed Use Designation is to provide for development of a variety of uses (including retail, office, service and residential), on the same parcel or within close proximity of each other. Additionally, the Mixed Use Designation should encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront -style shopping streets that creates a more active and vibrant street life. The maximum density for residential developments shall not exceed 75 units per acre. The maximum intensity of the Mixed Use designation shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 5:1. FIGURE 1 -1.7 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION Vision 2025 Land Use Designation Net Acres Percent Residential • Low Density 3188 51% • Low /Medium Density 187 3% • Medium Density 414 7% Commercial • Office 163 3% • Neighborhood Commercial 103 2% • General Commercial 372 6% Manufacturing • General Manufacturing 229 4% • Commercial Manufacturing 304 5% Open Space 516 8% Schools (including Mixed Use — School) 348 6% Public 104 2% Mixed Use (not including Mixed Use — School) 301 5% Total 6,229 100% Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1.1. Provide sufficient land areas for uses that serve the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. Policy 1.1.1. Maintain a balance of land uses. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE EIGHT • Program 1.1.1.1. Discourage the over - concentration of a particular land use that will preclude the establishment of other uses needed to serve the community. • Program 1.1.1.2. Monitor land uses to retain the balance of land uses. • Program 1.1.1.3. Adopt floor -area ratios (FAR) or comparable method to address building intensity for each zoning classification. • Program 1.1.1.4. Discourage non - industrial uses into areas designated for industrial uses. Policy 1.1.2. Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth. • Program 1.1.2.1. Identify areas to absorb population growth and support additional housing. • Program 1.1.2.2. Designate parts of the City as second unit development areas to absorb the need for additional housing. • Program 1.1.2.3. Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing project. Policy 1.1.3. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for business and employment. • Program 1.1.3.1. Encourage land uses that generate jobs. • Program 1.1.3.2. Discourage land uses that do not generate jobs within areas classified for job - generating land uses. • Program 1.1.3.3. Promote a diversified employment base by discouraging the over - concentration of a particular land use that will preclude the establishment of other uses. Policy 1.1.4. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for people to acquire goods and services. • Program 1.1.4.1. Establish "General Commercial" areas for land uses that draw from a customer base not necessarily limited to those within the city. • Program 1.1.4.2. Establish "Neighborhood Commercial" areas for land uses that draw from a customer base in the immediate surrounding neighborhood. • Program 1.1.4.3. Promote the establishment of transit - oriented developments (TOD) within walking distance of the Green Line Station at Lakewood Boulevard & 1 -105 Freeway. • Program 1.1.4.4. Phase out and re- designate the land use classifications for selected "strip" commercial areas. • Program 1.1.4.5. Create a specific plan for a "restaurant row" along the Firestone Boulevard corridor. • Program 1.1.4.6. Concentrate smaller commercial uses in neighborhood "nodes ". RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NINE Policy 1.1.5. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for recreation and entertainment. • Program 1.1.5.1. Adopt an ordinance that maintains the current minimum of 106 acres of public park areas. • Program 1.1.5.2. Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses. • Program 1.1.5.3. Promote recreation and entertainment uses that serve needs of the public. LIVABLE COMMUNITIES Issue 1.2. Downey has opportunities to create a more livable community. Traditionally, planning has separated land uses into distinct designations for each land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial. Because this planning tradition encouraged consistency and uniformity, there was little flexibility to provide areas with distinct character or what is termed a "sense of place ". Additionally, the separation of land uses furthered the dependency on travel by car and did not address long -term problems such as traffic congestion and air quality. The concept of livable communities provides alternatives to the traditional separation of and uses by advancing the creation of mixed use areas with special characteristics to create a "sense of place" to visitors. The "sense of place" is achievable by providing areas with characteristics not typically found in other areas. The related concept of smart growth addresses the challenge that many mature cities with few vacant properties, such as Downey, have with absorbing population and economic growth without major disruption to its existing neighborhoods. The concept of smart growth is based on growth that does not necessarily create negative impacts on the community. Smart growth advances design that reduces the dependency and need for cars by providing convenient access to jobs, services, and homes. The reduced use of cars will, in turn, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, which reduces traffic congestion and reduce the secondary effects of worsening air quality, using valuable energy resources, and impacting social interactions. To allow the advancement of these concepts, the city may have to deviate from the traditional separation of land use designations and adopt designations that allow for projects that allow a mix of land uses. Efforts to reduce the need for vehicle trips may include placing commercial services within walking distance of its customer base (for example, allowing restaurants near employment centers to capture lunch demand without requiring patrons to drive). Other efforts may involve the opposite approach of providing a new customer base for an existing commercial area (for example, allowing mixed use building projects with housing placed above retail units on the ground floor). Still, another approach is to reduce short vehicle trips by providing convenience commercial uses for pedestrians (for example, placing commercial uses at train stations.) Whichever approach requires deviation from the standard land use designation and Downey Vision 2025 had identified three areas as "Mixed Use" due to their location, development, or land use create opportunities for the city to demonstrate alternative designs to create a more livable community to meet its land use needs. These areas were identified as having the most potential to advance the concepts above. Nevertheless, the livable communities and smart RESOLUTION NO. PAGE TEN growth concepts should be advanced throughout the city in other areas wherever feasible. Downtown Downey. The area around Downey Avenue between Firestone Boulevard and Fifth Street has historically been considered the Downtown district of Downey. The downtown area is at the heart of the community containing major landmarks such as Downey City Hall, City Library, Downey Depot Bus Transit Center, and the Rives Mansion. After the demolition of the County Courthouse and a decline of the commercial areas in the downtown area, the city took a pro- active approach to revitalizing the area. The courthouse site was replaced by a 10- screen Kirkorian Theatre, which was serves as a customer draw into the area. The city has focused its efforts on making the Downtown as a destination spot featuring entertainment and dining opportunities, capitalizing on the customers drawn to the area by the theatre and other uses, such as the Embassy Suites hotel, City Hall, and other uses. In contrast to other commercial areas that are designed as strip centers to draw in customers who pass through the area and may find the location for services convenient, the concept of a destination spot is different since it should provide services that cannot be provided elsewhere. This creates a "sense of place" for the visitor and clearly defines the city's "downtown ". Part of the revitalization effort was the Downey Avenue Street Improvement Project which narrowed the street width of Downey Avenue from 4 -lanes to 2 -lanes and provided theme street furniture (light posts, benches) giving visitors the sense that the area is different than other parts of the city. The narrowing of the street also addresses the concept of "traffic calming ", which strives to slow down traffic and perhaps consider the shopping and service opportunities in the area. The narrowing of the street also provided larger sidewalks creating opportunities for sidewalk cafes and helped alleviate parking demand, a major concern in the area, by providing diagonal parking. The city should continue to apply these features to other streets in the Downtown area. Since parking is the major obstacle to development of the Downtown area, the city has adopted standards to address parking in the downtown. First, the city took a pro-active role in providing public parking, either on- street or city -owned parking Tots, to meet parking demand in the area. Second, the city established a Downtown Overlay zone in 1999 that, among other things, by reducing the number of parking required for tenants based on the factoring that customers that visit the Downtown area may visit more than one tenant. For example, a visitor to a theatre may dine at a restaurant nearby prior to the show and have drinks at a cafe after the show so three businesses may require only one parking space in this instance. The demand for parking by tenants is reduced since customers for dining and entertainment uses tend to travel in groups thereby reducing the number of parking spaces needed, on average, per customer. Third, the city established a parking credit program to facilitate the establishment of retail, dining, and entertainment uses based on the availability of public parking spaces. Since adoption of these measures, several new cafes and entertainment uses have opened in the area. Although the Downtown's daytime population is relatively high, given that a large customer base is provided by the hotel, City Hall, and the various office uses in the area, the nighttime population in the area is significantly lower since most offices close after business hours and a smaller customer base to support the remaining open businesses. In order for the Downtown to ultimately reach its potential, it needs to increase its nighttime population. Additional housing in the Downtown is one of the solutions to address nighttime population concern. Added housing will not only increase the nighttime population of the area to increase the customer base but is RESOLUTION NO. PAGE ELEVEN ideal because it will reduce parking demand and traffic congestion by making pedestrian travel convenient. Although there is already some housing in the Downtown area, additional housing is needed to provide a diversity of the type of housing to fit different lifestyle needs. Downey Landing. The Rockwell plant was once the largest employer in the City. Its closure in 1999 had a huge impact on the city's economy due to not only the quantity of persons employed, but also the high quality of jobs. The city designated the area as mixed use to provide for the plant site's re- use as an employment center and address land use needs. To promote land uses at a site and replacing the conventional zoning, the City Council adopted Downey Landing Specific Plan. The specific plan proposes a variety of uses on the 168 -acre site including a retail shopping center adjacent to Stewart & Gray Road), a public park and learning center /museum dedicated to the Space Shuttle (which was constructed at the site ) along Clark Avenue, a hospital to be operated by Kaiser along Imperial Highway. The most distinct aspect of the site will be the Downey Studio, which will be a movie production studio located within the main hangar formerly used for aircraft construction. Due to the high ceiling of the hangar building, the building is ideal for indoor movie production and has already been used for production for several major motion pictures. The movie production aspect of the project is important since this will be the first project in the southeast County area to capitalize on the entertainment economic sector which is an important part of the Countywide economy and the project may serve as a catalyst for future entertainment related projects in the City. The The city should promote development of the properties surrounding the Downey Landing site to complement the land uses on the Downey Landing site itself. This may include commercial uses needed by employees at the site (for example, restaurants within walking distance so customers do not need to drive) or industries needed to support the main businesses at the site (for example, designers needed for movie production). Because the conventional zoning designation may be too broad, a specific plan for the surrounding properties should be developed to attract the types of uses which will best complement the Downey Landing site. One of these uses may be housing since providing housing within walking distances of employment centers is consistent with smart growth principles by promoting walking and reducing traffic congestion. Green Line MTA Station. In 1998, the portion of the 1 -105 Freeway that crosses the southern part of the City was completed. The 1 -105 project includes the MTA Green Line light rail line along the freeway median and a transit station within Downey at Lakewood Boulevard. With the gradual completion of the rail network, it is now possible to travel from Downey to Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, Long Beach, and Pasadena and near LAX entirely by train. Due to the accessibility of the rail network, many communities have advanced transit - oriented developments (TOD) to capitalize on the growing number of passengers. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE TWELVE Convenience commercial uses (dry cleaners, grocery, cafes) are the most obvious types of uses that would benefit from placement near the station and capitalize on transit passengers already in the area either en route to other transit (buses), picked up by other vehicles, or to their own vehicles at the nearby park- and -ride Tots. These convenience uses would benefit the city by lessening traffic congestion by reducing the number of trips that passengers must make to run errands, especially for those that would otherwise drive to their next destination and adding more vehicles trips on local streets. These uses would go even further to lessen the drawbacks of using transit by providing incentives in the form of added convenience for transit users. Further convenience would be provided by housing within transit - oriented developments. Although there is already some housing in the area, additional housing could be considered to provide a diversity of the type of housing to fit different lifestyle needs and also provide a certain amount of concentration of housing to have the desired impact. The housing may take the form of housing atop retail uses, or may be located at ground level in proximity to commercial areas. Presently, there are no commercial businesses in the vicinity of the Green Line station to take advantage of foot traffic. The Downey Vision 2025 land use diagram designates the areas surrounding the Green Line Station as "Mixed Use" to encourage transit - oriented development. The "Mixed Use" area extends about a quarter -mile from the station in every direction since this distance is the standard maximum walking distance for the region. The m densit for the "Mixed Ucc" designation is equivalent to that of the "Medium Density Residential" Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1.2. Advance livable community concepts. Policy 1.2.1. Promote livable communities concepts that allow added flexibility in addressing land use needs. • Program 1.2.1.1. Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel. • Program 1.2.1.2. Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles. • Program 1.2.1.3. Promote commercial and residential uses in proximity to transit stops to reduce dependency on vehicles. • Program 1.2.1.4. Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers. • Program 1.2.1.5. Promote the establishment of child -care centers near transportation routes and employment centers. • Program 1.2.1.6. Promote the placement of buildings at or near the public right -of -way with a primary or secondary entryway facing the sidewalk. Policy 1.2.2. Focus on areas where livable communities concepts are most likely have the RESOLUTION NO. PAGE THIRTEEN most impact to set a catalyst for similar projects elsewhere in the city. • Program 1.2.2.1. Promote the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities. • Program 1.2.2.2. Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated in the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices. • Program 1.2.2.3. Promote housing, mixed use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown. • Program 1.2.2.4. Use the development of the Downey Landing site as a catalyst for further economic development, including housing, on properties along the periphery of the site. • Program 1.2.2.5. Adopt a specific plan for the areas surrounding the Downey Landing site with uses complimentary to the primary uses on the Downey Landing site. • Program 1.2.2.6. Promote transit - oriented development at the MTA Green Line Station at Lakewood Boulevard that includes commercial services and mixed -use housing projects to capitalize on the passenger boardings. HAPLANNING \BLUMENTHAL \Downtown \Resolutions - Ordinances \CC Reso GPA.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10- 08074) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 The City Council of the City of Downey HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES and DECLARES that: A. The City of Downey has prepared a specific plan, titled the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (the "Project "), to guide the development of 131 acres in downtown Downey. The 131 -acre project site (including street rights -of -way) is located in the central portion of the community and is bounded on the north by various street segments that stretch from Paramount Boulevard to Brookshire Avenue and include sections of 4 th, 5 and 7 Streets, the easterly side of Paramount Boulevard on the west, except for the site that the Rives Mansion occupies, which is included and located at the northwest corner of Paramount Boulevard and 3 Street, the westerly side of Brookshire Avenue on the east; and the Union Pacific railway line on the south. B. The Downtown Specific Plan addresses the planning and development of the 131 - acre downtown area, the area's permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and urban design standards and guidelines. C. That the Planning Commission at a duly- noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010, considered the Downtown Downey Specific Plan as a guide for the development of the project site. D. That the Planning Commission studied the environmental impacts of implementing the project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, state CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for implementing CEQA. The Planning Commission on September 15, 2010 adopted Resolution No. 10 -2662, recommending the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. E. That the Planning Commission independently and fully considered both oral and written testimony at a duly- noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and adopted Resolution No. 10 -2663, recommending the City Council adopt the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. F. The City Council has fully reviewed the Final EIR and the Downtown Downey Specific Plan and carefully considered all facts, opinions and testimony regarding the specific plan at duly- noticed public hearing on September 28, 2010. SECTION 2 The City Council of the City of Downey HEREBY FURTHER FINDS, DETERMINES and RESOLVES that: A. The Downtown Specific Plan is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and will systematically execute the objectives of the General Plan and is in the interest of and furthers the public health, safety, general welfare, and the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan relating to advancing livable community concepts and focusing on areas in which livable communities concepts could have the most impact. As a consequence, and because of changing Ordinance No. Page 2 economic and development conditions, as well as the importance of Downey's downtown to the community's economic health and vitality and in the interest of the community and its general welfare, the City Council in 1992 changed downtown's land use designation to the "Mixed Use" classification. In accordance with the "Mixed Use" category, coupled with the direction provided by the 2005 General Plan Update, the Downtown Specific Plan was prepared to implement the policies, which reflect the "Mixed Use" category and are related to downtown Downey. B. The Downtown Specific Plan will be compatible with and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining properties, since development standards have been incorporated into the specific plan that will safeguard neighboring properties. Additionally, mitigation measures are recommended as part of the Final EIR that will lessen the impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan. C. The Downtown Specific Plan identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses that can be established in the planning area and establishes urban design standards and guidelines for development projects within it. D. The 131 -acre planning area and its roadway network properly relate to the streets and highways designed and fully improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the planning area and utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the area described in the Downtown Specific Plan, since it has examined and has established requirements to ensure that all improvements relating to streets, highways and utilities will be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City. E. The entitlement process that accompanied preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan also expanded the "Mixed Use" General Plan category so it encompasses the entire 131 -acre project site (matches the boundaries of the proposed specific plan), as well as changing all existing zoning in the planning area to the Downtown Specific Plan in order to provide consistent zoning throughout the downtown, respond to current economic conditions and establish land uses that allow for the flexibility needed to achieve the City's goals for livable communities. F. The Downtown Specific Plan conforms to the General Plan because, as part of the Project, the General Plan will be amended to the "Mixed Use" land use category for the entire project site. SECTION 3 The City Council of the City of Downey also HEREBY FURTHER FINDS, DETERMINES and RESOLVES that: A. The Draft EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Prior to adopting the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council independently considered the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR, all submitted comments received during the environmental document's public review period and the public hearing, and the responses to comments. Based on the Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact Report, submitted comments and responses, the City Council finds, determines and declares that although implementing the Downtown Specific Plan may result in unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation /traffic, the City Council makes the finding, according to Subsection (c) of Public Resources Code Section 21081, that specific economic, social or other Ordinance No. Page 3 considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. B. The City Council makes the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," as with respect to significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. C. The Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects that will result from implementing the Downtown Specific Plan and all significant effects are set forth in the Findings of Fact. D. The Findings of Fact and Final EIR have identified that if the Downtown Specific Plan is approved and implemented, it may have an unavoidable adverse effect on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation /traffic. However, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures as set forth in the Final EIR, the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, hereto attached as Exhibit "C." E. The six (6) significant impacts that will result from specific plan implementation identified in the Findings of Fact, which will be reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced in their impacts by implementing the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings of Fact, the Draft EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. F. The unavoidable significant impacts that will result from the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, which will not be reduced to a level of insignificance as identified in the Findings of Fact, are, however, clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the specific plan, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, hereto attached as Exhibit "B." The facts and conclusions set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. G. The Final EIR has described a reasonable range of feasible alternative projects to the Downtown Specific Plan that could feasibly attain the basic objectives or might be more costly. A reasonable range of alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. The proposed specific plan represents the least environmentally damaging alternative that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. SECTION 4 The City Council of the City of Downey hereby approves and certifies the Final EIR for the project (i.e., Downtown Downey Specific Plan) which incorporates herein by reference the following documents attached hereto as exhibits: Findings of Fact; attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit "B "; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." SECTION 5 Based on the findings as set forth above, the City Council HEREBY ADOPTS the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, dated September, 2010; and the Downtown Downey Specific Plan shall replace the planning area's existing zoning classifications. Ordinance No. Page 4 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day of September, 2010. ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk ANNE M. BAYER, Mayor HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on the 28 day of September, 2010, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on the 12 day of October, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 6 Exhibit A: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Exhibit A: Findings of Fact This document provides the Findings of Facts required for the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan (Project), as defined in the Draft EIR. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan EIR was distributed on May 5, 2010 to responsible and trustee agencies, as well as private organizations and interested parties that may have an interest in the Project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency, i.e., the City of Downey (City), planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the Project and identified those environmental areas in which the Project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the Project would have no effect. The NOP is included in the Appendix of the Draft EIR. On July 15, 2010, the City issued the Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45 days ending on August 30, 2010. A Notice of Availability was circulated, that announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review, described the project and its location, and summarized the significant environmental effects. The Notice stated where documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review, and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, adjacent cities, county, regional and state agencies. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Downey City Library, the City's Planning Division office, and on the City's website. The City received two letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the proposed Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: • No Project (No Build); • No Project (Build); and • 50 Percent Residental /50 Percent Commercial. The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts. On September 2, 2010, the City released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes a Summary Chapter, responses to the letters commenting on the Draft EIR, and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION The objectives of the City (i.e., the Lead Agency) for the project are as follows (Draft EIR, p. 2- 5): Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 7 • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2) • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1) • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment opportunities. • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. The proposed Project consists of the development of a 131 acres of land located in Downey, California, between various east/west street segments that stretch from Paramount Boulevard to Brookshire Avenue that include sections of 4 5 and 7 Streets (north); the westerly side of Brookshire Avenue (east), the Union Pacific railway line (south); and the easterly side of Paramount Boulevard, except for the site of the Rives Mansion, located at the northwest corner of Paramount Boulevard and 3rd Street. The Project site is located in the center of the City, approximately 1.25 miles from the Rio Hondo River to the west and the San Gabriel River is located within two miles of the site to the east. Implementation of the proposed Project would require the following discretionary approvals by the agencies listed below. This EIR would be used by these agencies as a basis for such approvals. Ordinance No. Page 8 City of Downey Exhibit A: Findings of Fact • Approval of the Water Supply Assessment by the City Council; • Certification of this EIR by the City Council; • Approval of the change regarding the General Plan land use designation for the Rives Mansion site to "Mixed Use" and the shuttered Gallatin Medical Center to "Mixed Use "; • Approval of an amendment to the General Plan to reflect the density ranges that are proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan; • Approval of Conditional Use Permits; • Approval of Site Plan Review applications; • Approval of Subdivision Maps; and • Approval of Permits for Grading and Drainage activities. . 3. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Downey's decision on the project consists of the following documents: • The NOP prepared for the Project; • Other public notices prepared in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; ■ The Final EIR for the Project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Downey in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of Downey, the City of Downey's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Downey action on the Project; • All documents submitted to the City of Downey by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ■ Minutes of public hearings held by the City of Downey in connection with the project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Downey at public hearings; and • Matters of common knowledge to the City of Downey, including, but not limited to federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Downey Community Development Department. 4. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 9 project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081, subd. [a]); • Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC §21081, subd. [b]); and • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC §21081, subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a)[3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See, also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta 11] [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410]). Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (See, also Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta 11, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401]). This document presents the City's findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). 5. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City, in adopting the findings, commits to implementing these measures. In other words, these findings are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will go into effect when the City of Downey approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit C) adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected through the Ordinance No. Page 10 process of constructing and implementing the project. 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM An MMRP has been prepared for the project, as required by PRC Section 21081.6, and included as Exhibit C to this resolution. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City will consider the MMRP during the approval of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. The final MMRP will incorporate all mitigation measures adopted for the project under separate cover. 7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS 7.1 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to Tess than significant levels are listed below. The City finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR. Land Use Impact Facts in Support of Finding Finding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Impact 3.1 -1: The proposed Project could potentially conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency over the Project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1 -15) For the most part, the land uses proposed in the Specific Plan conform to the Downtown Plan's "Mixed Use" General Plan land use designation. An amendment to the General Plan is required for portions of the Specific Plan area that are outside of the current Downtown Plan area to change the land use designations of these areas to "Mixed Use" and the density ranges to reflect those identified in the Specific Plan. These two areas consist of portions of the Paramount Boulevard Professional District (the area along Paramount Boulevard, between 5th and 8 Streets and the Rives Mansion site). Adoption of the Specific Plan would result in an amendment to the General Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1 would ensure that the General Plan is amended and reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. The potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of an agency over the project are discussed in Section 3.1 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would reduce potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of an agency over the project to a less- than - significant level. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 11 Measure LU -1: The City of Downey shall, in conjunction with the approval of the proposed Specific Plan, amend the General Plan so that the entire planning area is designated as "Mixed Use" and change the residential density ranges of the planning area to reflect those in the proposed Specific Plan. Population and Housing Impact Impact 3.2 -2: The proposed Project could displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2 -10) Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a shift in uses between the five proposed districts and could result in some displacement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would ensure compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project and reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Finding The potential impacts associated with compliance with applicable provisions of State law associated with displacement of substantial numbers of people and the need to provide replacement housing are discussed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with potential displacement and the need to provide replacement housing to a less- than - significant level. Measure POP -1: Provide relocation assistance to households and businesses consistent with the requirements of the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Govt. Code § 7260 et seq.), State Relocation Guidelines (25 Cal. Code Regs § 6000, et seq.), and California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq.), as applicable. Provide replacement of any units removed as a result of the project that were formerly occupied by very low -, low- or moderate - income households, consistent with California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33413). Population and Housing Impact Impact 3.2 -3: The proposed Project could displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2 -10) Facts in Support of Finding Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 12 The proposed Specific Plan could eventually result in development in the Specific Plan area in as many as 735 net new residential units and as much as approximately 1,308,897 net new commercial square feet. Although the proposed Project could result in demolition of existing commercial and residential uses, the proposed Specific Plan would replace them with new multi - family residential and new commercial and retail uses. Overall, the proposed Project would provide a net increase in both housing and employment within the project area. Therefore, there would be no net displacement of either the local residential population or local employment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would ensure compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project, as well as providing opportunities for property owner and business participation in the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant impact. Finding Noise Impact The potential impacts associated with compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project are discussed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with relocation to a less- than - significant level. Measure POP -2: Implement Mitigation Measure POP -1: Measure POP -1: Provide relocation assistance to households and businesses consistent with the requirements of the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Govt. Code § 7260 et seq.), State Relocation Guidelines (25 Cal. Code Regs § 6000, et seq.), and California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq.), as applicable. Provide replacement of any units removed as a result of the project that were formerly occupied by very low -, low- or moderate - income households, consistent with California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33413). Impact 3.6 -1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6 -11) Facts in Support of Finding Construction activity noise levels at and near construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction - related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 13 particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.6 -3 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.6 -4 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3.6 -3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the proposed Project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.6 -3 states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, if sensitive receptors are located at this distance; and therefore, construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Eighty -nine (89)) dBA would also exceed the City's construction threshold of 85 dBA across a property boundary. These construction noise levels would be potentially significant. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. Ordinance No. Page 14 Finding TABLE 3.6-4 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Backhoe Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet ) 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact The City's noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and no repair or remodeling shall exceed 85 dBA across any property boundary at any time during the course of a 24 -hour day. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Implementing Mitigation Measures NOI- la through NOI -le would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels to a Tess -than- significant level. The potential impacts associated with the exposure of persons or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plans, noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts associated with construction noise would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI -1 a, N01-1 b, NOI -1c, NOI -1 d and NOI -1 a would reduce potential impacts associated with construction noise. Measure NOI -1 a: Applicants /developers shall be required to secure a construction permit for exemption of the noise standards (Section 4606.5) prior to project implementation. Measure NOI -1 b: As specified in City of Downey Ordinance No. 4606, no construction will occur between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Ordinance No. Page 15 Noise Impact Finding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Measure NOI -1 c: All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Measure NOI -1d: All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure N01-1 e: Signs shall be posted at all construction sites within the Specific Plan area that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the City of Downey Building and Safety Department, in the event daytime noise exceeds 85dBA across any property boundary. In that event the standard is exceeded, the City shall place a limit on the number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Impact 3.6 -2: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6 -13) Facts in Support of Finding Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures within newly constructed or renovated buildings would consist of package rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors could exceed the City's 55 dBA residential daytime noise standard. This would be a Tess -than- significant impact with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2a. Loading Dock/Truck Delivery Noise Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on -site commercial operations. The number of delivery trucks would depend on the individual businesses. Truck noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. Noise measurements of passing and idling delivery trucks were taken by Environmental Science Associates in 1999. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal -OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These noise levels could potentially exceed the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards if loading docks were to occur near residents. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI -2b and NOI -2c, this would be a less- than - significant impact. The potential impacts associated with the exposure of persons or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plans, noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 16 EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2a would reduce potential impacts associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI -2b and NOI -2c would reduce these potential impacts associated with on -site commercial operations to a Tess- than - significant level. Aesthetics Impact Finding Measure NOI -2a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of site of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure NOI -2b: In order to avoid noise - sensitive hours, commercial and retail land uses shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Measure NOI -2c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, commercial and retail uses shall locate all loading areas for commercial and retail uses at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed -use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project. Impact 31-4: The proposed Specific Plan would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7 -13) Facts in Support of Finding Currently, the Downtown Plan requires that exterior lighting be provided with opaque deflection or shielding devices to prevent lighting from glaring or shining onto abutting properties and /or public rights -of -way. The Downtown Plan also requires regular maintenance of exterior signs. The proposed Specific Plan would not directly address exterior lighting, which would provide the City with flexibility in lighting. To ensure that light and glare are adequately addressed and that the impact is less than significant, the Specific Plan shall adopt the Tight and glare provisions of the Downtown Plan, as stated in Mitigation Measure AES -1, below. The potential impacts associated with the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare are discussed in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to recorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 17 environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Aesthetics Impact Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. Impact 3.7 -5: The proposed Specific Plan could result in cumulatively and substantially adverse aesthetic impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7 -13) Facts in Support of Finding The Specific Plan would apply to a discrete area in downtown Downey. A unified strategy and vision for the downtown would result in an improvement in the visual quality of downtown. This improvement would result in creating a distinctive downtown. Surrounding residential areas would benefit by the proposed upgrade in visual quality in the downtown and the unified and integrated vision for the downtown. Currently, undeveloped edges detract from the neat residential areas surrounding the downtown. The Specific Plan promotes the visual quality of the downtown area. This would be considered a beneficial impact. By focusing attention and feasible development strategies in an expanded downtown area, the Specific Plan would eliminate the possibility of streets without adequate landscaping, conflicting architectural elements and building mass, and "blind walls" along street facades. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -2 would eliminate the potential for cumulative impacts related to light and glare and result in a less than significant impact. Finding The potential impacts associated with potential cumulative impacts to aesthetics are discussed in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to recorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -2 would reduce these potential impacts to a Tess- than - significant level. Measure AES -2: Implement Mitigation Measure AES -1: Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. Ordinance No. Page 18 Cultural Resources Impact Impact 3.8 -1: The implementation of the Specific Plan could adversely affect recorded historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to the historical setting. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -13) Facts in Support of the Finding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Numerous provisions within the Specific Plan are designed to protect and enhance cultural resources. For example, the overall intent of the design standards and guidelines contained within the Downtown Specific Plan is to both encourage new infill construction and retain and rehabilitate older structures towards the creation of an eclectic mix of new and old buildings that can accommodate the widest range of local and national businesses. To encourage this mix, the following standards and guidelines are provided: 3.6.10.A. Architecturally or Historically Significant Buildings as Defined by the City of Downey — If a building within the specific pan area is determined by the City of Downey to be architecturally and historically significant, appropriate reuse, rehabilitation, and /or preservation of the structure may be required by the City in accordance with adopted ordinances. 3.6.10.B. Renovation of Existing Buildings — To the maximum extent feasible, when existing buildings are improved and /or repaired, character - defining features such as ornament, proportions of windows, storefronts, and other original features should be retained and repaired. The design guidelines and standards also state that "Architecturally and /or historically significant storefronts within the Downtown Specific Plan Area shall be maintained, restored, and /or rehabilitated in place. Moving historic storefronts to other building locations for any purpose is not allowed. Any new use or renovation of a storefront shall retain to the maximum extent feasible historic features and spatial relationships that characterize a property." The Design Element of the City of Downey 2025 General Plan contains a number of program policies designed to preserve the City's cultural resources, including Program 8.4.2. (Promote the preservation and restoration of older structures), Program 8.4.2.4 (Encourage adaptive re- use of older structures), Program 8.4.2.5 (Reuse existing historic architectural elements in new construction when preservation of historic resources is not feasible), and Program 8.4.2.6 (Discourage the relocation of historic resources, or if necessary, relocate the historic resource within Downey). While all of the existing and proposed policies listed above would help to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources, potential widening of the major arterial, secondary arterial, or collector streets identified in the Specific Plan could result in significant direct or indirect impacts to two recorded historic structures within the Plan area: the James C. Rives Mansion on Paramount Boulevard or the Union Pacific Railroad. As specific impacts to these recorded resources are unknown, they are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2a would reduce impacts to these known, recorded historic resources to a Tess- than - significant level. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 19 Impact 3.8 -1: The implementation of the Specific Plan could adversely affect recorded historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to the historical setting. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -13) Findings Cultural Resources Impact The potential impacts associated with recorded historic architectural resources, including demolition, substantial alteration or through changes to the historical setting are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to recorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a Tess- than - significant level. Measure CUL -1: Implement Mitigation Measure CUL -2a: Measure CUL -2a: The City of Downey shall evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects to the James C. Rives Mansion and the Union Pacific Railroad prior to any roadway widening efforts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan. If the evaluation determines that the roadway widening efforts (or any other activity resulting from Plan implementation) would directly or indirectly impact either the Rives Mansion or the applicable segment of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the City shall redesign the project to avoid significant impacts, such as retaining the existing width of the street(s) in the location of these historical resources and /or the retention of historic roadway or railway materials (in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad). Impact 3.8 -2: The implementation of the Specific Plan could adversely affect unrecorded historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to the historical setting. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -14) Facts in Support of the Finding The construction of new parking, residential, commercial, or infrastructure facilities within the Specific Plan area has the potential to impact historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to structures' historic settings. While the City's existing and proposed policies regarding historic resources, would help to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources, because no comprehensive historic inventory of the Specific Plan area has been completed to date, the number of buildings or structures that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources is unknown. The Specific Plan area contains numerous buildings 45 years old or older, which may qualify as historic resources upon future review if other evaluation criteria apply such as the buildings are important associations with Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 20 historical events or important people, or are examples of fine architecture or were designed by master architects. A review of Assessor Parcel Data for the Specific Plan area by the City identified 94 properties dating to 1965 or older with an average construction date of 1961, or 49 years old, as of 2010. Many of the oldest buildings in the Specific Plan area are concentrated on Downey Avenue, as well as La Reina Avenue, 3 Street, Paramount Boulevard, and Firestone Boulevard. If determined eligible, proposed future projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the demolition or substantial alteration of potential historic resources, which would be considered a significant impact. Future projects resulting from the Specific Plan could also indirectly alter historic resources through changes to their immediate historic setting, which would also be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -2a and CUL -2b would minimize this impact to a less- than - significant level. Findinqs Impact The potential impacts associated with unrecorded historic architectural resources through demolition or substantial alteration, or through changes to the historical setting are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to potential unrecorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -2a and CUL -2b would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure CUL -2a: The City of Downey shall evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects to the James C. Rives Mansion and the Union Pacific Railroad prior to any roadway widening efforts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan. If the evaluation determines that the roadway widening efforts (or any other activity resulting from Plan implementation) would directly or indirectly impact either the Rives Mansion or the applicable segment of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the City shall redesign the project to avoid significant impacts, such as retaining the existing width of the street(s) in the location of these historical resources and /or the retention of historic roadway or railway materials (in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad). Measure CUL -2b: The Downtown Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.0 — Site Specific Historical Survey and Evaluation - which states that all areas slated for development or other ground- disturbing activities in the Specific Plan area that contain structures 45 years old or older at the time of project initiation shall be surveyed and evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Cultural Resources Impact 3.8 -3: Construction of future projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could have substantial adverse impact to previously unknown archaeological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -16) Ordinance No. Page 21 Facts in Support of the Finding The City of Downey General Plan Program 8.4.2.7 calls for the City to work to preserve or relocate archeological resources within the City. Although no prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources have been recorded within the Specific Plan area or within one -half mile of the Specific Plan area, it is possible that previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3a and CUL -3b would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. Findings Impact Exhibit A: Findings of Fact The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of unknown archaeological resources within the City are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of archaeological resources could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3a and CUL -3b would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure CUL -3a: In the event that such archaeological resources are uncovered during construction - related activities, the on -site contractor's construction supervisor shall stop all activity within the immediate vicinity of the discovery, unless safety issues are of concern. Specifically, the construction crew will stop work at the location where the find was uncovered and shall not resume construction within 20 feet of the find until cleared to proceed by the archaeologist. The construction supervisor shall immediately notify the City, who will then notify the qualified archaeologist and, if appropriate, a Native American monitor, in coordination with the City staff, will assess the geographic extent and scientific value of the resource. If significant archaeological materials are determined, the archaeologist shall record and recover the resources using standard professional archaeological methods. Measure CUL -3b: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.D — Halt Work for Accidental Discovery of Historic Materials, which states that should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the lead agency and the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Cultural Resources Impact 3.8 -4: Construction of future projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could have substantial adverse impacts to previously unknown paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -16) Ordinance No. Page 22 Facts in Support of Finding Finding Cultural Resources Impact Exhibit A: Findings of Fact The Specific Plan area is underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits. Disturbed soils, artificial fills, and Holocene -aged deposits are unlikely to have preserved fossil remains. However, beneath the surficial material lies Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits known to have yielded significant paleontological resources. These deposits are likely to exist at variable and unknown depths beneath the surface. Any project - related excavations beneath or beyond previously disturbed fills would have the potential to disturb or uncover fossil remains. In addition, the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources increases with depth, and is dependent on the sub -grade footprint of the proposed structure. Generally, the potential to encounter paleontological resources in the Specific Plan area is low. However, because disturbance of in situ sediment is certainly possible, the impact of the Project on paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -4 would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of unknown paleontological sites are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of paleontological could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -4 would reduce these potential impacts to a less -than- significant level. Measure CUL-4: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.E — Halt Work for Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources, which states that in the event paleontological resources are discovered, the lead agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil- bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards). The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the lead agency determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval prior to implementation. Impact 3.8 -5: Construction of future projects could result in the substantial change of previously unidentified human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -17) Ordinance No. Page 23 Facts in Support of Finding A search of the Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File, along with confirmation from the tribal chair of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, indicate that no known site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -5 would minimize this potential impact to a less- than - significant level. Findings The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human burial sites are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of human remains would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CLIL -5 would reduce these potential impacts to a less -than- significant level. Measure CUL -5: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy that states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he /she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The Most Likely Descendant will make recommendations for the treatment of any human remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Impact Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Impact 3.9 -1: Disturbance and release of contaminated soil during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated material, or contaminated groundwater could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handling. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9 -11) Future development within the Specific Plan area could include excavation for installation of utilities, building foundations, subterranean development, or for re- grading purposes. Disturbance of subsurface soils and groundwater at locations that may have been previously Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 24 contaminated by prior uses could further disperse existing contamination into the environment and expose construction workers or the public to contaminants. If high enough levels of hazardous materials in excavated soils should go undetected, health and safety risks to workers and the public could occur. Exposure to hazardous materials could cause various short-term and /or long -term health effects. Possible health effects could be acute (immediate or of short-term severity), chronic (long -term, recurring, or resulting from repeated exposure), or both. Acute effects, often resulting from a single exposure, could result in a range of effects from minor to major, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, or burns. Chronic exposure could result in systemic damage or damage to organs, such as the lungs, liver, or kidneys. Health effects would be specific to each hazardous material. Two Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) sites are present within the Specific Plan area. These sites have had documented releases of hazardous materials that affected the subsurface soil or groundwater or both. One of these sites is in varying stages of investigation and cleanup, and has already received site closure from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Contamination may also be present at some other unidentified locations where unidentified releases have occurred. It is not uncommon to encounter unexpected conditions once excavation and groundbreaking activities commence. Implementation of the mitigation measure below can minimize potential exposure to workers, the public and the environment and result in a less than significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Findings The potential impacts associated with the disturbance and release of contaminated soils during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated material, or contaminated groundwater that could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handling are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for disturbance and release of contaminated soils during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated workers could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions in regard to hazardous materials handling. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure HAZ -1: Prior to issuance of any building permit, all proposed development sites where previous hazardous materials releases have occurred shall have a Phase I site assessment performed by a qualified environmental consulting firm in accordance with ASTM E 1527 -05. All proposed development in the Specific Plan area shall require remediation and cleanup to levels established by the overseeing regulatory agency (HHMD, RWQCB or DTSC) appropriate for the proposed new use of the site. All proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall be conducted according to a site - specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Ordinance No. Page 25 Impact Impact 3.9 -2: Disturbance and release of hazardous structural and building components (i.e., asbestos, lead, PCBs, USTs, and ASTs) during demolition and construction phases of development or transport of these materials could expose construction phases of development, or transport of these materials could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handing. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9- 12) Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Asbestos Asbestos could be encountered during structural demolition of the existing buildings and may require containment and disposal. Based on the age of the buildings within the Specific Plan area, it is likely that some asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) are present. Affected buildings would need appropriate abatement of identified asbestos prior to demolition or renovation. ACMs are regulated both as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal /OSHA. The renovation or demolition of buildings containing asbestos would require retaining contractors licensed to conduct asbestos abatement work and notifying the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 10 days prior to initiating construction and demolition activities. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The SCAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. Potential exposure to asbestos, and its related chronic adverse health effects, is possible throughout demolition and renovation if ACMs are present during operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2d, below, would reduce potential impacts to less- than - significant levels. Lead and Lead -Based Paint Lead -based paint could be separated from building materials during demolition activities. Separated paint can be classified as a hazardous waste if the lead content exceeds 1,000 parts per million; such paint would need to be disposed of accordingly. Additionally, lead -based paint chips can pose a hazard to workers and adjacent sensitive land uses. Both the federal and California Occupational Safety and Heath Administrations (OSHAs) regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that involve and affect lead -based paint. Interim Final Rule found in 29 CFR Part 1926.62 covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during activities such as demolitions, removal, surface preparation for re- painting, renovation, clean up and routine maintenance. The OSHA - specified method of compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing, housekeeping (collecting and containing all debris), hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, training, etc. Demolition and renovation work could create exposure to lead -based paint present in building structures. Dust generating activities that include removal of walls, sanding, welding, and material disposal could produce airborne quantities of lead -laden material. These materials could expose workers and persons in close proximity, including occupants of off -site locations. The Specific Plan area contains buildings with painted surfaces, such as drywall, ceilings, and Ordinance No. Page 26 exterior stucco, which could contain lead -based paint. HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2c would reduce potential than - significant levels. PCB - Containing Materials Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) or PCB - containing materials may be present within existing structures in the Specific Plan area. Demolition of these structures could disturb these materials and expose workers or the public to adverse effects. Similar to the procedures for removal of ACMs, an initial site - specific survey to determine the presence of PCBs would need to be conducted, followed by implementation of appropriate measures to handle any materials with PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2e, below, would require demolition activities to be conducted by licensed contractors according to the standards of overseeing agencies that would reduce the potential impacts of hazardous building materials to less- than - significant levels. Findings Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Implementation of Mitigation Measures impacts from lead -based paint to less- The potential impacts associated with disturbance and release of hazardous structural and building components, such as asbestos, lead, PCBs and ASTs, are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for releases of hazardous materials into the environment during demolition and construction phases of development or transport of these materials and their potential to expose construction workers, the public and /or the environment to these hazardous materials would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b, and HAZ - 2d would reduce the potential impacts of exposure to ACMs to a less- than - significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2c would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to lead -based paint to a less -than- significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2e would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to PCBs to a less -than- significant level. Measure HAZ -2a: Each structure proposed for demolition shall require an assessment by licensed contractors for the potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings, asbestos containing materials, or PCB - containing equipment prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Measure HAZ -2b: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a establishes the presence of lead -based paint, asbestos, and /or PCBs, the developer or project applicant shall create and implement a health and safety plan to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous materials during demolition or renovation of affected structures. Measure HAZ -2c: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of lead -based paint, the developer or project applicant shall develop and implement a lead -based paint removal plan by a licensed contractor. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, the measures taken to contain, store, and transport paint waste in accordance with the licensed disposal facilities requirements. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 27 Measure HAZ -2d: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of asbestos, the project sponsor shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building demolition. Impact Measure HAZ -2e: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of PCBs, the project sponsor shall ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to building demolition or renovation. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Impact 3.9 -3: Hazardous materials used on any individual site during construction activities (i.e., fuels, lubricants, solvents) could be released into the environment through improper storage. Proposed development of the Specific Plan area could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to hazardous materials in the City of Downey. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9 -14) Facts in Support of Finding Future construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, lubricants, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. Larger developments could potentially include on -site storage and /or use of quantities of materials capable of significantly impacting soil and groundwater. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 would reduce the impacts to a less- than - significant level. Finding The potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities and the potential for releases through improper storage are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for releases of hazardous materials into the environmental through improper storage would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure HAZ -3: All development and redevelopment shall require the use of construction BMPs to control handling of hazardous materials during construction to minimize the potential negative effects from an accidental release into storm drains, groundwater and soils. Biological Resources Ordinance No. Page 28 Impact Facts in Support of Finding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Impact 3.12 -1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or though habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12 -9) The complete urbanization of the City prohibits the possibility of any special- status species to occur within the City's limits and therefore be affected by the proposed Project. Moreover, there are no recorded occurrences of special- status species in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed Project could affect nesting native birds that have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the site. The project site contains some large street trees that could provide nesting opportunities for resident birds. Impacts to individual nesting or migratory birds could occur if these species were nesting or foraging on or adjacent to the construction areas at the time of construction. Removal of trees or shrubs that provide nesting habitat could result in the direct mortality of birds. Tree removal, construction noise, vibrations, and human disturbance could cause nest abandonment, death of the young, or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located near project activities. Finding The potential impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly or indirectly through habitat modifications would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a Tess- than - significant level. Measure BIO -1: Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre- construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall cover all reasonably potential nesting locations located on or closely adjacent to the project site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on -set of construction. A survey shall also be conducted no more than five days prior to initiation of clearance or construction work. If ground disturbance activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys will be conducted such that no more than five days will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If an active nest is located, a qualified biologist shall determine a suitable buffer distance, which shall be placed around the nest and shall remain off- limits to construction until it is determined (by a biologist) that the nest is no longer in use. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Ordinance No. Page 29 Biological Resources Impact Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Impact 3.12 -5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12 -11) Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the removal of several mature trees located on public and private property, some of which may be considered "significant trees," according to Chapter 4, Conservation Element, Vision 2025 General Plan. Per Chapter 6, Section 7605 of the City's Municipal Code also stipulates that: The removal of any tree identified as a significant tree would be considered permanent and irreplaceable. Finding "Any street tree removed shall be replaced if a replacement is deemed appropriate and if it is mutually agreed to by both the City and the property owner. The replacement tree shall be selected in accordance with the official Tree Species List and Master Street Tree Plan. No public street tree will be removed /planted without having obtained a permit from the Public Works Department." The potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential to conflict with the City's Tree Ordinance would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10-5a through B10-5g, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure B10-5a: Coordination with Community Development Department. The applicant shall work with the Community Development Department to identify significant trees that may be impacted by implementation of the Project. If a significant tree is identified within the Project site, the applicant shall work with the Public Works Department on measures to preserve significant trees. Measure B10-5b: Tree Permit. No public street tree will be removed or planted without having obtained a permit from the Public Works Department. Measure B10-5c: Tree Survey. The applicant shall retain a certified arborist to conduct a tree survey and evaluation of all significant trees that would be removed or potentially impacted. The survey shall identify the species and trunk diameter (when measured at 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade). The physical condition of each significant tree will be assessed and an alphabetical ranking shall be assigned to each tree ('A' being best and 'F' being worst) for rating the tree's overall health. In addition, a Tree Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 30 Replacement Plan shall be developed for the development site. The Plan shall include a minimum 2 -year monitoring plan that includes performance standards for measuring and evaluating the health of all replacement trees and significant trees that would be preserved. Measure B10-5d: Replacement Trees. All replacement trees shall be selected in accordance with the City's official Tree Species List and Master Street Tree Plan. All replacement trees will be planted on -site, following grading activities. Measure B10-5e: Preservation of Significant Trees. All significant trees that would be preserved that are located within 50 feet of land clearing or areas to be graded shall be enclosed in a temporary fenced zone for the duration of the clearing or grading activities. Fencing shall extend to the root protection zone (Le., the area at least 15 feet from the trunk or five feet from the drip line, whichever distance is greater). No parking or storage of equipment, solvents or chemicals that could adversely affect the trees shall be allowed within 25 feet of the trunk at any time. Removal of the fence shall occur only after the project biologist confirms the health of significant trees that would be preserved. Measure B10-5f: Construction Monitoring. A certified arborist shall periodically monitor on -site construction and grading activities occurring near all preserved significant trees to ensure that damage to these trees does not occur. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the certified arborist shall schedule a field meeting to inform personnel (involved in construction) where all protective zones are located and the importance of avoiding encroachment within the protective zones. 7.2 Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Air Quality Impact Impact 3.4 -2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -12) Facts in Support of Finding Construction - related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 15 years. Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut - and -fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as structures and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include: • Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; • Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, CO, CO PM10, and PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off -road construction equipment (primarily diesel- operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline- operated); and Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 31 • Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and architectural coatings. Construction- related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance -type impacts. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust (SCAQMD, 2005b). Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO construction emissions were estimated for a worst - case day based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.4 -6 of the EIR. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -2a through AIR -2e would help reduce construction - related emissions, as shown in Table 3.4 -6 of the EIR, construction emissions of NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant without mitigation. The City has adopted policies that support the project as part of the General Plan. These policies include: • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, Policy 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1). • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed -use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 32 • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below would not reduce emissions during the short -term duration of construction to a less- than - significant impact under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The following mitigation measures from the EIR are applicable and will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; however, construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Measure AIR -2a: The City shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403 for all new development. Measure AIR -2b: Prior to grading and construction, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders. 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 33 Measure AIR -2c: Prior to grading and construction, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel- washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving the site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off -road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure AIR -2d: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure AIR -2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Building & Safety Division, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Ordinance No. Page 34 Air Quality Impact Impact 3.4 -3: Project operations could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long -term operations. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -16) Facts in Support of Finding Operational emissions for the proposed Project would be generated primarily from on -road vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings proposed under the proposed Specific Plan. Because power is provided to the City via an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil - fueled power plants in California or neighboring states, or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants, it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the power plant is built or expanded. Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.4 -7 of the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -3a, AIR -3b and AIR -3e would be required to reduce the impact of operational emissions, although build -out of the proposed Specific Plan would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. Findings Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Issues associated with the proposed Project on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below would not reduce emissions during project operations to a less than significant impact under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The following mitigation measures from the EIR are applicable and will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; however, air quality impacts associated with project operations would remain significant and unavoidable. Measure AIR -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure AIR -3b: Coordinate traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure AIR -3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job /housing balance. Ordinance No. Page 35 Air Quality Impact Impact 3.4 -6: Air pollutants emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact on air quality (Cumulative Construction Emissions). (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -18) Facts in Support of Finding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts, meaning that the project's incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Notably, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative impact. Construction Construction activity associated with other projects in the SCAB would generally involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the project. Because the project has a significant and unavoidable impact, the project would also have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Operation SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative operational impacts is based on the SCAQMD's AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (FCCA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). This forecast also takes into account the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts (see Chapter 4 of the EIR) focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth. As presented in Impact 3.4 -1, the project would be consistent with AQMP forecasts and would result in a less- than - significant cumulative impact. As discussed in Impact 3.4 -2, Project Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions would not have a significant impact on community health. However, cumulative sources from projects throughout the Basin would emit substantial amounts of TACs. The estimated carcinogenic risk in the Basin is currently about 1,400 per million people (SCAQMD, 2005a). The impact of TACs to community health within the Basin is a regional concern that has been addressed by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has published an Air Toxics Control Plan designed to limit TAC emissions in an equitable and cost - effective manner (SCAQMD, 2000b). In addition, the SCAQMD addressed health risk in the Basin and TAC emissions reduction measures in the 2007 AQMP. While the total TAC emissions from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations and would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Therefore the Project would have a less- than - significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs. Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project's impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts that would remain. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 36 Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Impact Impact 3.5 -1: Construction and implementation of the project could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not potentially conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5 -12) Facts in Support of Finding The proposed Project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily 00 emitted by construction and operational activities. Greenhouse gas impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non - cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable. Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the proposed Specific Plan could be cumulatively considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB's 39 recommended actions in California's AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. B. The relative size of the project. The project's GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons /year of CO to the State. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals, CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions. C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project's total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects would generally not conflict with State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 37 With regard to Item A, the proposed Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies. With regard to Item B, the proposed Project's construction GHG emissions would be approximately 8,156 metric tons of CO /yr. The proposed Specific Plan's operational GHG emissions at build -out from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 258,543 metric tons of CO /yr, indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 17,226 metric tons of CO /yr, indirect operation emissions from the increase in water conveyance would be approximately 43,469 CO2e /yr, totaling 319,251 metric tons of CO /yr. The proposed Project would be classified as a major source of GHG emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e /yr). When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO /yr, the proposed Specific Plan at build -out (319,251 metric tons CO /yr) would be 0.07 percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO /yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO /yr), the project would potentially conflict with the State's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. For GHG calculations see Appendix 6. With regard to Item C, the Project would introduce high- density residential uses, thus creating a mixed -use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community's reliance on automobiles. With regard to Item D, the City does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the Project would not pose a conflict. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and, therefore, this impact would be significant without mitigation. The State of California Attorney General's office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice, 2008) where practicable; many of these measures are included in Mitigation Measure GHG -1, below. Findings Issues associated with greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in Section 3.5 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG -1, below, to the extent feasible would not reduce greenhouse gases sufficiently to avoid potential conflicts with AB 32 goals. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits, as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Measure GHG -1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following where practicable: Ordinance No. Page 38 Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. • Install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy • Install solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy- efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on non - residential carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water - efficient landscapes. • Install water - efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation controls. • Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water - efficient. Install water - efficient fixtures and appliances. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non - vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low- impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on -site can drastically reduce the need for energy- intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 39 Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Land Use Measures • Include mixed -use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. • Educate the public about the benefits of well- designed, higher density development. • Incorporate public transit into project design. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. • Develop "brownfields" and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs. • Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides). • Encourage the development of facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero - emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low -cost monthly transit passes. • Promote "least polluting" ways to connect people and goods to their destinations. • Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle - friendly intersections into street design. • For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. • Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 40 • Institute a telecommute and /or flexible work hours program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high - quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation - related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. Noise Impact Impact 3.6 -4: The proposed Project, together with anticipated future development could result in long -term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6- 15) Facts in Support of Finding When considered alone, the proposed Project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Table 3.6 -6 of the EIR shows the future cumulative traffic with the project and existing traffic with the project and the difference between the two. As depicted in Table 3.6 -6 of the EIR, three out of eleven roadway segments would result in a significant increase in traffic noise from the proposed Project. Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences along roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound -rated assemblies at the exterior facades of project buildings and insulation (multi - family). Although implementation of measures required by Title 24 and City requirements would reduce proposed residences' interior noise levels to conform to Title 24 standards, existing noise - sensitive receptors would still be affected, particularly at Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street). Therefore this impact is cumulatively considerable, and significant and unavoidable for Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street), which would affect existing residences west of Paramount Boulevard. Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts related to long -term traffic are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Title 24 and City requirements would not reduce cumulative impacts associated with noise for Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street). Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits of the project identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Ordinance No. Page 41 Traffic and Circulation Impact Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Impact 3.3 -1: The proposed Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3 -20) Facts in Support of Finding For the Long Range with Currently Adopted General Plan scenario, all study area intersections would operate at or above LOS E with improvements during peak hour. Without improvements, all would fall below LOS E during the PM peak hour, and three intersections would fall below LOS E during the AM peak hour. The improvements discussed in the General Plan would be sufficient to mitigate the increase in vehicular traffic that would occur as the General Plan approaches full build -out. See Table 3.3 -5 of the EIR for intersection analysis for the long range General Plan conditions. General Plan conditions assume all project area roadways are built to their full classifications, a TSM program is implemented, and the intersection improvements outlined in the General Plan EIR have been developed. The proposed Specific Plan would increase the amount of retail, office, and other uses within the project area, but not by as much as the currently adopted General Plan. With improvements proposed by the Specific Plan, all study area intersections would perform at or above LOS E during peak hours. Without Specific Plan improvements, three intersections would fall below the standard set by the City during the PM peak hour. All intersections perform at the same LOS or better when comparing the proposed Specific Plan to the adopted General Plan. Still, three intersections would perform at LOS F without improvements. Improvements to these roadways, however, are not necessarily consistent with the overall goal of creating a vibrant, pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly downtown area. Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 would require the proposed Specific Plan to implement a program to monitor conditions at the three failing intersections and to fund alternative improvements, if necessary. Mitigation Measure TRAF -2 would require all new development to meet the City's LOS standard. The Specific Plan area would not conflict with policy on congestion, mass transit, bicycle facilities, parking, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed Project is designed to promote alternative forms of transportation and be a walkable community. However, all development in the project area must conform to the City's traffic standards and intersections that are near capacity should be monitored throughout the implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF -1 and TRAF -2 would not, however, reduce impacts to a Tess- than - significant level under the cumulative scenario and the impacts on the Intersection of Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard and Downey Avenue at 2 " Street would remain significant and unavoidable as described in Appendix 5 of the EIR. Ordinance No. Page 42 Finding • Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard; • Downey Avenue at 2nd Street; and • Downey Avenue at Firestone Boulevard. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Issues associated with the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts are discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF -1 and TRAF -2, as well as improvements to the street network, would not entirely mitigate impacts to Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard, and that no feasible mitigation exists for mitigation of impacts at the intersection of Downey Avenue at 2 Street (see Appendix 5 of the EIR). Consistent with the goals of this project, as well as the goals for Downtown provided in the adopted General Plan, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits. Measure TRAF -1: The proposed Specific Plan shall implement a program for monitoring conditions at the following intersections: Should conditions continue to deteriorate at these intersections, the program shall fund alternative improvements, such as Transportation Systems Management (traffic signal coordination, traffic incident management, etc.), Transportation Demand Management (ridesharing, transit information kiosks, etc.), or improvements to the infrastructure for alternative modes of transport (walking, bicycling, NEVs). Measure TRAF -2: All new development within the Specific Plan area shall be required to conform to the City's traffic standards. 8. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed Project. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the Project's unavoidable significant environmental effects (See Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 -445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed Project as mitigated (See Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [1978] 83 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [1988] 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400 -403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR examines three alternatives to the proposed Project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the Project's objectives, while avoiding or Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 43 substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Build); Alternative 2: No Project Alternative (Build under the Existing Plan); and Alternative 3: 50 Percent Residental /50 Percent Commercial Alternative. These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts that are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Project Alternative, the City followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: 8.1 No Project Alternative (No Build) Description The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition of the project site, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved. The "no project" alternative represents the status quo, or maintaining the project site in its current state. Under Alternative 1, no changes would be made to the Specific Plan area other than changes related to normal repairs and maintenance. Because no construction would occur, nothing would change. No new architectural elements would be added to the area, vacant buildings /boarded up buildings would remain vacant and boarded up, and no construction equipment or other signs of construction would be visible. No new environmental effects would directly result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in the present state would allow the site to continue in its current state. Because the site would not be developed, any significant and adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed Project would be avoided. Project Goals and Objectives The EIR includes the following goals and objectives in Chapter 2 (Project Description): • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, Policy 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed -use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2). Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 44 • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1). • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed -use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment opportunities. • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined above. Maintenance of current conditions would continue to detract from the creation of a vital 24 -hour downtown that serves the City and enhances the City's economic base. In addition, no additional retail merchandise shopping opportunities would be created to serve the residents of Downey; the visual character of the site would not be enhanced; and businesses that generate positive net revenues for the community would not be attracted to the area. 8.2 No Project Alternative (Build under the Existing Plan) Description Under Alternative 2, or the No Project (Build) Alternative would continue existing policies and regulations for the Specific Plan area; and development would continue under existing regulations. The Downtown would continue to be defined by the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone and would not actively include the proposed Civic Center District nor parts of the proposed Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 45 Paramount Boulevard Professional District. Portions of these areas would be subject to C -P, C- 1, C -2 and C -3 zoning. Some areas would be within the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone, which includes height restrictions and use restrictions. Attainment of Protect Objectives This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined above. Under Alternative 2, development would occur in conformance to existing General Plan land use designations and zoning, principally the Downtown Plan Overlay zone. The edges of the Specific Plan area are outside of the downtown zone and would instead be subject to a wide variety of uses, ranging from single - family housing to C -3 commercial zones. Because of the lack of a unified and far - reaching vision for the entire downtown area, and the continuation of existing uses for a longer period of time due to the slump in the housing market and the general economic slump, development is likely to take longer than 2025, the horizon year for Downey's General Plan. The lack of a unified vision for the Specific Plan area would conflict with the policies established by the General Plan for downtown and make development downtown (as currently delineated by the Downtown Plan Overlay and the Redevelopment Plan) more difficult. As a result, Alternative 2 would have a greater impact than the proposed Specific Plan. 8.3 50 Percent Residential /50 Percent Commercial Alternative Description Alternative 3 would split development in the Specific Plan area so that the 50 percent of development would be residential and 50 percent would be commercial. This approach establishes a goal of 1,423 net new dwelling units in Specific Plan area, and approximately 777,408 square feet of net new commercial space, for a total of 1,620 residential units and 2.6 million square feet of commercial space. Alternative 3 would result in a goal of 189 net new dwellings in the Paramount Boulevard Professional District, 80 net new dwelling units in the Downtown Residential District, 165 net new dwelling units in the Downtown Core, and 989 net new dwellings in the Firestone Boulevard District. Most of the commercial development would take place in the Firestone Boulevard Gateway District, where approximately 873,470 net new square feet, or approximately two- thirds of anticipated commercial development under Alternative 3, would be targeted. This would be the only change to the Specific plan. All other guidelines and requirements under the Specific Plan would remain the same, including design guidelines, proposed densities and floor -to -area ratios, and proposed building heights. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would occur in conformance to the Specific Plan. New development would focus on developing more residential uses and less commercial uses than the proposed Specific Plan. Impacts to the environment under Alternative 3 would result in a lower jobs -to- housing ratio than under the Specific Plan. Although not a significant impact, the result would be a need to balance the need for jobs against the need for additional residences. Because of the ongoing slump in housing prices, it may be difficult to line up substantial housing development. However, this would not necessarily be a significant environmental effect. 9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision - making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Page 46 considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and /or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project- Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Air Quality • Impact 3.4 -2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. • Impact 3.4 -6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality. Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Impact 3.5 -1: Construction and implementation of the project could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions. The project would not potentially conflict with the state goal of reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Noise • Impact 3.6 -4: The proposed Project, together with anticipated future development could result in a long -term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels particularly at Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street). Traffic and Circulation • Impact 3.3 -1: The proposed Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The City has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts, they would not reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations merely allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Ordinance No. Page 47 10. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must: (1) independently review and analyze the EIR; (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and determined that the Draft EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City circulated the Draft EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City concludes that the Draft EIR reflects its independent judgment. Ordinance No. Page 28 opportunities. Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a Tess than significant level, the City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR for the project (which includes the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project, or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project implementation will: • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed -use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Downtown Specific Plan (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2) • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1) • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. Ordinance No. Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 29 • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. ■ Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. uo l ;e3UPGA Compliance Check CO C C 03 c a •° .5 Ob CJ) c C c 03 c a •° >, -5 o b Timing / Frequency �a c �.. > m c o c a 3 N Q U � c 0 aa) cC o cry 3 3 a) O 3 o0 > D O a a ¢ Action by Monitor v o ccao c c c '5a) = c •- o E EEtUu)c 13 c E >,c a) u )a O O O Q �a •- o o0. co c oa a) •— 1- 7°vaoi c•o S Monitor 0) o c > 0 16 C c RIC,2)c >' ()bib Responsible Entity n = 0 c TD n3 > ocoociEb F2 c Q 8o 0. a Q 0 Mitigation Measure Land Use Measure LU -1: The City of Downey shall, in conjunction with the approval of the proposed Specific Plan, amend the General Plan so that the entire planning area is designated as Mixed Use and change the residential density ranges of the planning area are changes to reflect those in the proposed Specific Plan. co co ra a) ,� O -0 Ow c c v v) .=< o-0 0 a ca = ° 0 o as 5, a) N = 0 N° ,- 7 0 2 a)' u c - Uco�00-0 o Q a) - a1 a�.�a)3 a o 0 occol— •c_oomc , _ 0 • • c c o �=_ y ° 0 0 0 0 O co 0 a) a)r - a � U �> co E 3 � c). - (7) c o o a? o- ^ c o .)-0 as a) o O 0 co 2,Q c,.°va) a ) ca 0" al a) -C > , c 3 a 3 a) m c — ° c ,- 0 0 co CD CD a) CU oo ° a) a) 0 0 � a) 13 N 0 c o N ra - L O ,- - O -0 ,c as 0 u) 0 '5 0 0 -0 O N N '> U) Q j U) 0 0 0 o N a) O N • 7 cc (D 2 M • L 8 0 0 2 L U x', v) OcoyU ... c � 7 F. 0 E 0 H C9 0 a CD z -O W w J m <a z O H z 0 CD Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program uo lle3l�!Jen Compliance Check cm c 'c c ca c a .o o City Planning Division Timing / Frequency Ica 0 O 0 iri a O A N 0) O fa = C C C 3c = When a traffic report is Action by Monitor a) - c 1- ca o ca >. `O •U 0. a) Q Q Q cn Site plan review and project Monitor 0 t m -TD, E aY as O N City Public Works Responsible Entity 4- 0 C - a) - E a Y ca O Ca U0 City Public Works Mitigation Measure Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33413). Traffic and Circulation is s c�a - o N .. L ( O N N - p N H a 12 o 0 N j ca _O a) w U 5 a) O LL V C f m o a) � 0 c- m < C — 0 c >, ca O O. ` rn o a)4-; 7coEo. �v) c I y a Q c 0 N 0 .` a) O a O a LL 0 W 2 a.E E o • • CD c o m 4. a C co c a) Y � _ c ca v c LL C 0) c E .co C C ki C 3 O 0 a) Q . > o j V o .-: E u) - - a) co to .. > >01-m 0 '� O .-. c "L' C N C O C ` ` • c N <" c .c cua w a)L° - ��z >, ca o .. O -0 E"t E E E ° . U w> oc`a8ca)Oa)caa)Oa).SL2O c a) - ooa) > >O- rn5rna0),o: CO .g 0 0 o a w -a `O c c _ o c c c c-. 2 - 0 0 — >>, O m t a) : „ t O- E ca 0 ca E ca co U. O U • v) - o.E cn .2i- 2 U EH2: a).2 E:c) Measure TRAF -2: All new development within the Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program uo ReoglieA Compliance Check City Planning Division; Building & Safety C _ Y C C 05 Uoa) E.2 • ° 0-t cnv a) J.75 ca At?'S o =a U Timing / Frequency submitted to the City for new development At plan check and during construction Y U C N — O L U .` V 3 Q- "a C Q N U Action by Monitor approval Site plan review and project approval a) • N U ca O > Q a O .212 Q u) co N Monitor Department; City Planning Division City Planning Division; SCAQMD CA C C 0 c E .0a •> 0 U b co Responsible Entity Department; City Planning Division Applicants / Developers 1 N u Q > Q a) ¢o Specific Plan area shall be required to conform to the City's traffic standards. Air Quality Measure AIR -2a: The City shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403 for all new development. � a) a) L_ a) Q- O U O ` O Q O� L •- C D C C •- a` E • L- > O a �, C E N a C C C 6 O CA 9 E ell rt 0 Q °o CD co °� Q c ca o— •` w O C o ., a) d�Q �° O L 'p ca •Q' IV v O Q� m X a- c dc co rn a)a) t0 Y Di C p U C O E L --E 'Q 'p t0 c O U C N ,_ N °' C 'p U vi C� c C l ai ca catc � _ ca • o c0 O L_ O 7 Y E> -p 0 N ca 0 a) C O ° � c o ca c co a3 - o o a� E i = 1 $ O 4- ci , ca 0. QE �Ts — cco v� u) `E ca 0 U L_ c U 7 a) 4 6 N a) E fl, E 6 Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check c ,a O o a) E — 'v > ' v 0 i t0 >,• -_4 — tea > 7 as 7 a) Timing / Frequency Y 0 C O im 0 -0 0 .` V C = ` _N 'p o a'0 C Q co 0 Action by Monitor 3 a) . 5 c a?— • coo> aa a) -0 Q .— o c ca Monitor rn _c c 0 co c 2 O Algu3 elglsuodsea —. co v) 5 c ° ca a v T a> a_ a) Q0 Mitigation Measure N Y C C L c o ° w ° L 3 v a� rn N 3 a� °• N 7 V O c � D o c t ,_ 0 Q o 7 N >= N N -p ., = 3 o C OC L a) L_- a: C ca c N 4O N O CO o 4, U , L Q,, v) ?� p) "0 C ca co > 3 a� o c a? 3 a� m a ca '� cnca ° ° I a �a ' Q S c ca a) N a c 8 0 m c c > > 'j E O �O 0 O N co v t N Q as .N • cNi ri 0 ° 0 ) C N 7 -p 6 C C coo o 0 E v) ` u) N a) C CO V N v o�� ..- c °. 0 O L .- ` V N Q a N N 0 6 N 0 ,— V C oao - vc ° a a° Q c O I" ca aN O C L =p N Q t a) c ` a c t cn , 2 a a 2 3 46 v ° u) _ -a - a) O o c v N j a) > C N 0 CO . N 7 L C CO o c c0 E > 0 v u s V CO N c E = a) ° co 4.1 = Q , °O a �° i a ca a ) N N c v a) v cca .` N ix a? N co .r. N cm H a '> v) E O c Y V X O cnca Ea)v3 Q om U 0 M M O Dthibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check Timing / Frequency Action by Monitor Monitor Responsible Entity Mitigation Measure O 3 s o m� °' -0 c 4_, I- a� 0 3� c— 3 °5 I �3a c -C N to X >+ Q) c a) C ca °� o� a� ° �' > o v 0 j O O va ° j aa) > v cn R ` O p U rx N m 2 C a) C O- 0.)co a)i °c°' °.� .o 7° . >(0o 3a�v� o w CD C c> a) -1C 0 "� o o > u. + s �. '6 O U o c c a cv s Q vi , — � ° c 4- — a� v o ° ° c Y i ' oc ° i o ° . ° o > °Dorn v° .v�'cc— ac� 'a)o ,_a a cu N C .0.N O L O" .c C � O 7 7 N. cm cm ca c �. ° = a _ a) ° o o CD c ° rn3 c°) ° c o_a a) w a) a) a) c) N 7- a) m 0 CD > 0 O 0 C j _ air° v aa)i v ac a)co° r) ct m O m N 7 a) C 0 N— C . f0 N _U La a)_c >_ a)o a, o° °so so _o 8 E,_ _o .viaauau ce °ov 0 1 — • Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check 0) >, c _ Y C 'c0O �c E a • 0 -t ca 0) c c c a . 0 Timing / 1 Frequency 0 c cp � c L 2 cd 'p + a-p c 4- c 0 Q cp V ,� o 0 c ° ,�,o o _ c° w a� V O O � � p P- L- g c 4- N co V Q - . - 4- a) Q . 0 0 . - E a) 4-.. O C a) N O O O O O m .N Z U O c t• V . U Action by Monitor 3 a) L 6 a a 2 u) co ca 3 a) 5 2 t a v ) c caa Monitor rn c c c RI c a ° = > UD 0) c c c ca c a .° > o b 44 alq!suodsaa 03 0 RI 0 Mitigation Measure materials. J. Control off -road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure AIR -2d: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure AIR -2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Building and Safety Division, shall include, as appropriate: Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check City Planning Division; City Public Works Department rn E c 0 c co o c� •5 0 00 c.) City Planning Division Timing / Frequency At site plan review and during construction Long- range; report to City Planning Department annually Action by Monitor Site plan review and project approval Coordination with applicant/develo per Coordination among City agencies upon project completion Monitor City Planning Division; MTA Metro C 'c U o co • a. . > - 7 3 00a City Planning Division; City Economic Development Department Responsible Entity Applicants / Developers . C2 E Zit E City Economic Development Department Mitigation Measure co t N - o O O N `O > a c a) C Q O = •° C = c0 N O C O . O> C a c E o a) u) c Q m C a) O a) O ) `C C C a) O y O C N o j N O2. N E c c • o E 0 N N E 1- E L ' Q) 7 p 0 co so N c D ' 2 vi co a) o 0 0 CD ca E 13 co 6 0 ) 2 c 4. v) a) a) 7 C) me W Measure AIR -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure AIR -3b: Coordinate traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure AIR -3c: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job /housing balance. Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check 0) >, c 'E 0 06 a • 0 , c ) • 0 0bmu) Timing / Frequency c m a a) 3 u) •> aa) Action by Monitor _c c 0 a o v) 3 0- 0 co al l m , ` 3 �, a) E mcz m c cu 2 .2 O C — U — _ � w m U to U fn w °. 5 a) Eaco C )co -Da,a Monitor c 0) >. O c . 0 :5 a C >, > • m 0Dmu) lu3 elq!suodseb u5 F) chz c •> v0 O m� � cu U v) Mitigation Measure Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming m m m �C9 i5 U = 3 0 a C O a) a) . - .4- L C fn O 70 L O V O O (7 — o C C -p fa = t L . a) a _ _ CO yrt- Ety m E >' o o a) . a a a) 3 c a) 0 c v OL Ica. =a) m c — c a a)) U — C �, - 0 • - a) O C C c cm ca >, C m C m RS 0) a "O • +' a) +r C �U .� U m m t W -mc -s2 c >, m.� °) °) •) o v o v a) 0 c `.t o U ca 7 c 0a) 00 0a _0 w • • -o � -o m p ) c 3 c m ai Q v) v) O O O U C o fa O c c a) a a))I. -a)z 0 b u) -c a� U 3 o o D • - > , O O) U o . . O - c C c "ow o E m OE > O w U a 0 O f � —, ca O -co) O U — E a) >,� c 45 F > rn • — co co CL a) a) ) 0 • • E. : a� c E c U)) 0 m U C o E a) Op 'O 2 U (19 ` C N a) m ma) me To • c L CO • Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check a) ' 0 c ._ �/.7/ :L. _ 0Qm a) 'E 0 05 c .. ƒ/.74-/ _ >, � -J 0Q Timing / Frequency k c. 2 3 . . @ k a_ 2 3 . k @ Action by Monitor § § _c 0 0 as 11 � t — © 9 @ 2Q@ q c '>§2 Ta a) § 2 2 k 2 °@ 2 2 § § k§ a a)§ k w2. k $ = 0 o k § �� t_ § 9 @ k 2 0 .5 a) @§ k 2 k.2 °@ 2 L- E 2 %§ 0- E w 2.§2■Ea_om - a Ts Monitor § c ' '0 c �22a _�S . 0b m 3 2k c ' �22 _ o a o b a nu3 alglsuodse § c . r- 6 m : 2 0 CO oo 2 E § ] Mitigation Measure and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. ■ 2 — CO " 2 Ye c 12 § 2 § L- CII / 2 $ f co a cl co I- 2 e3 / 0 C> C ®� % �� � 73 E a) \ 2 § k c m § q 22£L_E u) 2 0�k @2 0 § 0 . al w , To 2 2 § o % @ § § a ■ S. 3@ m 0. S. U CO Da_ m • • • Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water - efficient landscapes. • Install water - efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation controls. Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Veriflcati on Compliance Check Timing / Frequency Action by Monitor m 4- k 2 a_ -c a Monitor Responsible Entity Mitigation Measure • a) m » 2 CO 2 2 2k k m a @ �� C ='2� D) _> 6 0" CCI ® k o_)§ Wv 4 kk§ �� R 7' ? 2 0 '- , 9 a I; 2 ° o @ �: m m 4-@ co k ° % a2 kf 2 : E >.£ Eu) 2 k= k 2 v) c § Q ° 0 / K : E /� k_-- 2 coƒ v .7 v) ca -a a q@ • - Q a CO o CL b% a 2 0@ E Q ® o 1 E @ 2 « @ m « « _ = 2 • 0 _ £ 2 W — E + E- m e w E 2 Q c c 0 @ o W 2 §@ E -@ E 'S 3 2 2 2 / o 2 Q 2 » Q@ kgk•� ja ' 0 C) 2 ƒ @ k� ' 2 2 : 0 -D- co §2 Z Q Q t m E- c c o © 2 m E o f E m@@ (Duo. Q — @ « a) 2 : : : • 0 . ' e > - - o o • , @ t u) „ o o. _ IX kk vc. .c\ k � wg�coXo k _vE • • • • • • Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check g s t E � 2co _� �k 0 0) 2 _ 2 U o E k a E -'� co _ >,•- 0_ o oa_ 0 Timing / Frequency A 2 3 .� 2 co c Action by Monitor c @ ca CO cp " co "E" 2 m . @ = E 2 2 a �: : w .E E 2 § implemented during site plan review to the extent practicable (some measures Monitor 15 E �2 co _� �k 3 c 2 _ § a E -'• _ >,.- _o 0_ �oa Algu3 elglsuodseti � it — . 0 O § � 2£c . > = U ❑ a O - § U 1) ] Mitigation Measure plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. co § k 2 co e c3 k� 0. co o E - -� � o -0 § 7 @ 2 2% 2 % § >20) a'2 CD CD % c) ,,,•- 2�-a § = O w 2 k c A @tm 2 70 o = m 2 652 2 2 2 2 2 2 co % ct S 3 S 0 ■■■ 0 c cL o 3 c • • • Land Use Measures • Include mixed -use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check 2 c 2 E § E •( .>,.5 o Timing / Frequency c c o as C ._ o. r) @ƒ: E d o. c Action by Monitor 2 ' 2 o % 3 iii £ '% CD 2 ' a - a ® E' § ƒ27)- ° / k C Jo ;luoW 0) : c _ A c '( : > o Responsible Entity 7 2 Mitigation Measure @ . o $ - o. @ c _ a � k c c o c� 0_ c° �' 2 a � a 2° ._ w & 2$ - A o a �� // R E ° o -a @ c 4- E o - - o cu k g % 2 S' § �; - 2 c o. @ 0 %%A32lc .o.0 -a c r. wc c } - 2� § k a d q = 3 k% R ` za a§ c k 2 k -a @ ® _ £ o f - Q — c 2 @� a \ § .2 / > @ -- ' ., 4 >, c 0k o. � 0U§2o.LE Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by desi • natin • a certain Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program O a eV 0 � > 0 ■ 0 C CO �- u 00 >, u c c § EE i= u- >. .0 ' c o 22 � 2 k c 0 2 0 .0 . C 0. rew c .0 2k2� . co at @ ,0 0.§ > oa 2 -2 2 J £ 0 @ 2.0 •? � .% o 6 a s 0 0 0 Lci . k k co c - @ ▪ 0) 0 . 0 0 0 c w — :.- EL) .s 0 f k a a) 2 0 0 C � @'- o E 6« '0 3 § _ o « = o .2 a —£ r -,17; o o o o al : 0£ c. § 3 0 15 ' C 76 ' ET k � 0 R§ R��� @� a)@ o ff bo 2R�0 �2 E2 ¢ / o 2 R§ E % a EE 2 k k k / 3 S 2 k � / 0 _ . c • 0- 3 2 c 2 co • �.§ - a u_ a_ Verificati on Compliance Check City Planning Division Timing / Frequency At the time other permits Action by Monitor Ensure necessary Monitor City Planning Division elglsuodsea City Planning Division Mitigation Measure 7 . . c» 0 © a) ° a) 2 R J vu) 22 E o 2 a o: k / °7 0 �0 _o o.:.-- ° g k ■ % R§ • a- a v a) 0 E 7 0 L in k k cc.) � -a CD c le > a) a) © E a E >,_ Q.§ co 0§£ 0 0 0 Q. / k -ao 5 § % ■ o. E 2 2 a ; al ._ k a) co £ • Q£ k 2 0 c� a 0 a 0 3 a i- � D • © o § & a u E 5 £ ■ E 0 0 2■ . E /§ 70 a_ E E§ g L. 0 k2�k § % / 7\ ■ � © � © � E c 7 .O° o a 0 2 S L : 4- o 0_ 6: 0 2 . c 0 0 • E 3 = 2 CD \� * �� \ 2 c 2 O." 2 § C C 5 : CO u) 0 7 % o o § — o 3§ a_._: a_ a_ a- a o 2 f § 2 k Noise Measure NOI -la: Applicants /developers shall be Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check City Planning Division City Planning Division City Planning Division 2 c. •§ ›... Oob Timing / Frequency are issued At the time permits are issued; during construction At the time permits are issued; during construction At the time permits are issued; during construction 2 @ @g/ E ®-o 2 'n — 2 �kkk Q � .� o Action by Monitor permit is issued before construction begins Unannounced site visits Unannounced site visits Unannounced site visits v § kk % > -2 D' Monitor City Planning Division City Planning Division City Planning Division 2 c ' % § 'c . o b ignu3 alglsuodse City Planning Division City Planning Division City Planning Division k § 2z c '> .� m- : k Uc./) Mitigation Measure required to secure a construction permit for exemption of the noise standards (Section 4606.5) prior to project implementation. Measure NOI -1 b: As specified in City of Downey Ordinance No. 4606, no construction will occur between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure NOI -1c: All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Measure NOI -1d: All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. as a o -c%/ i522 � >%0 E o o e t £ @ E �' @ o ®2 _ £ o— 0) f d E 2 7 c_ w 2-- c c o m% 2 3' @ Q. >@ c@ o o a a o E 5 £•) >N 2 0 a a =� % 17 ��W k W j�§ = 2 k z'ockom�/ o°/2 ,„-oz a - o c c M M L E% @ + 73 ®% a w E =1 ` M o Z- 73- 0___0 O � @ § k � 2 - m > Lo o = k� 2 � ' co 0 o as U @ co ■ c■ Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program G z 0) 7. as v F m c > o a) v c as Q, Y E Cu' o t O 0 o c c su 3 F- LL Q 2 a) 0 O a) co a) > a) a) co O c a) .c a .c a) a) a) To 6 co . a) a a) -c 0 Verificati on Compliance Check co ��c m k: co c7) : �: 0 06 b co 1 1 5 _ >, M k ■; : CO: Uk c ƒ c ■c E: - c7 Uc Timing / Frequency o c ® 4= co 0 - EFL @ / -2 WW 7' @ _o o_ a 4 5 co 2 J 13 WW la o_: 0 E 3 — ± 2 < L- Action by Monitor 2 '� oc 2 a • 3 k L_A 777 @o IS E J It c S: 2 A 2� W: E a■ Ensure incorporation of this mitigation measure at site plan review, before permits are issued ± / 2 2 3 k P2A 7 7 0 R� \ E 2 c tt u) c S 2 2 k 2 • W: IS E a .0 ■ Monitor § 7 k � . ' c . 2 U0) § c k �3 M : 2 U � o ƒ co c E .2 � . �b Al IUu3 elglsuodsea Mitigation Measure Measure NOI -2a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of site of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure NOI -2b: In order to avoid noise - sensitive hours, commercial and retail land uses shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the night time hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure NOI -2c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, commercial and retail uses shall locate all loading areas for commercial and retail uses at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed -use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project. Aesthetics 0 Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check CD . § C ET. .2 : : o b CD . § c E2 : : UD Timing / Frequency . 0 ¢ .[ c a§ 2 . 7a2 Action by Monitor Ensure incorporation of this mitigation measure at site plan review, / R c. �a6k a 4-6 2 a) 4 ¢ @ _ ._ § a) 0- 2 2 E u) c 0 0 • u) a c 0 c Q.§ a) as % w.c E a .o as Monitor 0) * § C E2 : : o b 0) . CO c �2 : : ob IIfu3 alglsuodse 03 C 2 .c _ k § ' § : \ ob Mitigation Measure Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. Cultural Resources ■ �E2 © — g _ a) c.) as 2 2 2 .0 2 ■ 7 o o • (1) o -0 s 2 § >�4-§ ■a2 as a) - 0 '5 a) >, ■ 2 ■ U ° k 0 c 32 a = o § 0 "/ a/ = 2 k c 2 4 - k CD '- k 0 a ) � a) k °/ ■ c E C ■ 2 - ■ £ 4 3 0 £ £ ■ a ■ 2 .2 03 ■ cli > f 2 0 2 2� o £ a t- a u; . 17 k -- 2 3£ Q o > £ a a .0 ■ a — al n @ ©3 0 ° *- ■ - ° -` •- ■ - o ■ E ■ � @ i + ° @ U£• V '� % 2 ■ C l) 9 - =+ ■£' -£ mo o ■ — c £ © ° .8=a - - _ — ID 0 (/) (T3 L> -�27G ' - � E Dal. -(2. -" " °� to C 2 2 0 ' a) ' .- ■ u) E 2 ' E C 2 ■ 0 3 2. '§2 2ogv -k 0 - • ƒD ) .- ■ 20 a¢2W3 : E -3■ o Mv)CL 2 a i_ 3 ■ i- 'fl Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check co 'E E c E.0 �.5 o b 0) 'E O 0 5 E E 2 c E.c >, .0 �.5 34 CO ._ 2 Timing / Frequency >, E TD oc a d: > w 2 @ 5 o 13 c0 E° c @§ w / Rg3 c n @ 0 c ƒ a. o E m /m a_ Action by Monitor o o � > • k c J k k 2 ■ ��ƒ2 o w o o k ijfl Monitor � co c E •2 �� 0 3 § �� . U k: % c 00 E •2 2 w >� S % 0 dmn I4!tu3 alglsuodsaa 2 : [ ■ § E� : 7 o b @ Mitigation Measure %U X06 2 M £ 6 .E § 2 -a . 2 w c� � f � @ 2So- >. -oo a. oc2 - - - a @a£ I— > : 2 C = ° § �. k ,'= 2 -6 / 0 2 q CO- a) a° FO 1.-fa C >s FL i - o 2 & co o w m �0�o> 0.? E - - / 2c� 2 -.c �n§�77c a 2 (0 0 - CO 2 E t $- �� k k c c 2 =2@ > - o2k §a ;�: C� V:: c 2(0 co "E -a @ @ co — 2 — = c co co @ @ - 0 G) )cO �rea / /k�re� EO.SI -o '5 @£U�o££n Measure CUL -3a: In the event that such archaeological resources are uncovered during construction - related activities, the onsite contractor's construction supervisor shall stop all activity within the immediate vicinity of the discovery, unless safety issues are of concern. Specifically, the construction crew will stop work at the location where the find was Dthibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check o) c c c ca c E . o U Timing / Frequency c > c a) o ° ca ° — co me >, 0 0 3 'o o c E o a a) & Eoc 0v) Action by Monitor 0 0 a) a) a) a ° 3 U =o aa)) cncc v 3 3 c -000! <000 JOMUOIN o) c c 03 EL •° '> UD Algu3 alglsuodsaa rn c c c ca c E ,o Fp 5 Mitigation Measure c N N` a •C w L 7 c) r) ca o Z >, .4=>". c° E c v ) as .2 a) a � a) ) o = vi .) L o ° C a) N N c a) ° • c N o ca L N V j > 0) C ' N N CO ° '� = o V y co o E - a ,_ ° co4 ca ca 3 °) c`a N a To ca c� >, �° 3 °? c 4-',,, ca ° > c • c`a'rna) am 1:3 0.c L 4- ,_- o° ca • L -C") V N° "D ° > E o y V 3 N O p 5 r • m" N >-D co 0 v a) o a) a o a ° °• 7) 2 c°� co e C N a) L L ° a L a) .0 4 co y �- ca ° ca�.rn cn E ca �v� cAc "al- cnU� E a > • ,_ > a -p n 2 N s v O _ v a) f- c O N > L N C 0 ca • CM t Q) Q) 7 _ ' - L N W J u' co °- °��° ° °ca c V c° >.Q 2 N �' 2 c c a o2 o 2 � ° n ... a V ' ` t • ` N O 'V "D ° "C:3 c C r co) Q Y .V) N 7 c a) co N ° CO a3 0= u. U o rn a ) _ � c 5 O v) o N v . c N o o '° as U Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check c c c ■ § 'c : • o Timing / Frequency c § 0 o. E . D)- %•� > 0 ) E ƒ 2 § k d o g 6 m Action by Monitor 2 2 a 'Q ■ CD U)Em : o > ri)cc E -Doom «O0 a: Monitor c .§ E E § E . : 7 ob AUu3 alglsuodse c c c ■ § 'ro : 7 0 Mitigation Measure determined to be significant, the lead agency and the archaeologist shall determine, and in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. c A � � a a llU 2 w N a) § 2 0 � 7 _ - c � �u) =02% e■ o% m E■■ E■ f c£ o■-t c %§ c0 2 = -a m -- a 2 1- - c0 "- =/U) ■ 2 22 222�X4-2 ■mot > = - ■ ■ £ ■ 2 0 • 17). CO Q -0 a 0 >, m _ u) 4- 4 0 o a ■ — 1 1E ! I U u 1 ' m § 0 . L_ o o _§ § k ■° c E ■. o n o § E� 2ƒ 2/ r > 2 2 k 0 D a k CD _c 2Y. / « a. 3 a_ 'a u a� ■£02 '0 §o % a. Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check co c . c ca c o b Timing / Frequency c c a) o c a 0)T v._ >oa):� a)3 E0a 3 a) 0 Eo0 p � Action by Monitor o o a) '0 a) a) a (.4 0. ci' V cn "E c v 3 3 c -Doom Qooa Monitor 0) c 'E c cac Et . o v o b / alq!suodse 0) C 'E c co c E .° .>, b Mitigation Measure a) cn 0 c o a)° oa) 4 o_c ,_o o c o a ° o a) 4-• 0 -0„, >. ca c Q- E '> C C v) too0� -2 0caa)03 E .0 � — a) I.- .c) o a a) ; �a x 4 - 0 a) �` To � v � 0) 0 a a) rn a) 0 ° _c c u) a) a) o c am, a) c"=' 0� > 'o c coca °p • � �_c m 0) C u) — c0._ °)a) 0.= o 0 u) ca = u) rn o ;:, -2 -E ca c $ c.5 0 • .... v i_ L• 0 . en �a a) • 0 E. E'= i_ a) °-O o a) 0- o a T Q a) O 0 c a) 0 _c To c a0 - O L Q c aca� 3 �:=v c u) a E1—�. ca._ 0 .c a) .c T' " . 0 0 co a) a 0 i Q �— �� a � ' i >o cn 3 c r) a) 0 3 c �- c o �'a) c a) ca a) - — a`) o a) 'E v a) o iaca)0o�c • 1- 0.c i- Q •c co o c"_a o o •� a-' i co 0 a) U) all o O cm Q �n v ca a) ° � c c > >•3 c co a ). c (n a ` ) CO -, �c 0 o0o ccoa)E C) u) a)v 0 0 o cn v � ° ESQ o .— 4_ aOWO�cO'v) L fo a ) ti o a) co 0� 0 ca ? co a i c a) > m 8 a) c ' E c l, d O Y c O .V c 0 , 0 4_ 0 E 0 E 2a�., co 0 c..) '> co c.) Q..2 o0.«.Q".,U Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check City Planning Division Timing / Frequency Prior to site plan review Action by Monitor Obtain Phase 1 before site plan review Monitor City Planning Division I1lu3 elglsuodseb Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure @ › – 03 CO " 2 a ° 2 . @ CO 7) c c ■ E c c L_ ■ al _c E –£ 3 2 w 7 2 2 §§ 2 q% 2 2 o _ - / @ « @ as a) 2 S ® a 2 £ § @ al a 4-2 2 @ t7 L_ > §.c co = $ @ @ @ Q – @ £ > - _ £ It E @ '> CO ■ ® ■ m co cE 2- / la £ _ – To @ c al £ — 5 2 0 2 - > E £ 4- ■ § 0L_ 03 - 2 v Li, c g o % o@ u- 0 �' @ E 2® co o_ >, : _ 2�kr- £Ci —' — =0 2�772��� -c�. ¥ 0_ @ ■ _ cD CD 0)=4- @ a c.■ - E @ – m @ 6 @ o CO o CO L_ @ ■ c @ « c ■ cp ƒ / k��\�� k in @����J�R�a k ko 3 - 6 o k -c 2 §� Hazards and Hazardous Materials Measure HAZ -1: Prior to issuance of any building permit, all proposed develo • ment sites where Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check 0) c c co c a° o b City Planning Division Timing / Frequency 0 3 N 0 0 5 o o c •c ca CL a Prior to issuing Action by Monitor c CO C a) a)�, E 'co .Sa�3 zao O ca 2 Ensure the applicant / Monitor 0) c c ca c a .o ob City Planning Division Responsible Entity cu es, Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure a N N 0 0' 0 c ' a) .�N o — c G a) co a ch. o ,_ E 0 vr 0 o • c ar t c " - ' co ,Zca0 o c v o i - G) .0 U p c ',_ Q Q o �, - CO Q N U 7:1 N 0 a) _a N a a) ) f0 0 0 O u) 't c .E O 2 -0 a) j m N c v — 0 o ca c� 0) c caa)a. _co = c c a a) c c 4- E W - p > o ca cf m a) m~= „ u) O 0 � 0-0 f0 .0 .0 .Ca)a)rn� a . o° -c�� - 3 ca c CU oa) (0 a caa) aSa ? cua cu fa co— m <000 (0 E M `O 0. '5 +r - '0 0 a , a) a) c v) (0 c_ o 0 E o a) 2 a 3 o c a�_c 0 0-0 3 acn > o c a� o 0 as Measure HAZ -2a: Each structure proposed for demolition shall require an assessment by licensed contractors for the potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings, asbestos containing materials, or PCB - containing equipment prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Measure HAZ -2b: If the assessment required by Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check c as c E .2 : \ o b c as c •2 : / o b Timing / Frequency \ ill CIL R 2 2 c ` b� [ m/0_ R 2 2 § '� b� [ m/0_ Action by Monitor ft �� % ■ 0 2 J '0 © 5 ay [ § CD@ C■- v a_ Z. 0_ . to / i- a a ? c 0 � _ �§ @ 2 > @ • Ja > > ° o C O.@@ a CD@ w ■ 13 @ -0 CO @ 2@ a) /a @ J k o \ D C-0 Q co w as o 0_1 Monitor c . % c E2 :/ o b c *E c c E2 :: o b Responsible Entity £ © k2 Qk Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a establishes the presence of lead -based paint, asbestos, and /or PCBs, the developer or project applicant shall create and implement a health and safety plan to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous materials during demolition or renovation of affected structures. 2 as k� 2� � a) � 1 CL CU @ — -0 o � � � @ C.) 3-0 6 0 o§ E U .- ° § 1- 0 ■ ._ c k @ _ @ > CO @ §•5 .0- X 22 ° 2 -�. £ o S k k a) ) • § � 0 . E E o _ k „ co c D E ■ ® 0_ -- L E / �' w • CD 3 (0 c � E t o k 2 / k § ' a) iic ■ .e c a ■ ._ QCO _ Measure HAZ -2d: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of asbestos, the project sponsor shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building demolition. Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check rn c c c ca C a° 0b rn c c c co c a° c.) ca >. c :- 'cU c. co C) C a. °.- - ° Ubmc, Timing / Frequency O p O . c co a) a_ Q O p) O = •C co a) Q c (.1) — 0 = a) .- 1 O U C c Z' co 0 ca -c a) N 7 0) O Ott O G ) O ) a) c e- C' �. U QU _a LL es co Action by Monitor EL) ". O N _. O a) E` - y C -0 U a) N W ca o Q .N ` �. �O _c N a) N p > O C j a WM C L . a) N N C N 2 tt Z N CO C N CO N N Q" E U O a ) +D O O E O N a) - N� C ? N U 0 C 0 ra c ` "' a) o a) t o -a C o W ca ca -0 U _a 4-. 'v ca a) . Monitor rn c c c c o c a ' ° vi ' > ob rn c c c c " ' 0 vi = '> c.) c ca >. 0 c = cn 'cU :> c c rn 0 a '- v y = > '� a Ubmcn fti1lu3 alglsuodsej — i _ ca) ca U aa)) Q > Q a) Q0 Mitigation Measure Measure HAZ -2e: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of PCBs, the project sponsor shall ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to building demolition or renovation. Measure HAZ -3: All development and redevelopment shall require the use of construction BMPs to control handling of hazardous materials during construction to minimize the potential negative effects from an accidental release to storm drains, groundwater and soils. Biological Resources O c (a a a) i c a a) L N 'O 2 "o cn 13 O ' to c n < • 0 0 .0 c ° C U s c o• O lc O c 0 >. U U 0 co N 0 N a C) O M 2 O > 0 U 0 0 _0 0) " C U (1) C ri. fn ti= CO c$ O CO y 0 '3 0 �a co Cn O ' p lL'= a) c C 'p L- U =- U a) c cf) 3 - > T ° L- ° o u) fu R • � = 3 rn T-13= ca O Cr) E 2 a v v ) _a Q v ° ) c c o 1 6 " --E. 3 o v ° ) c Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verificati on Compliance Check City Planning Division; City Building & Safety Division Timing / Frequency Prior to issuing permits and at regular intervals throughout Action by Monitor Ensure compliance before issuance of permits Monitor City Planning Division; City Building & Safety Division I Rua alglsuodse Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure W co 2 7 k �/ 2 — g 2 ^ & k £ ■ @ « ■ ■ RI o C 6 % § k� @ o - o > a 2 _c ¢ 0.25 / c � k @ �� o §�P _C _- 0 @ ,§ . 2 ■ . =2 c * 5 C £ /k�� � k k �/ 22 k _ _@ » k ■ =■ @ 2@ 03 @ c 2 0 o « « � 2 2 @ 2■ 4-. E c§\ D: c c o @ o o 4 8 2 0 ■: - 2 - 0 2 2 c $ CT a) 2° ■: 2 § a 2 J 2 2 a) c 2 - k 2 � - a) E a 2 2 E k' - O$ o 6 � ) 2 2 ' ` _o w t (2 .2 § > E 2 co 2 73 2 t E @ �' _; o _ 2 ■ P k 2 k k cu co § 0 / k CD 0 c / 2 C k 0 2 £ o - a 0 0 S @ co o _ . u) _a a. co o - a - _J ■ @ co o: Measure B10-5a: Coordination with Community Development Department. The applicant shall work with the Community Develo De to Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reportirtg Program uo Compliance Check Timing / Frequency C ' f 2 0 Action by Monitor JO4IUOW alglsuodsaa Mitigation Measure . @ a • @ _C 'o £ @ — CO CL 2 3 § § >, 2 k ƒ 2 "t — _a — e u) I_ ■ @ £ o @ — 0 " al a) E— a O@ 0 C-) ° £ % � a $ E % ■ 0- "C -6 R • E 2°@ f o c 2 Cn '� ©'e -c > 2 c • : 2 E • 2 co =: E o g 01) CO 4 - k C D E a) 0 E 2 _ — 2 2 RI R 22 @ 13 03 o 0 £ > 2 13 •- % k — E R 0) a k 2 0 f 7 0 E j / E" 8 j c $ k c c 2 2 1 .- % -0 c� > / 2 @ � . 7 c @ . g , � .2 @ @ CO 0 2 M @ — 0 2 2 § ' al = -a 2 2 v c . E E ■: o g Ce $ 1 9 1 0 @ in la 13 co = 2■@ = @ c ■ ■@ , a) a) @ O a > c .- la al CD a) 0 a -0 § § la „al .0 - � « - @ 7 o � C k 0 2 cu E@ % 2 2 w "a 0 Z E■ o§ I- cu E . %§@£ £ 3 C — @ - ' a E ° q v) E ® � 2 u.) % 2 > � 2 = = • " 2 £. 0 •£ 2 _� o £ ■= ■ = - - E@ u E .2 CD 0) L— CD � >Q)0 = 0._ 0 c k -12 2 D 3 a O 2 co o ■_ o_ co co o■ .... co a Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program m 0 c as . Q Y E d o.c VV >1 . L. c 2 Q 2 .:12 0 2 co — a) 0) s'5o� o= a) a) a) —. O. '- w 3 8 0) 1 - ; o d u) N N N N O ` a) 'O w a) a+ N 0.O a) U +- U . 0 4 . as O . d C O E N Q 0 E N E -a '- N 2 `) a) a3 co y 8- N a) ti) ca O c i_ (o L..J CI_ .0 0) z- >. y ai m a) 0 - 0) 0 ` -a U) 0 ' 'O co .0 a) co C 4-0 2 0 a) O co E N > U O i3 O co _ N N c c N • U a. - E .0 0 c 0 Z w 0 Verificati on Compliance Check Timing / Frequency Action by Monitor Monitor ARu3 algisuodse Mitigation Measure o =§ u) >, k o 2 E§§ 2 k 7 / _c n u) K a) o 0 k - -•- � k _a @ 3 m @ @ _ - _ a) a % 0. ƒ c 0@ a) 2 "Co 2 ££££ CD « o o 0 7 ce - a -a : - 9 $ ƒ� 2 �/ — ' � % f o E/ a) 0/ 4- -c o a) 2 k& 8 � k . a) -c 03 FS a) §§ is o. c K 2 f 2 � � 2 E 0 « 0� uij , c, 2 _c k N 0 0 - m ® > @ @ CO 2 U) @ 3 a £ 0 co co -,01 (0) /. w 2/ 2 / "g . f.) k §� § 0 k� k § k w _ . k c 2 2 0 Q a_ Q m a_ @ �.S m co R .. a_ m@ a_ S � .§ Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY REPEALING SECTION 9326 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY REVOKING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR DOWNEY'S HISTORICAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking; and, B. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey; and, C. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan; and, D. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010; and, E. On July 15, 2010, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR; and, F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted Resolution No. 10 -2665, thereby recommending approval of the Code Amendment; and G. On September 18, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press - Telegram; and, H. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 2010, at which time the City Council considered all oral and written testimony. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE TWO SECTION 2. The City Council further finds, determines and declares that an EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. On September 28, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. , certifying the EIR SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the City Council further finds, determines and declares that: A. The requested amendment is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed Code Amendment is to repeal the existing Downtown Overlay Zone, which will be replaced by the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. It is found that the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is needed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. To avoid a conflict with the policies and requirements of the Specific Plan, the Code Amendment is necessary and desirable. B. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the General Plan. Repealing the Downtown Overlay Zone will allow implementation of the new Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This action will allow the Livable Communities concept set forth in the General Plan to be advanced. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this Ordinance, the City Council hereby repeals Section 9326 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code in its entirety and deems the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" null and void. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12 day of October, 2010. ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk ANNE M. BAYER, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. PAGE THREE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss: CITY OF DOWNEY ) HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. , was introduced at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on the 28 day of September, 2010, and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on this 12 day of October, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I FURTHER CERTIFY that a Summary of the foregoing Ordinance No. , was published in the Press - Telegram, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Downey, on (after introduction), and on (after adoption, including the vote thereon). It was also posted in the regular posting places in the City of Downey on the same dates. KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BRIAN SAEKI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO DAVID BLUMENTHAL, SENIOR PLANNER MARK SELLHEIM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: PLN -10 -08074 — DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following titled resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING CER11FICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10 -08074). A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN (PLN -10 -08074). A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REPEAL SECTION 9326 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY REVOKING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR DOWNEY'S HISTORICAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010. On July 15, 2010, staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR. On September 3, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press - Telegram. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Introduction A draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) was prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan to assess the potential environmental consequences of implementing the proposed plan. The Draft EIR serves as an information document for decision makers and interested parties by describing the project's environmental setting, assessing its potential significant adverse impacts and recommending measures to reduce the anticipated impacts to levels of insignificance (a copy of the Draft EIR is attached, dated July, 2010 - -State Clearinghouse No. 2010051008). Also included in the draft environmental document is the water supply assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the specific plan. Section 10910 of the California Water Code and Section 15155(b) of the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require the applicable water supplier (i.e., City of Downey Utilities Division) to prepare a WSA for projects that exceed a certain size like the specific plan. The intent of the WSA is to identify the amount of water that the specific plan's uses will need and the City's ability to supply that amount of water. A more detailed discussion of the WSA is provided in Section D of this report. Another purpose of a Draft EIR is to provide a comparison of the project's anticipated effects to the forecasted impacts of alternative projects. Section 15126(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to discuss a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would achieve the same objectives as the project and produce fewer impacts. Two of the specific plan's objectives are: 1) "Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site, or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles"; and 2) "Promote housing, mixed -use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown" (see page 2 -5 of the DEIR for the complete list of the specific plan's objectives). Altematives devised for the Draft EIR include the 1) "No Project Alternative" (No Build); the 2) "No Project Alternative" (Build Pursuant to the Planning Area's Existing Downtown Plan Overlay Zone) and 3) "50 Percent Residential /50 Percent Commercial Alternative ". Section 6 in the Draft EIR (page 6 -1) describes each alternative's potential impacts and compares them to the project's anticipated effects. Section C of this environmental discussion also briefly describes the three altematives. In addition to considering the proposed Downtown Specific Plan, Planning Commissioners will concurrently consider what is known as the Final EIR for its adequacy. Documents that comprise PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 2 the Final EIR include the Draft EIR, the City of Downey's (i.e., Lead Agency) responses to the comments received on the DEIR during the environmental document's 45 -day public comment period, a list of the entities /interested parties commenting on the DEIR and the environmental document's mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). An MMRP is made up of a series of mitigation measures that are likened to "conditions of project approval ", which the City Council adopts when it approve s the project. Mitigation measures are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project's anticipated significant environmental effect(s) to a level of insignificance. A copy of the MMRP is attached to the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the Downtown Specific Plan and is labeled Exhibit C. A second Resolution the Planning Commissioners will consider is the one involving the Final EIR. It recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR as being adequate and complete in that it sufficiently identifies and the assesses the project's potential impacts. Distribution of the Draft EIR on July 15, 2010 initiated the environmental document's 45 -day public review and comment period, which ended on August 30. During that time, state, county and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR's contents and conclusions. Comments received and the City's responses to the comments are included as an attachment. The Draft EIR was prepared because the preliminary environmental analysis for the specific plan indicated that build -out of the plan could potentially impact a number of environmental areas. According to CEQA Guidelines, if a preliminary analysis reveals project implementation will adversely impact an environmental area(s), a Draft EIR must be prepared to assess the extent of the impact, as well contain mitigation measures to reduce the anticipated impact to a level of insignificance. Based on the preliminary analysis, Staff concluded that implementing the proposed specific plan had the potential to negatively impact the environmental areas listed below: • Land Use • Population and Housing • Traffic and Circulation • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming • Noise • Aesthetics • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity • Hydrology and Water Quality • Biological Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Public Services and Recreation Ultimately, the Draft EIR concluded that build -out of the planning area, in accordance with the proposed Downtown Specific Plan will result in a hand full of areas being significantly impacted. Implementing the EIR's recommended mitigation measures will avoid or substantially reduce most of the impacts to less than significant level. In fact, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 3 mitigation measures or project alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce the anticipated significant adverse environmental effects that would occur as a result of the project. Yet specific plan implementation is still expected to adversely impact the following environmental areas, even with the implementation of the EIR's suggested mitigation measures. • Construction- related emissions — nitrogen oxide. • The project's long -term or operational emissions generated by project -generated traffic, and indirectly by on -site energy consumption to power, heat and cool the buildings. • Cumulative air quality impacts. • Greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. • Cumulative noise impacts • Traffic impacts (Firestone /Paramount and Downey Ave. /2 " Street) In those cases where significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated ", the City Council may still approve the project if it first adopts a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" which sets forth the reasons why the lead agency finds that the project's "benefits" render acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In other words, the City Council determines that the specific plan's economic, social and other benefits outweigh its potential adverse effects. The project's benefits are provided in the "Findings of Fact" and "Statement of Overriding Considerations ", which are Exhibits "A" and "B" of the attached Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Downtown Specific Plan. Also attached is the Final EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan, dated September, 2010 that is organized into the following chapters. • Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed Project, information about the certification of the Final EIR, and a brief discussion of the intended uses of the Final EIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Chapter 2, Errata, discusses the revisions to the proposed project and Draft EIR, including text changes and /or changes to the appendices proposed by the City of Downey, as the lead agency, and text changes and /or changes in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. • Chapter 3, Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies and organizations that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 3 also includes a copy of each written comment letter and the City's written response. Significant Adverse Impacts Project development as noted above is anticipated to produce six (6) significant unavoidable adverse impacts. A brief discussion of the impacted areas is provided below. A) Construction- Related Emissions—Nitrogen Oxide NOx (nitrogen oxide), a smog - forming pollutant, is one of the five criteria pollutants that construction activities emit. Estimates indicate the level of NOx that the project's construction activities will emit will exceed the significance threshold of the South Coast Air Quality PLN- 10-08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 4 Management District (SCAQMD) for this pollutant, even with the implementation of the EIR's suggested mitigation measures. Estimates show that the project's construction activities during the first year of construction (2011) will emit approximately 204 pounds of NOx per day, compared to the SCAQMD's threshold of 100 pounds daily (the SCAQMD is the regional agency responsible for achieving state and federal air quality standards in the Southern Califomia and it establishes pollutant thresholds for emission sources). As a consequence, the estimated exceedance is considered an unavoidable significant adverse effect. However, it's important to note that like construction activities, the project's construction- related NOx impacts will be temporary and intermittent. In contrast to the 2011 estimate, the quantities of construction- related NOx emissions are expected to decline in subsequent years due to technological advancements in emission - control technology. In 2015 for example, the project's construction- related activities are anticipated to emit 142 pounds of NOx per day, while the quantity will decrease to 74 pounds daily by 2026. In assessing the project's construction- related emissions, the EIR preparers assumed because the project is a specific plan and not a specific development proposal, that the project's construction impacts would occur intermittently for approximately 15 years, which is the estimated time for project build -out. In comparison to the NOx emissions, the EIR's recommended mitigation measures are expected to reduce the other four (4) criteria pollutants below their respective significance thresholds. They include reactive organic gas (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 microns or less (PM10) and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). Project construction activities will consist of demolition, site preparation, earthmoving and general construction. Earthmoving activities include cut - and -fill operations, trenching, soil compaction and grading. Emissions generated by these activities include: • Dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated by grading and earth moving activities. • Combustion emissions primarily from the operation of heavy off -road construction equipment (primarily diesel operated), portable auxiliary equipment and construction worker automobile trips to and from the site (primarily - gasoline operated). • Evaporative emissions from asphalt paving and architectural coatings. B) Long -Term Operational Emissions Operational emissions are long -term impacts generated by both stationary and mobile sources that result from normal day -to-day activities at the project site after construction is completed and the project is occupied. Stationary source emissions are generated by the onsite consumption of electricity and natural gas (cooking, space heating and cooling and water heating), while emissions from mobile sources are generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the site. Like the project's construction- related impacts on air quality, the DEIR evaluated the project's operational air impacts using the five criteria pollutants. The results of the analysis showed that the project's criteria emissions are forecasted to exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds of all five of the criteria pollutants. However, when considering this potential impact, it's important to note that the proposed specific plan is not the typical development proposal in terms of scale and completion time. The specific plan area encompasses approximately 131 acres and build -out is expected to take about 15 years. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 5 C) Cumulative Air Quality Impacts A cumulative impact is an effect a project is anticipated to produce when combined with the effects of other projects within the same area that are currently under construction, as well as probable future projects (CEQA's Guidelines require that EIRs evaluate a project's cumulative impacts, as well as project - generated impacts). Since the proposed specific plan will individually have a significant impact on air quality, it will have a significant cumulative impact as well. D) Greenhouse Gas Impacts Project construction and its long -term operational activities are expected to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project in turn will contribute to global climate change with the emission of GHG gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The most common and abundant greenhouse gas that results from human activity is carbon dioxide (CO followed by methane and nitrous oxide. These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming potential. When dealing with an array of emissions, GHGs are converted to their carbon dioxide equivalents for comparison purposes and are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO units. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it's reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth's climate caused by the impact of human activities and natural fluctuations that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, precipitation and temperature. Although there is a disagreement as to the speed of the global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between the increased emission of GHGs and long -term global temperature. Examples of potential warming impacts in Califomia include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. The project's construction activities are anticipated to emit 8,156 metric tons of CO2e annually, while at build -out it is estimated to emit 319,251 metric tons of CO per year (emissions from project - generated traffic and electricity consumption). Further, GHG emissions are considered to be cumulative impact, rather than a localized effect, since they affect global climate over a relatively long time frame. Until the passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (better known as Assembly Bill 32) in 2006, EIRs and mitigated negative declarations did not evaluate a project's anticipated GHG emissions and its potential impacts on global climate change. AB 32 changed that. It requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures so statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved the 2020 emissions target of 427 metric tons of CO of GHGs. The 2020 target requires the reduction of 169 metric tons of CO or approximately 30 percent of the state's projected amount for 2020 of 596 metric tons of CO CARB has also determined that the successful implementation of AB 32 relies in part on local governments' land use planning and urban growth decisions since they have primary authority to PLN- 10-08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 6 plan, zone, approve and permit land development to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. According to CARB's regulations that implement AB 32, the proposed project is considered a major source of GHG emissions because it will emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO annually. Its estimated GHG impacts will also exceed the screening thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As a consequence, the project is expected to conflict with the state's ability to meet its AB 32 goal of reducing 169 million metric tons of CO or approximately 30 percent of the state's projected 2020 emissions forecast of 596 million metric tons of CO per year. E) Cumulative Noise Impacts Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, together with anticipated future development in the planning area (i.e., cumulative impacts) will increase traffic levels, which in turn, will increase noise levels, particularly in the vicinity of one (1) of the study area's 11 intersections. The area that is expected to be significantly impacted is development along Paramount Boulevard, south of 3` Street. The combined effect of specific plan build -out, plus anticipated future development is expected to increase noise levels along this street section by three decibels, which is the significance threshold for noise impacts when the affected area's existing noise level already exceeds the normally acceptable range for residential uses, i.e., 60 decibels, which is the case along this segment of Paramount. The noise level along Paramount Boulevard south of 3` Street is expected to increase due to cumulative development from 72 to 75 decibels. Yet when considering the project's cumulative noise impacts, Staff suggests it's worth recognizing two mitigating factors. First, like all new residences, prospective dwelling units in the affected area are subject to Title 24, which mandates that a unit's interior shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Secondly, a 3- decibel change is generally difficult to detect, whereas a 5- decibel change is typically what is necessary before a noticeable change can be perceived. F) Traffic Impacts—Firestone Blvd. /Paramount Blvd. and Downey Ave. /2' St. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan evaluated the effects of project - generated traffic on eleven (11) downtown intersections. It concluded that the specific plan at build -out is anticipated to adversely impact three of (3) the eleven intersections: 1) Paramount Boulevard /Firestone Boulevard; 2) Downey Avenue /Firestone Boulevard and 3) Downey Avenue /2nd Street. In Los Angeles County, a project's forecasted traffic impact is considered a significant adverse impact when project - generated traffic reduces an intersection's operating condition or level of service to LOS "F" and adds 0.02% or more traffic to its volume capacity ratio. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the congestion management agency for Los Angeles County and it established this significance threshold for intersections as part of MTA's Congestion Management Program. Further, level of service (LOS) is a qualitative indicator of an intersection's operating condition, which takes into account congestion levels and length of delay. LOS assesses drivers' satisfaction and it is structured in the same manner as students are graded: LOS "A" being best, while LOS "F" is failing. To put it another way, LOS "A" is free flow, while an intersection at LOS "F" is overloaded and it takes several signal changes for drivers to pass through. The traffic impact analysis further concluded that it is feasible to mitigate the project's impacts to the Firestone Boulevard /Downey Avenue intersection. There is sufficient existing right -of -way at PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 7 this intersection to make the roadway improvements that are necessary to restore its operating condition to LOS "E ". However, the analysis also indicated that it is potentially infeasible to implement all of the intersection improvements that would be needed to restore the other two intersections' operating conditions to an acceptable level of service- -LOS E. For example, the project impact to the Firestone Boulevard /Paramount Boulevard intersection can be lessened, but not eliminated because there is insufficient right -of -way at the intersection's four (4) approaches to implement all of the necessary roadway improvements. Improvements that would be needed to restore the intersection's operating condition to what is considered an acceptable level of service, LOS "E" ( .0.963 ICU value) include: 1) providing three (3) through lanes along each approach and 2) adding another southbound left turn lane to create a dual southbound left-turn lane and a northbound and westbound exclusive right -tum lane. Yet instead of these measures, the traffic study suggests, and Staff concurs, carrying out improvements that can implemented within the intersection's right -of- way, which will restore the intersection's ICU value to 1.074 (LOS "F "). Staff also suggests that installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 2" Street, (i.e., recommended mitigation measure), also resulting in the need to enlarge the intersection, is inconsistent with the City's objective of creating a walkable, pedestrian- oriented Downtown. There is insufficient right -of -way at this intersection to install a signal so implementing the recommended measures would involve property takes. Installing a traffic signal at the Downey Avenue /2 " Street intersection would in turn, make it necessary to install a signal at Downey Avenue and 3` Street because of their proximity. Installing a signal at one would make it necessary to install a signal at the other so as to coordinate their operations in order to ensure their traffic queues don't interfere with the other's operations. Moreover, installing a signal at Downey Avenue /3` Street intersection will result in the need to expand the intersection, which would compromise the specific plan's objectives for pedestrians. Alternatives Analysis As discussed previously, CEQA requires that an EIR compare the effects of a "reasonable range of alternatives" to the effects of the proposed project. Alternatives selected for comparison are those that attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the proposed project. Additionally, the range of alternatives is governed by the rule of reason, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit and informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation. Three altematives were evaluated in the Draft EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan and each is briefly discussed in the paragraphs below. A) Altemative 1: No Project (No Build) Altemative Under Alternative 1 or the No Project (No Build) Altemative, no expansion or additional development would occur in the specific plan area. The existing Downtown Overlay zone would remain "as -is" with no improvements and no other new development other than changes related to normal repairs and maintenance. As a result, Alternative 1 would replicate the continuance of conditions in the Specific Plan area. CEQA requires the evaluation of the No Project Alternative along with its potential impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing the No Project Alternative is to enable decision - makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving it. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 8 Under Alternative 1, potential environmental effects would be minimized compared to the proposed project. Of the 17 environmental areas studied in the Draft EIR, Altemative 1 would have a greater impact than the proposed project on three areas (i.e., Aesthetics, Cultural Resources and Land Use). Moreover, Altemative 1 is expected to have the same impact as the proposed project on Agriculture and Forestry Resources. On the other hand, it is expected to have less of an impact on remaining 13 areas. However, the specific plan planning area would remain static. The lack of development will conflict with the City's goals for the specific plan area, particularly those that envision a vibrant, pedestrian - friendly area. The lack of development will also conflict with the goals to make Downtown the center of entertainment and dining in the City, and goals to enhance the importance to the City as an economic center. B) Altemative 2: No Project (Build) Altemative Alternative 2 or the No Project (Build) Alternative envisages the planning area retaining its existing land use regulations, hence development would continue in accordance with the area's existing zoning designations. Specifically, the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone would continue to govern the bulk or central portion of Downtown, while a mix of zoning classifications would regulate the edges. Among the various classifications governing the periphery include the Central Business District (C- 3), the Professional Office zone (C -P) and the Multi - Family Residential zone (R -3). Unfortunately, the mix of zoning classifications, together with the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone does not provide a unified development vision for Downtown, plus it conflicts with the "Mixed Use" General Plan policies for the area. Alternative 2 in comparison to development of the proposed specific plan is expected to have the same or similar impact as the proposed plan on 10 of the 17 environmental areas studied. Key among them includes air quality, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and transportation and circulation. In contrast, Altemative 2 is anticipated to have a greater impact than the specific plan on aesthetics and recreation. Under Alternative 2 with respect to aesthetics , the planning area's zoning classifications provide development standards; however, they don't have architectural design guidelines, which have resulted in developments featuring a variety of architectural styles, but no unified focus. The absence of a unified architectural design theme translates into an aesthetic impact, according to the Draft EIR. The Downtown Specific Plan by contrast features design guidelines. Alternative 2 is also expected to have a greater impact than the proposed specific plan on nearby recreational facilities; unlike the specific plan, the planning area's existing zoning classifications do not provide for open space and recreational facilities existing Downtown Plan Overlay Zone does not provide for open space or recreational facilities. As a consequence, Alternative 2 could result in greater impacts to nearby recreational facilities. For the remaining five (5) environmental areas, Alternative 2 is expected to have less of an impact on them than the contemplated specific plan. These areas include utilities and service systems, public services, land use, noise, population and housing. For example, potential impacts to utilities and public services impact are expected to be Tess than significant because full build -out under the planning area's Mixed Use General Plan category has been anticipated. C) Altemative 3: 50 Percent Residential/50 Percent Commercial Altemative PLN- 10-08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 9 Alternative 3's land use mix is composed of 50% residential and 50% commercial, which translates at build -out into 1,620 dwelling units and slightly more than 2.6 million square feet of commercial space. As such, Alternative 3 proposes developing more residential and less commercial than the specific plan envisions. The specific plan by contrast envisions 40% residential and 60% residential and build -out under the plan totals 932 dwelling units and 3,137,416 square feet of commercial floor area. In the end, Alternative 3 proposes 688 more residences than the specific plan, but 537,416 square feet less of commercial space. Improvements occupying the planning area to date include 197 dwelling units and 1,828,519 square feet of commercial floor area; Alternative 3 would add 1,423 new dwelling units and 777,408 square feet of commercial space. The difference in the land use mix is basically the only difference between Alternative 3 and the contemplated specific plan. The rest of the components that make up the specific plan would also apply to Altemative 3, including design guidelines, development standards, floor area ratios, proposed densities and building heights. . In terms of potential impacts, Altemative 3 is expected to result in the same or similar impacts as the Downtown Specific Plan to all of the areas studied in the Draft EIR, except public services and population and housing. Alternative 3 is anticipated to have a greater impact on public services than the specific plan, but less of an impact on population and housing. For population and housing, Alternative 3 would reduce the jobs -to- housing ratio so that fewer jobs would be available in Downey, compared to the specific plan. Therefore, with more dwelling units and fewer jobs, Alternative 3 would result in fewer long -term impacts related to population and housing. For public services (i.e., police protection, fire protection, schools, parks and recreation), Alternative 3 is anticipated to have a greater impact on them than the Specific Plan, which is due to its additional dwelling units. That is, Altemative 3 is proposing 688 more residences than the specific plan, which translates into about 2,312 more people downtown [688 x 3.36 average household size (US Census Bureau average 2006 -08) }and residents typically have a greater need for public services. Water Supply Assessment This section discusses the purpose and scope of the water supply assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan. Like a Draft EIR, a WSA is an information document that is part of a project's environmental review process. It is prepared in conjunction with the land use approval process to determine whether additional water supplies are needed for a project, or if sufficient supplies exist. Another purpose of a WSA is to achieve better coordination during the land use planning process between local water suppliers and local land use agencies when considering a development project that among other thresholds, includes more than 500 dwelling units, more than 500,000 square feet of retail space and employs more than 1,000 people, or more than 250,000 square feet of office space and employs 1,000 people, or a mixed use project that includes on or more of the above categories. The Downtown Specific Plan as described initially is a mixed -use development that is composed of 60% commercial uses and 40% residential; the project at build -out proposes 735 new residences and 1,308,897 square feet of commercial space. The Draft WSA prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan provides a detailed analysis of the amount of water necessary to meet the needs of the proposed development, as well as the City's PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 10 ability to supply that amount of water. A copy of the Draft WSA is provided in the Draft EIR on the enclosed CD and is labeled Appendix 8. Section 15155(b) of CEQA's Guidelines and Senate Bill 610 (now codified as Water Code sections 10910 and 10911), adopted in 2002, requires that cities, as part of the CEQA review process, obtain water supply assessments from the local water supplier that analyze the sufficiency of water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands, including demand associated with the project over a 20 -year horizon for normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years. For the Downtown Specific Plan, the City of Downey Utilities Division is the local water supplier and the EIR consultant prepared the WSA under the direction of the Utilities Division. Section 15155(b) also requires that the governing body of the water supplier approve the WSA by Resolution, in this case the Downey City Council. The Council, according to CEQA Guidelines, shall determine whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing planned and future uses. Under the California Water Code, a public water supplier is also required to determine whether the water demand of a prospective project was included as part of the City's most recently- adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). California Water Code requires that all urban water suppliers file an UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five (5) years. The UWMP describes and evaluates a community's current and future water usage, supply, reclamation and demand management activities. The City of Downey filed a UWMP with the Department of Water Resources in 2005 and its analysis showed that water demand for the proposed project was accounted for in the plan's projected population and growth. As part of its preparation, the 2005 UWMP used population projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the California Department of Finance, which were based on maximum build -out for the planning area, as provided in the City's General Plan. Additionally, the planning area's Mixed Use General Plan category took into account the kind of uses and development intensity that the Downtown Specific Plan proposes. Full build -out of the proposed specific plan is estimated to result in a net increase in water demand within the site of approximately 447 acre -feet per year (AFY). The WSA concluded that total projected water supplies available to the City of Downey will be sufficient to serve the projected demand associated with the proposed project over the next 20 -year period in addition to existing and planned future uses within the service area of the City of Downey. GENERAL PLAN State law limits the number of times per year that the City can amend any specific element of the General Plan. All of the proposed General Plan amendments discussed below are within the Land Use Element, thus will only count as a single amendment. This will be the first amendment to the Land Use Element for 2010. Text Amendment In January 2005, the City Council adopted Vision 2025, a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan sets forth several Land Use Designations, including the Mixed Use designation. Each of these land use designations is discussed in the "Balance of Land Uses" PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 11 chapter of the Land Use Element, with exception to the Mixed Use designation. Instead the Mixed Use designation is discussed in the "Livable Communities" chapter. As currently written, residential developments in the Mixed Use Land Use Designation are limited to no more than 24 units per acre. In order to prepare the General Plan for the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan, staff is recommending the "Balance of Land Uses" and "Livable Communities" chapters of the Land Use Element in the General Plan be amended as follows: "Balance of Land Uses" — Staff is proposing to add the following description of the Mixed Use Land Use Designation to this chapter, which will bring this designation into consistency with the other land use designations. Mixed Use The Mixed Use Designation is to provide for development of a variety of uses (including retail, office, service and residential), on the same parcel or within close proximity of each other. Additionally, the Mixed Use Designation should encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront -style shopping streets that creates a more active and vibrant street life. The maximum density for residential developments shall not exceed 75 units per acre. The maximum intensity of the Mixed Use designation shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 5:1. "Livable Communities" — Inasmuch as density and intensity will now be set in the "Balance of Land Uses" chapters, staff is proposing to amend the "Livable Communities" chapter to eliminate the references to density and intensity. This change occurs at separate three spots in the chapter, once in each of the discussions for Downtown Downey, Downey Landing, and the Green Line MTA Station. Land Use Designation Amendment As noted in Exhibit 1 below, the majority of the area within the Downtown Downey Specific Plan has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use (MU), with the exception of the Gallatin Medical site, which is designated Office (0) and Medium Density Residential (MDR); and the Rives Mansion, which is designated Office (0) and Low Density Residential (LDR). To accommodate the proposed Specific Plan adoption, staff is recommending that the City update the General Plan Land Use Designation for all of these parcels to Mixed Use (MU). PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 12 Findings Exhibit 1 — Parcel with General Plan Amendment In order to approve the General Plan Amendment, the following findings must be adopted: 1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments, which include text changes to allow higher residential densities in the downtown area and land use designation changes for several parcels to allow mixed use, are being proposed as part of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. As part of the Specific Plan, an analysis of all of the goals and policies was conducted. Appendix A of the Specific Plan (incorporated herein by reference) denotes 42 individual goals and policies of the General Plan that the Specific Plan is consistent with. Based on the consistency with these 42 goals and policies, staff is of the opinion that the proposed General Plan Amendment will be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. PLN- 10-08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 13 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the surrounding environment. The proposed General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. It is staffs opinion that these changes will be compatible with and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining properties, since development standards have been incorporated into the specific plan to safeguard neighboring properties. Additionally, mitigation measures are being recommended as part of the Final EIR that will lessen the impacts that were identified in the Final EIR. 3. That the proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed General Plan Amendments will allow the creation of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which envisions a pedestrian oriented mixed use environment. This environment will allow people to live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. It is staff's opinion that the mixed use environment will promote the public health, safety, and welfare since it will promote people to walk between destinations or between their home and work. 4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with provisions of Article IX. The General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. Since the Specific Plan is a stand alone document, which allows an array of uses, it does not alter Article IX of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the General Plan Amendments will not conflict with the Municipal Code. SPECIFIC PLAN In drafting the Specific Plan, staff envisioned an environment with mixed uses, in which Downtown Downey is transformed to a vibrant urban center providing a wide array of dining, working, living, shopping, entertainment, and cultural opportunities all within a short walking distance. In order draft the Specific Plan in a manner to achieve this goal, the following five objectives were set: • Establish Downtown Downey as a diverse area with a variety of activities to support and entertain all ages; • Promote the Downtown as an economic core creating new employment opportunities; • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles; • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures; Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey; and • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 14 Document Organization The Downtown Downey Specific Plan includes seven chapters, each providing information and guidelines for the development and implementation of the uses within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area. A brief description of each chapter is provided below. Introduction: The introductory chapter provides general information about the Specific Plan, the history and location of Downtown, a project summary, and discussion of consistency with State law and local governing documents. Land Use Districts: The Land Use chapter describes the five land use districts identified for Downtown, and provides a Land Use District Map and a Table of Permitted Uses. Design Guidelines and Standards: The Design Guidelines and Standards chapter provides specific standards for how buildings in the Specific Plan area can be developed, including setbacks, parking requirements, as well as guidelines to enhance the architectural style of existing and future buildings. This chapter provides guidelines for design features including: streetscapes, signage, lighting, rooflines, and other design elements found Downtown. Mobility Plan: The Mobility chapter identifies established and planned conditions for roadways within the Specific Plan area, including contextual exhibits and conceptual street sections. This chapter also explores options for alternative forms of transportation in Downtown, including bicycles, buses, and walking. Parking Plan: The Parking chapter identifies parking strategies for the Downtown Specific Plan area and addresses how the City can better utilize over - parked districts and create shared parking opportunities for under - parked areas. Infrastructure Plan: The Infrastructure chapter provides information about accessibility to key utilities and public services including water, sewer, energy, police, fire, and other services necessary to develop the area. Administration and Implementation: The Administration and Implementation chapter identifies strategies to execute the recommendations put forth in the Specific Plan. This chapter also includes the necessary steps to implement the Specific Plan document and the actions required to modify the Plan. Appendices: Two appendices accompany the Specific Plan. The first compares the goals and policies of the adopted 2025 Downey General Plan to the goals and guidelines found in the Specific Plan. The second provides definitions of terms used in the document. PLN- 10-08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 15 Boundaries As previously noted, in October of 2000, the City of Downey adopted the Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical District as an overlay zone. The boundaries of the downtown overlay are roughly bounded by the Union Pacific railroad right of way to the south, Civic Center Drive /Dolan Avenue to the east (extending to Brookshire Ave on the south side of Firestone Blvd, Myrtle Street to the west (including Myrtle Plaza on the west side of Myrtle between Second and Third), and an irregular north boundary that extends to Fifth Street to the north. The proposed Specific Plan will extend these boundaries to Brookshire Avenue to the east, the Union Pacific railroad right -of- way to the south, Paramount Boulevard to the west, and an irregular northern boundary along Fourth Street, extending to Fifth Street in areas and including the former Gallatin Medical site. The Rives Mansion, located at the northwest corner of Third Street and Paramount Boulevard, has also been included in the project area (refer to Exhibit 2). As proposed, the Downtown Downey Specific Plan area will encompass approximately 131 acres, in lieu of the approximate 80 acres of the current overlay zone. Land Use District Exhibit 2 — Downtown Boundaries To guide development in the Downtown, the Specific Plan area has been subdivided into five districts (refer to Exhibit 3), each with its own intensity, development standards and permitted uses. These districts include the Firestone Boulevard Gateway, Paramount Boulevard Professional, Downtown Core, Downtown Residential, and Civic Center District. With exception of the Civic Center District, all of the land use districts allow residential, commercial, or a combination thereof. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 16 ::::3 Specific Plan Area CO Land Use District Boundary O Paramount Boulevard Professional District © Downtown Residential District © Downtown Core District Q Civic Center District © Firestone Boulevard Gateway District A discussion of each of these districts follows: Exhibit 3 — Land Use Districts Firestone Boulevard Gateway District — This district is between Second Street and the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way, and is the most intense of the five land use districts. The Firestone Boulevard District will be a lively area consisting of high intensity /density development with flexible retail, office, and residential space. Entertainment uses such as bowling, sports bars, and dancing may also be located in this District. Structures will be permitted up to six stories tall with residential densities between 40 -75 dwelling units per acre. Along Firestone Boulevard, on nonresidential uses are allowed on the ground floor of structures. Paramount Boulevard Professional District — This district generally includes all of the properties adjacent to Paramount Boulevard, including Rives mansion and the Gallatin Medical Center site. The primary intent of the Paramount Boulevard Professional District is to create a professional office environment with related service uses (quick lunch dining, coffee, and juice bars). Structures PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 17 are permitted to a height of four stories and residential density is limited to 20-40 dwelling units per acre. Downtown Core District — The Downtown Core District is generally located north of Second Street and south of Fifth Street between La Reina Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The Downtown Core focuses around Downey Avenue and Third Street. The intent of this district is to create a vibrant, pedestrian -oriented downtown with a mix of uses. The objective is to produce a unique walkable shopping, dining, working, and living experience. Residential densities in this district are 20-40 units per acre and structures are limited to three stories. The ground floor of buildings facing Downey Avenue is reserved for non - residential uses. Downtown Residential District - The Downtown Residential District is located north of Second Street and south of Fifth Street between College Avenue and La Reina Avenue. The Downtown Residential District focuses on a variety of residential use, but also allows supporting commercial and professional office uses. Allowable residential densities are from 8 to 40 units per acre and structure heights allowed up to four stories. Civic Center District - The Civic Center District is located west of Brookshire Avenue and east and south of Civic Center Drive. The Civic Center area is intended to provide for civic - related uses in Downey. Since the Civic Center District is primarily City owned property, there are no set development standards; instead development is subject to City Council approval. Urban Design One of the goals of the Downtown Specific Plan is to create a pedestrian oriented environment. To accomplish this, Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan focuses on urban design standards. These standards include development standards (setbacks, height limits, step- backs, floor area ratio, etc) and architectural guidelines for store fronts. As an example, a new mixed use building is required to be pushed toward the street with large windows areas at eye level. There shall be a pedestrian entrance at least every 75 feet in the building and the use of architectural emphasis for the building entries is encouraged. In addition to the building design guidelines, the Specific Plan sets forth guidelines for right -of- way improvements. This includes lighting, street furniture, parkway landscaping, and enhanced intersections. Signs To further the goal of converting the downtown area from auto - centric to pedestrian oriented, the allowances for permitted signs have been included in the Specific Plan. The new sign standards will prohibit new freestanding and monument signs (existing signs are subject to the non - conforming section of the code). Wall signs and marquee signs are allowed on facades with customer entries and the use of projecting /hanging signs is encouraged. Additionally, provisions are included to allow the City to adopt a way- finding and gateway sign program for the downtown area. Parking Public parking is currently provided throughout downtown within 12 parking lots and on every public street. An advantage of creating a pedestrian oriented environment, the City is able to take advantage of an economy of scale and utilize park -once approach to providing public PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 18 parking in Downtown Downey. The result is a reduced parking requirement than what is typically seen in traditionally zoning. Based on the parking study conducted as part of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, currently sufficient parking in the downtown area. As such, the Specific Plan is maintaining the current parking standards for the downtown area (refer to Exhibit 4). Staff believes that maintaining the current parking standards will provide a catalyst for new development. Notwithstanding this, that parking study acknowledges that additional supply is potentially needed on the east side of downtown and the City will need to restudy parking when the demand hits 60% of the supply (currently at approximately 41%), at which time parking standards may need to be adjusted. The Downtown Downey Specific Plan, much like the current Downtown Overlay Zone, takes advantage of public parking to meet parking requirements. This is accomplished through the Downtown Downey Parking Credit program, where the City agrees to accept a fee I exchange for a business and /or property owner to utilize the public parking to meet their parking requirements. The Specific Plan maintains this program; however, it shifts the approval authority from the City Council to the City Planner. It should be noted that residential developments cannot take advantage of the parking credits, thus must provide all required parking onsite. Furthermore, as noted in the previous paragraph, the City will need to restudy parking when the demand hits 60% of the supply. As proposed, parking space size will be 8 wide by 18' deep, with exception of an allowance of up to 15% compact spaces being allowed in parking structures that have a size of 8' wide by 15' deep. Open Space Exhibit 4 — Parking Requirements Providing open space is a critical issue for a downtown area. Not only will the open space provide much needed outdoor areas for the residents, but it can be utilized as community gathering space for outdoor concerts, festivals, fairs, etc. The open space can be provided as pocket parks, play grounds, public plazas, and tree -lined corridors. Since open space is not required on private property, the Specific Plan recommends that the City adopt a parkland acquisition program for downtown, where all development projects within the downtown area would be subject to in -lieu fee that could be used to purchase and improve open space in the downtown area. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 19 Findings In order to approve the Specific Plan, the following findings must be adopted: 1. The proposed location of the development and proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained is consistent with the goals and polices embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council. The boundaries of the Specific Plan are within the General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use. In accordance with the "Mixed Use" category, coupled with the direction provided by the 2005 General Plan Update, the Downtown Specific Plan was prepared to implement the policies, which reflect the "Mixed Use" category and to implement policies related to downtown Downey. Furthermore, Appendix A of the Specific Plan (incorporated herein by reference) denotes 42 individual goals and policies of the General Plan that the Specific Plan is consistent with. 2. The proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of Article IX and the zone in which the site is located. Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code includes a Mixed Use zone. Likewise the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan is designed to implement a mixed use environment. The intent of the Mixed Use zone is 1) encourage mixed -use buildings with retail, office, service, and /or other uses on the ground floor and residential units above the nonresidential space; 2) encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront -style shopping streets that creates a more active and vibrant street life; 3) strengthen the City's economic base, and provide employment opportunities close to home for residents of the City; and 4) promote the health and welfare of City residents by encouraging physical activity, reducing vehicular traffic, encouraging alternative transportation where possible, and promoting greater social interaction. The Downtown Downey Specific Plan incorporates development standards that will enforce the intent of the Mixed Use zone. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the specific plan is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of Article IX. 3. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to such a development, nor detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City. The Downtown Specific Plan is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and will systematically execute the objectives of the General Plan and is in the interest of and furthers the public health, safety, general welfare, and the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan relating to advancing livable community concepts and focusing on areas in which livable communities concepts could have the most impact. Furthermore, the Specific Plan will allow people to live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. It is PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 20 staff's opinion that the mixed use environment will promote the public health, safety, and welfare since it will promote people to walk between destinations or between their home and work. 4. The Specific Plan and resulting development will be consistent with the provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 3 of the California Government Code, commencing with Section 65450 as may be subsequently amended by the State. DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ZONE With adoption of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, the City will need to revoke the Downtown Overlay Zone. Furthermore, since the Downtown Overlay Zone is codified by reference as Municipal Code Section 9326, staff is recommending that a Code Amendment be processed to remove these references. Findings Article 8 of Chapter 3 of the California Government Code sets forth specific requirements and standards for the content and adoption of Specific Plans. This includes that the Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. As noted in the first finding of this section, it is staffs opinion that the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, according the to the Government Code, the Specific Plan shall contain text and diagrams for the area covered by the specific plan, all of the public improvements (roadways, sewers, water mains, etc) within the specific plan, and necessary programs to implement the specific plan. The proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan contains all of these requirements. In order to approve the Code Amendment, the following findings must be adopted: 1. That the requested amendment is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare; and The proposed Code Amendment is to repeal the existing Downtown Overlay Zone, which will be replaced by the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. As noted in the previous section, it is staffs opinion that the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is needed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. To avoid a conflict with the policies and requirements of the Specific Plan, the Code Amendment is necessary and desirable. 2. That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the General Plan. Repealing the Downtown Overlay Zone will allow implementation of the new Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This action will allow the Livable Communities concept set forth in the General Plan to be advanced. As such, staff believes the Code Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 21 CORRESPONDENCE As of the date that this report was printed, staff has only received one letter regarding the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which is from Odemaris Valdivia (attached). In her letter, Ms. Valdivia states that she feels the Rives Mansion should not be included in the Specific Plan area and should remain zoned for residential uses only. CONCLUSION While the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" was adopted in October of 2000, it has had few successes. The proposed new Downtown Downey Specific Plan will expand the downtown area from 80 acres to 131 acres. It provides a powerful tool to guide development in the downtown area and will encourage a pedestrian oriented environment in which residents can live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. Furthermore, staff feels that it will provide the necessary catalyst to implement new development projects in the downtown area. As such, Staff is concluding that the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is necessary and desirable. Staff is further concluding that the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council adopt the EIR, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan, and repeal the existing Downtown Overlay zone. H:\ PLANNING \BLUMENTHAL \Downtown \Staff Reports \Staff Report_2010- 9- 15.doc PLN -10 -08074 — Downtown Downey Specific Plan September 15, 2010 - Page 22 Page 2 DRAFT VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 3. PLN -10 -08074 - DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN Location: Owner /Applicant: Authorized Agent: Staff: CEQA: Request: The boundaries of the Downtown Overlay are roughly bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad right of way to the south, Civic Center Drive /Dolan Avenue to the east (extending to Brookshire Ave on the south side of Firestone Blvd.), Myrtle Street to the west (including Myrtle Plaza on the west side of Myrtle between Second and Third), and an irregular north boundary that extends to Fifth Street to the north. The proposed Specific Plan will extend these boundaries to Brookshire Avenue to the east, the Union Pacific Railroad right - of -way to the south, Paramount Boulevard to the west, and an irregular northern boundary along Fourth Street, extending to Fifth Street in areas and including the former Gallatin Medical site. The Rives Mansion, located at the northwest corner of Third Street and Paramount Boulevard, has also been included in the project area. City of Downey City of Downey David Blumenthal /Mark Sellheim As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this application and was previously circulated for review. A request to recommend that the City Council: 1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan; 3) Adopt the Downtown Downey Specific Plan; and 4) Repeal Section 9326 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code, thereby revoking the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District ". Vice - Chairman Kiefer opened the public hearing for the Downtown Specific Plan. Senior Planner, David Blumenthal presented the PowerPoint slides which documented the process the City has followed in order to bring the Downtown Specific Plan to the Commission. He recapped the community outreach events: Stakeholder interviews in October, 2009; a public workshop December 2009; EIR scoping meeting May 26, 2010; Downtown Project Area Committee meeting June 2010; and the Joint Workshop July 6, 2010. He explained and provided exhibits of the revised boundaries of the plan and went on to describe the five Land Use Districts contained within the proposed plan: 1) Paramount Boulevard Professional District; 2) Downtown Residential District; 3) Downtown Core District; 4) Civic Center District; and 5) Firestone Boulevard Gateway District. In addition, Mr. Blumenthal's presentation involved: 1) Elements of the proposed urban design; 2) the City's evaluation of available parking, known parking deficiencies and how the City would compensate; 3) types of signs the City would like to see utilized in the downtown. 4) The environmental impact report, its findings and how the City would mitigate impacts where able and those unavoidable impacts, which included: "construction - related emissions — nitrogen oxide, the project's long -term or operational emissions generated by project - generated traffic, and indirectly by on -site energy consumption to power, heat and cool the buildings; cumulative air quality impacts; greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts; traffic impacts (Firestone /Paramount and Downey Avenue /2 " Street ". Commissioner Kiefer inquired how the anticipated noise figures (noise decibels) are determined. Senior Planner Blumenthal explained that the consultants have computer programs (models) and formulas to determine the anticipated increases in noise. Mr. Blumenthal noted that since some of the traffic, air and green house gas (GHG) impacts would not be mitigated below a level of significance, the City has prepared the Statement of Overriding Considerations DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 – PAGE 2 Page 3 DRAFT which indicates that the City realizes there will be unavoidable negative impacts to the downtown area caused by this plan, but the City believes the benefits far out way the impacts. He noted that the Statement of Overriding Considerations explains why the decision - making body considers the adverse effects to be considered "acceptable" because of the greater benefit to the city as a whole. He noted that this statement is incorporated into the EIR and will be adopted as part of the EIR. Mr. Blumenthal also explained the proposed actions would include amendments within the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. He clarified: 1) within the "Balance of Land Uses" Chapter, staff is proposing to add /revise the mixed use definition, to bring it into consistency with the other land use designations; and 2) because density and intensity will now be set in the "Balance of Land Uses" chapters, Mr. Blumenthal noted that staff is proposing to amend the "Livable Communities" chapter to eliminate the references to density and intensity. In addition, the amendment will include an amendment to the map to include the additional sites to the Specific Plan area, designating those areas to Mixed Use. Mr. Blumenthal stated staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission, is to take 4 actions, all recommendations to City Council. They are: 1) To certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) approve an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan; 3) Adopt the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074); and 4) Repeal Section 9326 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code, thereby revoking the Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District. Commissioner Murray asked Mr. Blumenthal to clarify which parcels would be affected by revoking the Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District. Mr. Blumenthal noted that under the Specific Plan, the only historical structure acknowledged is the Rives Mansion and that is because of its architecture. He noted that this structure is immediately recognizable and is covered in the Plan. Other structures may be deemed historic when placed under scrutiny and if the State or Federal government places them on the list of historic structures, which would afford them those protections. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he would be reclusing himself from discussions on this item. Vice - Chairman Kiefer asked about the 15% compact parking formula; whether that is considered the standard with other cities? Senior Planner Blumenthal said that it is typical for cities to allow from 15 -25% compact. Downey has elected to go on the lower end at 15 %. Vice - Chairman Kiefer inquired why the City wanted to include the Rives Mansion in District 1 (Paramount Boulevard Professional District). Mr. Blumenthal stated that the public had brought the Rives Mansion into discussion during outreach meetings, feeling that it held significance and should be addressed. Also, although the Rives Mansion is on the western side of Paramount Boulevard, it provides the western book -end along Third Street; noting that from City Hall one can view the Rives Mansion by looking westward. He stated that Downey Avenue and 3` Street are two of the main streets within the downtown. He noted that if included, the facility could be used for one of numerous types of uses, to include: cultural /art museum, banquet facility, etc. Vice - Chairman Kiefer invited the public to address the Commission. Wishing to address the Commission, from the audience: 1. Dee DeYoung, 7954 6 Street, facing Gallatin Medical Center. She stated she is against including the former Gallatin Medical Center in the plan to become Mixed Use. Her concerns were directed toward 1) the lack of enforcement of semi trucks parking along Paramount Boulevard, near 10631 Paramount Blvd; 2) the impact on the residences that are affected by parking on streets and increasing (bumper -to- bumper) traffic; 3) the lack of signs for street sweeping, saying that the street sweepers just swing around those vehicles and the street doesn't get properly cleaned. 4) She stated there was not enough parking provided for the hospice (on Paramount ?) 5) Also, the house rentals along 6 Street park many vehicles on the street and DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 — PAGE 3 Page 4 DRAFT add to the congestion. She restated her preference that the parcels remain zoned for Professional Office. 2. Odemaris Valdivia, 7931 3 Street, noted she had also provided a letter of correspondence. (Receipt was acknowledged. It was included in the Planning Commissioners packets.) Ms. Valdivia stated her concerns were also in regards to increased traffic and congestion. She noted that she lives six houses down from Rives Mansion and she described how she has been impacted by recent activities at the site to include: 1) lack of street parking; 2) difficulty making left turns onto Paramount Boulevard (suggested a sign be posted not to block the intersection); 3) drivers use Third Street as a short cut to their destinations, increasing traffic and creating hazard situation because the cars speed through. Ms. Valdivia objected to expanding the Specific Plan area. She said there are plenty of vacant parcels in the downtown of which the City should focus on developing without expanding, and without adding Rives Mansion. When she bought her home, the Rives Mansion was residential. But since the new owners purchase they continue to host events. She doesn't want to see activities occur on site, because it impacts her lifestyle, her home, citing two major events that had occurred, and a photo shoot there as well. She is also concerned about the safety of the residences with the speeding cars and strangers coming into their neighborhood. She cited recent increase in crime in the neighborhood. She stated that the Rives Mansion will always be a symbol of Downey and she does not see the benefit of including it in the Specific Plan, since no benefits were listed. 3. Jim Kriss, speaking on behalf of Burke Weinberger, owner of Neil's Stationers, 8152 Firestone Boulevard, told the Commission that he is a commercial real estate developer and is well aware that without adequate parking, no project will be successful. He stated that Mr. Weinberger was especially interested in the City's plans because he will soon be marketing his property along Firestone Boulevard, but without parking it is not possible to create "synergy ". He did not think housing would be a good choice along Nance. He said you cannot bring in any substantial development without parking. And he provided some examples to support his theory. Commissioner Murray stated that he understood that the recently approved Gateway project would add 101 parking spaces for those developments along Firestone Boulevard. Mr. Kriss asked if Mr. Weinberger will be able to market his property for medical uses and realized that he won't know until the plan is approved. Mr. Kriss made it clear that parking was his greatest concern, be it parking structures and commercial developers want to see exposure and parking and convenience of getting in and out. He also stated that commercial developers will want to see restaurants there, too. Mr. Kriss stated that Mr. Weinberger had not been contacted regarding the plan, but perhaps that would come later. Community Development Director Saeki suggested that Mr. Kriss meet with staff right after the meeting and they could give him updates to the questions he is asking, but would like to keep the meeting moving along. He suggested instituting the 5- minute clock for public input. 4. Tom Papoulias, resident of Downey for 25+ years and involved in commercial real estate during that time specializing in multi - family and leasing, stated that he, wants to see Downey prosper. He agreed that parking is the most important issue to be addressed and suggested a solution be found. 5. William Molinari, 11146 Downey Avenue, dress shop manager & property owner for 18 years, noted that the City is in an upswing right now with Porto's and new businesses coming in. He said the last City improvement program was attractive, but in doing so, they lost much parking. Their building was built in the 1960s and parking requirements were different then. But today, if the parking is not provided, customers will not stop. Mr. Molinari noted that he hoped the City's planned re -use of the Verizon building would include consideration for the parking needs of the surrounding businesses. He stated that they are very supportive of the Plan and is optimistic of the future of the downtown. There being no further comments, Vice - Chairman Kiefer closed the public hearing and opened the discussion up to the Planning Commission. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 — PAGE 4 Page 5 DRAFT Commissioner Vasquez said that he would recluse himself from any discussion on this matter and stepped away from the dais. Commission comments: Commissioner Murray stated that he recognizes the concerns related to parking, which is a problem the City is trying to improve. He noted that the Specific Plan will set in place a design for the future development of the downtown for the good of the City. It will encourage and utilize mixed use development to the greatest extent possible, encourage people to park in the parking structure, and to walk around the area. The Specific Plan includes retail components, as well as modified housing standards to provide for residential elements, to utilize these properties to their best extent. He noted that the state is currently in a recession, which explains the number of vacancies in the downtown, but this plan is looking at the future development, to keep the City vibrant and to encourage employment opportunities. He stated that he supports forwarding the plan on to the City Council. Commissioner Lambros thanked all of the speakers who shared their public and private concerns regarding the City's downtown and the plan before them, in particular those issues along the streets of 6 Street and 3rd Street. She directed a question to staff, noting that Porto's was constructing its own parking structure in the downtown, but did the City have plans to develop additional parking? Senior Planner Blumenthal responded, noting that in addition to the new Porto's parking structure and the City's parking structure, the City owns numerous parking areas throughout the downtown area. Once the zoning is in place to allow additional parking areas, the City can look for funding for additional parking areas. In addition to Mr. Blumenthal's remarks, Mr. Saeki said that in coordination with the Verizon Building development, the City is negotiating with some property owners in the area to assemble parcels, with the goal to provide another 100 parking spaces. He stated that the City acknowledges the need for additional parking to create a viable downtown, and is working on different methods to accomplish this goal. He noted that the downtown is in a special zone, the Redevelopment Area, and therefore is eligible for special funds that are available for public parking. Commissioner Lambros stated that she agrees that available parking is the key to success in the downtown, empathizing with those speakers regarding her own frustration with lack of parking. She stated that this appears to have been given a high priority by the City in developing this plan. She thanked the speakers again for sharing their comments. Vice - Chairman Kiefer stated that he'd lived in the City for the past 35 years and has seen many changes. He recognized the importance of providing the parking. The Vice - Chairman noted that while many residents have expressed the desire to have restaurants developed in Downey, there are also those who want the City to remain a "bedroom community ". He stated his enthusiasm for the plan is because it encourages and supports dining and entertainment while maintaining the majority of the City as residential. He expressed a concern with the Rives Mansion corridor, which could become a problem with impacts to the residences on Third Street and suggested moving slowly on that component. Vice - Chairman Kiefer also addressed the concerns of parking along Paramount, noting that if residential is created, adequate parking is necessary, noting that sufficient parking for a single family home may be more than the required two parking spaces. Commissioner Lambros recalled a Planning Commission - approved event at Rives Mansion whereby the Commission had required additional off -site (valet) parking be provided. She suggested the City incorporate similar conditions for other such events, to mitigate impacts to the Third Street residents. Community Development Director Saeki responded, noting that when events anticipate 500 or more people, a Special Event application is processed and noticed to the neighbors so they will be aware of what is being reviewed and /or what is approved. Commissioner Murray stated that he remembered approving two (2) such events at the Mansion. Vice - Chairman Kiefer said the concern of the residents is that one or two such events a year is one thing, while 12 or more per year might be another thing altogether. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 — PAGE 5 Page 6 DRAFT Mr. Saeki stated that the City does regulate and track the events being held at the various locations. Mr. Blumenthal stated that, if the Specific Plan is adopted, and if the owners wanted to convert it into a permanent banquet facility, the request would come before the Planning Commission for their consideration. Vice - Chairman Kiefer noted that many of the projects that desired a change of use would come before the Commission for approval, and such reviews will include available parking to be provided on -site. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation to the speakers for their involvement and for sharing their concerns. Vice - Chairman Kiefer added that the City is in transition, and having lost several auto dealers need to bring good businesses back into the City, in order to provide the services we continue to enjoy. It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Lambros and passed by a vote of 3 -1 -1, with Commissioners Lambros, Murray and Kiefer voting "Yes ", Commissioner Vasquez abstaining, and Commissioner Morales absent, to adopt Resolution Nos. 10 -2662, (Certifying the Final EIR), 10 -2663 (Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan), 10 -2664 (Adopt the Specific Plan), and 10 -2665, (Repealing Section 9326 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code), recommending City Council approve the Downtown Plan, as presented. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 — PAGE 6 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -2662 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby finds, determines and resolves that: A. In August, 2009 the City Council of the City of Downey initiated the preparation of a specific plan for the community's downtown area, known as the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which is intended to revitalize and guide the development of the 131 - acre downtown (85 acres excluding rights -of -way). The community's downtown, or project site is bounded by Brookshire Avenue on the east, the Union Pacific railway line on the south, Paramount Boulevard on the west, except for the site that the Rives Mansion occupies, which is located at the northwest corner of Paramount Boulevard and 3` Street, and various east/west street segments that extend from Brookshire Avenue to Paramount Boulevard and include sections of 4 th 5th and 7th Streets. B. The City of Downey, as the Lead the Agency for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, caused a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2010051008) to be prepared for the specific plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA, which was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 5646. C. The Draft Environmental Impact Report evaluated the probable and potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. D. The City of Downey conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on the May 26, 2010 for the purpose of soliciting input on the content and scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the DEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15082(c)(1). E. Also pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15105, the Draft EIR was distributed to the appropriate state, regional and county agencies, neighboring cities, interested parties and was also made available for public review for a 45 -day review period: May 16, 2010 to August 30, 2010. F. In accordance with the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission has considered the Downtown Downey Specific Plan as a guide to the growth and development of the 131 -acre project area, encourage economic revitalization, and create a lively and livable pedestrian- oriented, mixed -use downtown that serves as a residential area, a place of employment and entertainment destination. Resolution No. 10 -2662 Downey Planning Commission G. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive testimony on the Draft EIR and the Downtown Downey Specific Plan on September 15, 2010. H. Written and oral comments on the Draft EIR were received by the City during the 45- day public review period, which were fully and adequately responded to in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15088(a). I. The comments and responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR have been included in the final environmental impact report (Final EIR) for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. J. The Planning Commission has fully reviewed and carefully considered the Draft EIR, the comments, and responses to comments regarding the DEIR and all other environmental documents that comprise the Final EIR. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends to the City Council that the City Council certify the Final EIR, since the actions are complete and adequate, and the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Downey further resolves that a copy of the Resolution be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Downey. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15 day of September, 2010, Robert Kiefer Robert Kiefer, Vice - Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Murray, Kiefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vasquez ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morales H: \PLAN N I NG \RESOS\PC\2010 \10 -2662. doc Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — EIR September 15, 2010 - Page 2 Theresa Donahue Theresa Donahue, Secretary City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 10 -2663 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking; and, B. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey; and, C. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan; and, D. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010; and, E. On July 15, 2010, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR; and, F. On September 3, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press- Telegram; and, G. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that a Draft EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. On September 15, 2010, the Planning Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission Commission adopted Resolution No. 10 -2662, recommending the City Council of the City of Downey adopt the Draft EIR SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: 1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments, which include text changes to allow higher residential densities in the downtown area and land use designation changes for several parcels to allow mixed use, are being proposed as part of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. As part of the Specific Plan, an analysis of all of the goals and policies was conducted. Appendix A of the Specific Plan (incorporated herein by reference) denotes 42 individual goals and policies of the General Plan that the Specific Plan is consistent with. Based on the consistency with these 42 goals and policies, the proposed General Plan Amendment will be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the surrounding environment. The proposed General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. These changes will be compatible with and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining properties, since development standards have been incorporated into the specific plan to safeguard neighboring properties. Additionally, mitigation measures are being recommended as part of the Final EIR that will lessen the impacts that were identified in the Final EIR. 3. That the proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed General Plan Amendments will allow the creation of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, which envisions a pedestrian oriented mixed use environment. This environment will allow people to live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. This mixed use environment will promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with provisions of Article IX. The General Plan Amendments are being proposed in conjunction with the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. Since the Specific Plan is a stand alone document, which allows an array of uses, it does not alter Article IX of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the General Plan Amendments will not conflict with the Municipal Code. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Designation within the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Mixed Use (MU) for the following properties: Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 2 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission 10600 Paramount Blvd (AINs 6251 - 035 -05, 6251 - 035 -016, 6251 - 035 -017), 10612 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 035 -041), 10626 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 035 -040), 10720 Paramount Blvd (AINs 6251 - 035 -022, 6251 - 035 -037, 6251 - 036 -036, 6251 - 036 -037), 10734 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 036 -031), 10921 -10933 Paramount Blvd (AIN 6251 - 020 -002), 8025 Fifth Ave (AIN 6251 - 036 -038), 8020 Seventh Ave (AIN 6251 - 035 -014), 10625 Parrot Ave (AIN 6251 - 035 -021), 10630 Parrot Ave (AIN 6251 - 035 -038), and 10700 Parrot Ave (AINs 6251 - 036 -035 and 6251- 036 -030). SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the "Balance of Land Uses" and "Livable Communities" chapters of the Land Use Element as noted on Exhibit 'A' of this resolution. SECTION 6. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 5 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Downey amend the Land Use element of the General Plan as outlined in this resolution. SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15 day of September, 2010. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Murray, Kiefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vasquez ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morales Robert Kiefer Robert Kiefer, Vice - Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15 day of September, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: Theresa Donahue Theresa Donahue, Secretary City Planning Commission Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 3 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission BALANCE OF LAND USES EXHIBIT `A' The following list text changes to the "Balance of Land Uses" and "Livable Communities" chapters of the Land Use Element (new text is bold and underlined and deleted text is stnkethrough): Issue 1.1. Persons who live, work, and visit Downey need areas for living, working, shopping, and playing. To meet the needs of residents, a variety of land uses must be provided within the city. When land uses within the city cannot meet this demand, residents will travel outside the city to meet this need. This situation typically results in added vehicle trips and traffic congestion, plus the secondary effects of worsening air quality, using valuable energy resources, and impacting social interactions. The under - concentration of certain uses creates impacts by not meeting resident demands and creating longer travel to meet this demand, while over - concentration of land uses has a potential negative effect by utilizing properties that would otherwise be used for other uses needed to serve the community. Therefore, it is important to provide for a balance of land uses to serve the public needs. Although it may be impossible for a suburban city in a large metropolitan region to be truly self- sufficient, Downey Vision 2025 proposes a diverse land use policy as shown on the Downey Vision 2025 Land Use Diagram. The Downey Vision 2025 Land Use Diagram divides the city into various land use designations, such as residential, commercial, industrial, are most appropriate. Although the Land Use Diagram may appear to be similar to a zoning map, there are several important differences between the two. A zoning map is parcel specific with definitive boundaries between designations and is intended to implement development proposal, the Land Use Diagram is not parcel specific and its boundaries are not definitive since the intent of the Land Use Diagram is to provide a guide for the approximate locations for land uses. The Land Use Diagram for Downey Vision 2025 divides the city into the following 12 land use designations. o Low Density Residential The Low Density Residential designation allows typically for detached single - family residential units at densities of 1 to 8.9 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to a maximum of one housing unit for a standard 5,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population will not exceed 28 persons for each acre in this designation. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -1, Single Family Residential, which includes several variations based on lot size, such as R -1 5000, R -1 6000, R -1 7500, R -1 8500, and R -1 10,000. The zoning also permits accessory living quarters on properties that are not considered separate dwelling units. Typically, a maximum of one housing unit is allowed on each individual lot, regardless of size. In some areas designated as Second Unit Development (SLID) Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 4 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission O Office areas however, more than one housing unit may be permitted provided that the maximum allowable density is not exceeded. The SUD areas are important in order to focus population growth and additional housing onto these areas without impacting other residential neighborhoods. In other instances, planned unit developments and other projects whereby housing units share driveways and other facilities may be proposed instead of conventional subdivisions to provide added flexibility in providing a viable project. In both instances however, the project must include units that are detached and convey a single - family residential image. O Low /Medium Density Residential The Low /Medium Density Residential designation allows for a range of housing types that involve densities at 9 to 17 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to two housing units for each standard 5,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population is 29 to 53 persons for each acre. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -2, Two Family Residential. The housing types consistent with the designation range from two detached units on the same property to attached units (duplex), either placed side by side (in a townhouse floor plan form) or stacked with one on top of another. In certain instances, other housing types such as planned unit developments and second unit developments may be permitted provided that the overall density is not exceeded. O Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential designation allows for a range of housing types that involve densities at 18 to 24 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to three housing units for each standard 6,000 square foot lot. Based on an average household size of 3.17, the projected population is 57 to 76 persons for each acre. The corresponding zone for this designation is R -3, Medium Density Multiple - Family Residential. The housing types consistent with the designation range from three or more attached (or detached) units on the same property (triplex) to larger apartments to townhouse design condominium to low -rise condominiums, provided that the overall density is not exceeded. Certain nonresidential land uses, such as churches, are considered consistent within this designation. The Office designation allows for professional and medical office uses. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -P, Commercial — Professional Office zone. In the vicinity of the Downey Regional Medical Center where medical offices and other medical - related uses are promoted, the corresponding zone for this designation is H -M, Hospital - Medical Arts. The intensity of the Office designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.5:1 and 5:1. o Neighborhood Commercial The Neighborhood Commercial designation allows for commercial uses that draw from a customer base from the immediate surrounding neighborhood and not from areas outside the city or region. Consistent with this intent, uses are typically small in scale in terms of floor area size, building height, and operational activities. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 5 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission O Public Examples include grocery stores, dry cleaners, barber shops, bakeries, and convenience markets. Uses are intended to serve adjacent neighborhoods and are intended to be located in "neighborhood nodes" such as properties adjacent to street intersections. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -1, Neighborhood Commercial zone. The intensity of the Neighborhood Commercial designation should not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25:1. o General Commercial The General Commercial designation allows for a full range of commercial uses including shopping centers, automobile dealerships, hotels, offices, and automobile repair. In a contrast to the Neighborhood Commercial designation, uses are not necessarily small in scale or oriented solely towards the immediate neighborhood for its customer base. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -2, General Commercial. Since uses consistent with the General Commercial designation are typically more intense, the General Commercial designations are appropriate in areas with larger lot sizes which afford greater buffers to adjacent land uses. The intensity of the General Commercial designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.25:1 and 4:1. o Commercial Manufacturing The Commercial Manufacturing designation is intended to provide greater flexibility for providing land uses that generate employment such as shopping centers, major offices, and light industrial. The corresponding zone for this designation is C -M, Commercial Manufacturing. The intensity of the Commercial Manufacturing designation should fall within a range of floor area ratio between 0.5:1 and 0.6:1. O Manufacturing The Manufacturing designation is intended for manufacturing, wholesaling, and other industrial land uses. The corresponding zone for this designation is M -1/ M -2, Light/ General Manufacturing. Since uses consistent with the Manufacturing designation have potential for creating traffic, noise, odor, vibration and other impacts, areas designated Manufacturing should be separated from other land uses by a major natural or physical barrier and screen. The intensity of the Manufacturing designation should not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.6:1. The Public designation is intended for areas occupied by public agencies for facilities that support community services. This includes the Civic Center, the City Public Works Yard, SEACCA (SouthEast Animal Control), Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center and the MTA bus yard on Telegraph. O Open Space The Open Space designation is intended for areas that provide relief from the built environment. This includes the 106 acres of public parks in the city. Due to the limited supply of park areas, it is important that park areas are preserved. The open Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 6 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission space designation also includes areas that utility easements, river, beds, parks, cemetery and golf courses. O School The School designation is intended for public schools offering K through 12 instruction. The corresponding zone for this designation is the Public School subzone of the O -S, Open Space. o Private School The Private School designation is intended for locating private- operated schools offering education comparable to the K through 12 instruction offered by public schools. Three such areas have been designated by the Land Use Diagram: St. Matthias, St. Raymond, and Our Lady of Perpetual Help. The corresponding zone for this designation is the Private School subzone of the O -S, Open Space. O Mixed Use The Mixed Use Designation is to provide for development of a variety of uses (including retail, office, service and residential), on the same parcel or within close proximity of each other. Additionally, the Mixed Use Designation should encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront -style shopping streets that creates a more active and vibrant street life. The maximum density for residential developments shall not exceed 75 units per acre. The maximum intensity of the Mixed Use designation shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 5:1. FIGURE 1 -1.7 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION Vision 2025 Land Use Designation Net Acres Percent Residential • Low Density 3188 51% • Low /Medium Density 187 3% • Medium Density 414 7% Commercial • Office 163 3% • Neighborhood Commercial 103 2% • General Commercial 372 6% Manufacturing • General Manufacturing 229 4% • Commercial Manufacturing 304 5% Open Space 516 8% Schools (including Mixed Use — School) 348 6% Public 104 2% Mixed Use (not including Mixed Use — School) 301 5% Total 6,229 100% Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 7 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1.1. Provide sufficient land areas for uses that serve the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. Policy 1.1.1. Maintain a balance of land uses. • Program 1.1.1.1. Discourage the over - concentration of a particular land use that will preclude the establishment of other uses needed to serve the community. • Program 1.1.1.2. Monitor land uses to retain the balance of land uses. • Program 1.1.1.3. Adopt floor -area ratios (FAR) or comparable method to address building intensity for each zoning classification. • Program 1.1.1.4. Discourage non - industrial uses into areas designated for industrial uses. Policy 1.1.2. Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth. • Program 1.1.2.1. Identify areas to absorb population growth and support additional housing. • Program 1.1.2.2. Designate parts of the City as second unit development areas to absorb the need for additional housing. • Program 1.1.2.3. Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing project. Policy 1.1.3. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for business and employment. • Program 1.1.3.1. Encourage land uses that generate jobs. • Program 1.1.3.2. Discourage land uses that do not generate jobs within areas classified for job - generating land uses. • Program 1.1.3.3. Promote a diversified employment base by discouraging the over - concentration of a particular land use that will preclude the establishment of other uses. Policy 1.1.4. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for people to acquire goods and services. • Program 1.1.4.1. Establish "General Commercial" areas for land uses that draw from a customer base not necessarily limited to those within the city. • Program 1.1.4.2. Establish "Neighborhood Commercial" areas for land uses that draw from a customer base in the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 8 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission • Program 1.1.4.3. Promote the establishment of transit - oriented developments (TOD) within walking distance of the Green Line Station at Lakewood Boulevard & 1 -105 Freeway. • Program 1.1.4.4. Phase out and re- designate the land use classifications for selected "strip" commercial areas. • Program 1.1.4.5. Create a specific plan for a "restaurant row" along the Firestone Boulevard corridor. • Program 1.1.4.6. Concentrate smaller commercial uses in neighborhood "nodes ". Policy 1.1.5. Provide an appropriate amount of land area for recreation and entertainment. • Program 1.1.5.1. Adopt an ordinance that maintains the current minimum of 106 acres of public park areas. • Program 1.1.5.2. Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses. • Program 1.1.5.3. Promote recreation and entertainment uses that serve needs of the public. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 9 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission LIVABLE COMMUNITIES Issue 1.2. Downey has opportunities to create a more livable community. Traditionally, planning has separated land uses into distinct designations for each land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial. Because this planning tradition encouraged consistency and uniformity, there was little flexibility to provide areas with distinct character or what is termed a "sense of place ". Additionally, the separation of land uses furthered the dependency on travel by car and did not address Tong -term problems such as traffic congestion and air quality. The concept of livable communities provides alternatives to the traditional separation of land uses by advancing the creation of mixed use areas with special characteristics to create a "sense of place" to visitors. The "sense of place" is achievable by providing areas with characteristics not typically found in other areas. The related concept of smart growth addresses the challenge that many mature cities with few vacant properties, such as Downey, have with absorbing population and economic growth without major disruption to its existing neighborhoods. The concept of smart growth is based on growth that does not necessarily create negative impacts on the community. Smart growth advances design that reduces the dependency and need for cars by providing convenient access to jobs, services, and homes. The reduced use of cars will, in turn, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, which reduces traffic congestion and reduce the secondary effects of worsening air quality, using valuable energy resources, and impacting social interactions. To allow the advancement of these concepts, the city may have to deviate from the traditional separation of land use designations and adopt designations that allow for projects that allow a mix of land uses. Efforts to reduce the need for vehicle trips may include placing commercial services within walking distance of its customer base (for example, allowing restaurants near employment centers to capture lunch demand without requiring patrons to drive). Other efforts may involve the opposite approach of providing a new customer base for an existing commercial area (for example, allowing mixed use building projects with housing placed above retail units on the ground floor). Still, another approach is to reduce short vehicle trips by providing convenience commercial uses for pedestrians (for example, placing commercial uses at train stations.) Whichever approach requires deviation from the standard land use designation and Downey Vision 2025 had identified three areas as "Mixed Use" due to their location, development, or land use create opportunities for the city to demonstrate alternative designs to create a more livable community to meet its land use needs. These areas were identified as having the most potential to advance the concepts above. Nevertheless, the livable communities and smart growth concepts should be advanced throughout the city in other areas wherever feasible. Downtown Downey. The area around Downey Avenue between Firestone Boulevard and Fifth Street has historically been considered the Downtown district of Downey. The downtown area is at the heart of the community containing major landmarks such as Downey City Hall, City Library, Downey Depot Bus Transit Center, and the Rives Mansion. After the demolition of the County Courthouse and Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 10 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission a decline of the commercial areas in the downtown area, the city took a pro- active approach to revitalizing the area. The courthouse site was replaced by a 10- screen Kirkorian Theatre, which was serves as a customer draw into the area. The city has focused its efforts on making the Downtown as a destination spot featuring entertainment and dining opportunities, capitalizing on the customers drawn to the area by the theatre and other uses, such as the Embassy Suites hotel, City Hall, and other uses. In contrast to other commercial areas that are designed as strip centers to draw in customers who pass through the area and may find the location for services convenient, the concept of a destination spot is different since it should provide services that cannot be provided elsewhere. This creates a "sense of place" for the visitor and clearly defines the city's "downtown ". Part of the revitalization effort was the Downey Avenue Street Improvement Project which narrowed the street width of Downey Avenue from 4 -lanes to 2 -lanes and provided theme street furniture (light posts, benches) giving visitors the sense that the area is different than other parts of the city. The narrowing of the street also addresses the concept of "traffic calming ", which strives to slow down traffic and perhaps consider the shopping and service opportunities in the area. The narrowing of the street also provided larger sidewalks creating opportunities for sidewalk cafes and helped alleviate parking demand, a major concern in the area, by providing diagonal parking. The city should continue to apply these features to other streets in the Downtown area. Since parking is the major obstacle to development of the Downtown area, the city has adopted standards to address parking in the downtown. First, the city took a pro- active role in providing public parking, either on- street or city -owned parking lots, to meet parking demand in the area. Second, the city established a Downtown Overlay zone in 1999 that, among other things, by reducing the number of parking required for tenants based on the factoring that customers that visit the Downtown area may visit more than one tenant. For example, a visitor to a theatre may dine at a restaurant nearby prior to the show and have drinks at a cafe after the show so three businesses may require only one parking space in this instance. The demand for parking by tenants is reduced since customers for dining and entertainment uses tend to travel in groups thereby reducing the number of parking spaces needed, on average, per customer. Third, the city established a parking credit program to facilitate the establishment of retail, dining, and entertainment uses based on the availability of public parking spaces. Since adoption of these measures, several new cafes and entertainment uses have opened in the area. Although the Downtown's daytime population is relatively high, given that a large customer base is provided by the hotel, City Hall, and the various office uses in the area, the nighttime population in the area is significantly lower since most offices close after business hours and a smaller customer base to support the remaining open businesses. In order for the Downtown to ultimately reach its potential, it needs to increase its nighttime population. Additional housing in the Downtown is one of the solutions to address nighttime population concern. Added housing will not only increase the nighttime population of the area to increase the customer base but is ideal because it will reduce parking demand and traffic congestion by making pedestrian travel convenient. Although there is already some housing in the Downtown area, additional housing is needed to provide a diversity of the type of housing to fit different lifestyle needs. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 11 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission Downey Landing. The Rockwell plant was once the largest employer in the City. Its closure in 1999 had a huge impact on the city's economy due to not only the quantity of persons employed, but also the high quality of jobs. The city designated the area as mixed use to provide for the plant site's re- use as an employment center and address land use needs. To promote land uses at a site and replacing the conventional zoning, the City Council adopted Downey Landing Specific Plan. The specific plan proposes a variety of uses on the 168 -acre site including a retail shopping center adjacent to Stewart & Gray Road), a public park and learning center /museum dedicated to the Space Shuttle (which was constructed at the site ) along Clark Avenue, a hospital to be operated by Kaiser along Imperial Highway. The most distinct aspect of the site will be the Downey Studio, which will be a movie production studio located within the main hangar formerly used for aircraft construction. Due to the high ceiling of the hangar building, the building is ideal for indoor movie production and has already been used for production for several major motion pictures. The movie production aspect of the project is important since this will be the first project in the southeast County area to capitalize on the entertainment economic sector which is an important part of the Countywide economy and the project may serve as a catalyst for future entertainment related projects in the City. The The city should promote development of the properties surrounding the Downey Landing site to complement the land uses on the Downey Landing site itself. This may include commercial uses needed by employees at the site (for example, restaurants within walking distance so customers do not need to drive) or industries needed to support the main businesses at the site (for example, designers needed for movie production). Because the conventional zoning designation may be too broad, a specific plan for the surrounding properties should be developed to attract the types of uses which will best complement the Downey Landing site. One of these uses may be housing since providing housing within walking distances of employment centers is consistent with smart growth principles by promoting walking and reducing traffic congestion. Green Line MTA Station. In 1998, the portion of the 1 -105 Freeway that crosses the southern part of the City was completed. The 1 -105 project includes the MTA Green Line light rail line along the freeway median and a transit station within Downey at Lakewood Boulevard. With the gradual completion of the rail network, it is now possible to travel from Downey to Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, Long Beach, and Pasadena and near LAX entirely by train. Due to the accessibility of the rail network, many communities have advanced transit - oriented developments (TOD) to capitalize on the growing number of passengers. Convenience commercial uses (dry cleaners, grocery, cafes) are the most obvious types of uses that would benefit from placement near the station and capitalize on transit passengers already in the area either en route to other transit (buses), picked up by other vehicles, or to their own vehicles at the nearby park- and -ride lots. These convenience uses would benefit the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 12 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission city by lessening traffic congestion by reducing the number of trips that passengers must make to run errands, especially for those that would otherwise drive to their next destination and adding more vehicles trips on local streets. These uses would go even further to lessen the drawbacks of using transit by providing incentives in the form of added convenience for transit users. Further convenience would be provided by housing within transit - oriented developments. Although there is already some housing in the area, additional housing could be considered to provide a diversity of the type of housing to fit different lifestyle needs and also provide a certain amount of concentration of housing to have the desired impact. The housing may take the form of housing atop retail uses, or may be located at ground level in proximity to commercial areas. Presently, there are no commercial businesses in the vicinity of the Green Line station to take advantage of foot traffic. The Downey Vision 2025 land use diagram designates the areas surrounding the Green Line Station as "Mixed Use" to encourage transit - oriented development. The "Mixed Use" area extends about a quarter -mile from the station in every direction since this distance is the standard maximum walking distance for the region. Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1.2. Advance livable community concepts. Policy 1.2.1. Promote livable communities concepts that allow added flexibility in addressing land use needs. • Program 1.2.1.1. Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel. • Program 1.2.1.2. Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles. • Program 1.2.1.3. Promote commercial and residential uses in proximity to transit stops to reduce dependency on vehicles. • Program 1.2.1.4. Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers. • Program 1.2.1.5. Promote the establishment of child -care centers near transportation routes and employment centers. • Program 1.2.1.6. Promote the placement of buildings at or near the public right -of -way with a primary or secondary entryway facing the sidewalk. Policy 1.2.2. Focus on areas where livable communities concepts are most likely have the most impact to set a catalyst for similar projects elsewhere in the city. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 13 Resolution No. 10 -2663 Downey Planning Commission • Program 1.2.2.1. Promote the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities. • Program 1.2.2.2. Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated in the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices. • Program 1.2.2.3. Promote housing, mixed use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown. • Program 1.2.2.4. Use the development of the Downey Landing site as a catalyst for further economic development, including housing, on properties along the periphery of the site. • Program 1.2.2.5. Adopt a specific plan for the areas surrounding the Downey Landing site with uses complimentary to the primary uses on the Downey Landing site. • Program 1.2.2.6. Promote transit - oriented development at the MTA Green Line Station at Lakewood Boulevard that includes commercial services and mixed -use housing projects to capitalize on the passenger boardings. H:\ PLANNING \RESOS \PC\2010 \10- 2663.doc Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — General Plan Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 14 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -2664 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN DOWNEY SPECIFIC PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking; and, B. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey; and, C. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan; and, D. The City of Downey has prepared a specific plan, which is titled the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (the "Downtown Specific Plan ") to guide the development of 131 acres in downtown Downey. The 131 -acre Project Site (including street rights - of -way) is located in the southeast portion of the community and is generally bounded by various street segments that stretch from Paramount Boulevard to Brookshire Avenue and include sections of 4 th, 5 and 7 Streets on the north; the easterly side of Paramount Boulevard on the west; the westerly side of Brookshire Avenue on the east; and the Union Pacific railway line on the south; and, E. The Downtown Specific Plan addresses the planning and development of the 131 - acre downtown area, the area's permitted and conditionally permitted uses, as well as advancing urban design standards and guidelines; and, F. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010; and, G. On July 15, 2010, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR; and, Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission H. On September 3, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press - Telegram; and, I. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that a Draft EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. On September 15, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10 -2662, recommending the City Council of the City of Downey adopt the Draft EIR SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey further finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed location of the development and proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained is consistent with the goals and polices embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council. The boundaries of the Specific Plan are within the General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use. In accordance with the "Mixed Use" category, coupled with the direction provided by the 2005 General Plan Update, the Downtown Specific Plan was prepared to implement the policies, which reflect the "Mixed Use" category and to implement policies related to downtown Downey. Furthermore, Appendix A of the Specific Plan (incorporated herein by reference) denotes 42 individual goals and policies of the General Plan that the Specific Plan is consistent with. B. The proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of Article IX and the zone in which the site is located. Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code includes a Mixed Use zone. Likewise the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan is designed to implement a mixed use environment. The intent of the Mixed Use zone is 1) encourage mixed -use buildings with retail, office, service, and /or other uses on the ground floor and residential units above the nonresidential space; 2) encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront -style shopping streets that creates a more active and vibrant street life; 3) strengthen the City's economic base, and provide employment opportunities close to home for residents of the City; and 4) promote the health and welfare of City residents by encouraging physical activity, reducing vehicular traffic, encouraging alternative transportation where possible, and promoting greater social interaction. The Downtown Downey Specific Plan incorporates development standards that will enforce the intent of the Mixed Use zone. C. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to such a development, nor detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City. The Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 2 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Downtown Specific Plan is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and will systematically execute the objectives of the General Plan and is in the interest of and furthers the public health, safety, general welfare, and the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan relating to advancing livable community concepts and focusing on areas in which livable communities concepts could have the most impact. Furthermore, the Specific Plan will allow people to live and work in the same area, as well as, allow visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. The mixed use environment will promote the public health, safety, and welfare since it will promote people to walk between destinations or between their home and work. D. The Specific Plan and resulting development will be consistent with the provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 3 of the California Government Code, commencing with Section 65450 as may be subsequently amended by the State. Article 8 of Chapter 3 of the California Government Code sets forth specific requirements and standards for the content and adoption of Specific Plans. This includes that the Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. As noted in the first finding of this section, the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, according the to the Government Code, the Specific Plan shall contain text and diagrams for the area covered by the specific plan, all of the public improvements (roadways, sewers, water mains, etc) within the specific plan, and necessary programs to implement the specific plan. The proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan contains all of these requirements. E. The Downtown Downey Specific Plan is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and will systematically execute the objectives of the General Plan and is in the interest of and furthers the public health, safety, general welfare, and the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan relating to advancing livable community concepts and focusing on areas in which livable communities concepts could have the most impact. As a consequence, and because of changing economic and development conditions, as well as the importance of Downey's downtown to the community's economic health and vitality and in the interest of the community and its general welfare, the City changed the Project Site's land use category to the "Mixed Use" classification. In accordance with the "Mixed Use" category, coupled with the direction provided by the 2005 General Plan Update, the Downtown Specific Plan was prepared to implement the policies that reflect the "Mixed Use" category and to implement policies related to downtown Downey. F. The Downtown Specific Plan will be compatible with and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining properties, since development standards have been incorporated into the specific plan to safeguard neighboring properties. Additionally, mitigation measures are being recommended as part of the Final EIR that will lessen the impacts that were identified in the Final EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan G. The Downtown Specific Plan has identified the permitted and conditionally permitted uses that can be established in the planning area and the appropriate urban design standards and guidelines for those uses. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 3 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission that: H. The 131 -acre planning area and its roadway network properly relate to the streets and highways designed and fully improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area and utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the area described in the Downtown Specific Plan, since it has examined and has established requirements to ensure that all improvements relating to streets, highways and utilities will be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City. I. The entitlement process that accompanied the preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan also expanded the "Mixed Use" General Plan category so it encompasses the entire 131 -acre planning area, as well as changing all existing zoning in the planning area to the Downtown Specific Plan in order to provide consistent zoning throughout the downtown, respond to current economic conditions and establish land uses that allow for the flexibility needed to achieve the City's goals for livable communities. J. The Downtown Specific Plan conforms to the General Plan because, as part of the Project, the General Plan will be amended to adopt the "Mixed Use" land use category for the entire Project Site. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission also further finds, determines and declares A. The Draft EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Prior to recommending approval of the Downtown Specific Plan, the Planning Commission independently considered the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR, all submitted comments received during the environmental document's public review period, the public hearing, and responses to comments. Based on the Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact Report, submitted comments and responses, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares that although implementing the Downtown Specific Plan may result in unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation /traffic, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council make the finding, according to Subsection (c) of Public Resources Code Section 21081, that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. B. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," with respect to significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR, together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the EIR. C. The Draft EIR has identified all significant environmental effects that will result from implementing the Downtown Specific Plan and all significant effects are set forth in the Findings of Fact. D. The Findings of Fact and the EIR have identified that if the Downtown Specific Plan is approved and implemented, it may have an unavoidable adverse effect on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation /traffic. However, all Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 4 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures as set forth in the EIR, and the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, hereto attached as Exhibit "C." E. The six (6) significant impacts that will result from specific plan implementation identified in the Findings of Fact, which will be reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced in their impacts by implementing the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings of Fact, the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. F. The unavoidable significant impacts that will result from the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, which will not be reduced to a level of insignificance as set forth in the Findings of Fact, are, however, clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the specific plan, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, hereto attached as Exhibit "B." The facts and conclusions set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. G. The EIR has described a reasonable range of feasible alternative projects to the Downtown Specific Plan that could feasibly attain the basic objectives or might be more costly. A reasonable range of alternatives were considered in the review process of the Draft EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. The proposed specific plan represents the least environmentally damaging alternative that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the following documents attached hereto as exhibits: (1) Findings of Fact; attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; (2) the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit "B "; and (3) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." SECTION 6. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR, since the actions are complete and adequate, and because the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the state CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Based on the findings set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby further recommends that the City Council adopt the Downey Downtown Specific Plan. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 5 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15 day of September, 2010. Robert Kiefer Robert Kiefer, Vice - Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15 day of September, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Murray, Kiefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vasquez ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morales Theresa Donahue Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 6 Theresa Donahue, Secretary City Planning Commission Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Exhibit A FINDINGS OF FACT 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This document provides the Findings of Facts required for the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan (Project), as defined in the Final EIR. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan EIR was distributed on May 5, 2010 to responsible and trustee agencies, as well as private organizations and interested parties that may have an interest in the Project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency, i.e., the City of Downey (City), planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the Downtown Specific Plan (also "Project ") and identified those environmental areas in which the Project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the Project would have no effect. The NOP is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. On July 15, 2010, the City issued the Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45 days ending on August 30, 2010. A Notice of Availability ( "Notice ") was circulated, that announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review, described the project and its location, and summarized the significant environmental effects. The Notice stated where documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review, and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, adjacent cities, county, regional and state agencies. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Downey City Library, the City's Planning Division office, and on the City's website. The City received seven letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the proposed Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: • No Project (No Build); • No Project (Build); and • 50 Percent Residential /50 Percent Commercial. The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts. On September XX, 2010, the City released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes a Summary Chapter, responses to the letters commenting on the Draft EIR, and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION The objectives of the City (i.e., the Lead Agency) for the project are as follows (Draft EIR, p. 2- 5): Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 7 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2) • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1) • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment opportunities. • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. The proposed Project consists of the development of a 131 acres of land located in Downey, California, between various east/west street segments that stretch from Paramount Boulevard to Brookshire Avenue that include sections of 4 5 and 7 Streets (north); the westerly side of Brookshire Avenue (east); the Union Pacific railway line (south); and the easterly side of Paramount Boulevard, except for the site of the Rives Mansion, located at the northwest corner of Paramount Boulevard and 3` Street. The Project site is located in the center of the City, approximately 1.25 miles from the Rio Hondo River to the west and the San Gabriel River is located within two miles of the site to the east. Implementation of the proposed Project would require the following discretionary approvals by the agencies listed below. This EIR would be used by these agencies as a basis for such approvals. City of Downey • Approval of the Water Supply Assessment by the City Council; • Certification of this EIR by the City Council; Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 8 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission • Approval of the change regarding the General Plan land use designation for the Rives Mansion site to "Mixed Use" and the shuttered Gallatin Medical Center to "Mixed Use "; • Approval of an amendment to the General Plan to reflect the density ranges that are proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan; • Approval of Conditional Use Permits; • Approval of Site Plan Review applications; • Approval of Subdivision Maps; and • Approval of Permits for Grading and Drainage activities. 3. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Downey's decision on the project consists of the following documents: • The NOP prepared for the Project; • Other public notices prepared in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; • The Final EIR for the Project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Downey in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of Downey, the City of Downey's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Downey action on the Project; • All documents submitted to the City of Downey by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; • Minutes of public hearings held by the City of Downey in connection with the project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Downey at public hearings; and • Matters of common knowledge to the City of Downey, including, but not limited to federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Downey Community Development Department. 4. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081, subd. [a]); • Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC §21081, subd. [b]); and • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 9 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC §21081, subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a)[3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See, also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta 11] [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410]). Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (See, also Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta 11, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401]). This document presents the City's findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). 5. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City, in adopting the findings, commits to implementing these measures. In other words, these findings are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will go into effect when the City of Downey approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit C) adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected through the process of constructing and implementing the project. 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM An MMRP has been prepared for the Project, as required by PRC Section 21081.6, and included as Exhibit C to this resolution. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City will consider the MMRP during the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan. The final MMRP will incorporate all mitigation measures adopted for the project under separate cover. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 10 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission 7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS 7.1 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels are listed below. The City finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR. Land Use Impact Impact LU -1: The proposed Project could potentially conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency over the Project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1 -15) Facts in Support of Finding For the most part, the land uses proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan conform to the Downtown Plan's "Mixed Use" General Plan land use designation. An amendment to the General Plan is required for portions of the Downtown Specific Plan area that are outside of the current Downtown Specific Plan area to change the land use designations of these areas to "Mixed Use" and the density ranges to reflect those identified in the Downtown Specific Plan. These two areas consist of portions of the Paramount Boulevard Professional District (the area along Paramount Boulevard, between 5' and 8 Streets and the Rives Mansion site). Adoption of the Specific Plan would result in an amendment to the General Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1 would ensure that the General Plan is amended and reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Finding The potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of an agency over the project are discussed in Section 3.1 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would reduce potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of an agency over the project to a less- than - significant level. Measure LU -1: The City of Downey shall, in conjunction with the approval of the proposed Specific Plan, amend the General Plan so that the entire planning area is designated as "Mixed Use" and change the residential density ranges of the planning area to reflect those in the proposed Specific Plan. Population and Housing Impact Impact POP -2: The proposed Project could displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2 -10) Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 11 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan would result in a shift in uses between the five proposed districts and could result in some displacement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would ensure compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project and reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Finding The potential impacts associated with compliance with applicable provisions of State law associated with displacement of substantial numbers of people and the need to provide replacement housing are discussed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with potential displacement and the need to provide replacement housing to a less- than - significant level. Measure POP -1: Provide relocation assistance to households and businesses consistent with the requirements of the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Govt. Code § 7260 et seq.), State Relocation Guidelines (25 Cal. Code Regs § 6000, et seq.), and California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq.), as applicable. Provide replacement of any units removed as a result of the project that were formerly occupied by very low -, low- or moderate - income households, consistent with California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33413). Population and Housing Impact Impact POP -3: The proposed Project could displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2 -10) Facts in Support of Finding The proposed Downtown Specific Plan could eventually result in development in the Downtown Specific Plan area in as many as 735 net new residential units and as much as approximately 1,308,897 net new commercial square feet. Although the proposed Project could result in demolition of existing commercial and residential uses, the proposed Downtown Specific Plan would replace them with new multi - family residential and new commercial and retail uses. Overall, the proposed Project would provide a net increase in both housing and employment within the project area. Therefore, there would be no net displacement of either the local residential population or local employment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would ensure compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project, as well as providing opportunities for property owner and business participation in the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -1 would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant impact. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 12 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Finding Finding The potential impacts associated with compliance with applicable provisions of State law to provide relocation assistance to persons, households and businesses that may be displaced by the proposed Project are discussed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts to relocated persons, households and businesses could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure POP -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with relocation to a less- than - significant level. Measure POP -2: Implement Mitigation Measure POP -1: Measure POP -1: Provide relocation assistance to households and businesses consistent with the requirements of the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Govt. Code § 7260 et seq.), State Relocation Guidelines (25 Cal. Code Regs § 6000, et seq.), and California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq.), as applicable. Provide replacement of any units removed as a result of the project that were formerly occupied by very low -, low- or moderate - income households, consistent with California Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33413). Traffic and Circulation Impact Impact TRAF -2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3 -23) Facts in Support of Finding The proposed Project could result in intersections falling below LOS E, the standard set by the City of Downey and the County of Los Angeles CMP. However, roadway improvements at all of the intersectiosn may be be consistent with the overall goal of creating a vibrant, pedestrian - and bicycle - friendly downtown area. Mitigation Measures implemented for Impact TRAF -1 through TRAF -5 could generally reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF -6 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with the applicable congestion management program and other standards are discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts associated with these impacts would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures already required would aid, but in particular implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF -3 would reduce potential impacts to less- than - significant levels. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 13 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Measure TRAF -6: Implement Measure TRAF -2. Measure TRAF -2: All new development within the Specific Plan area shall be required to conform to the City's traffic standards. Noise Impact Impact NOI -1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6 -11) Facts in Support of Finding Construction activity noise levels at and near construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction - related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.6 -3 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.6 -4 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. a TABLE 3.6 -3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the proposed Project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.6 -3 states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, if sensitive receptors are located at this distance; and therefore, construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Eighty -nine (89)) dBA would also exceed the City's construction threshold of 85 dBA across a property boundary. These construction noise levels would be potentially significant. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN - 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 14 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission The City's noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and no repair or remodeling shall exceed 85 dBA across any property boundary at any time during the course of a 24 -hour day. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Implementing Mitigation Measures NOI- 1 a through NOI -1 a would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels to a less -than- significant level. Finding TABLE 3.6-4 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Noise Level (dBA, Leq at Equipment 50 feet ) Dump Truck 88 Portable Air 81 Compressor 85 Concrete Mixer 88 (Truck) 88 Scraper 87 Jack Hammer 89 Dozer 76 Paver 85 Generator Backhoe SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. The potential impacts associated with the exposure of persons or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plans, noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts associated with construction noise would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI -1a through NOI -1e would reduce potential impacts associated with construction noise. Measure NOI -1 a: Applicants /developers shall be required to secure a construction permit for exemption of the noise standards (Section 4606.5) prior to project implementation. Measure NOI -1 b: As specified in City of Downey Ordinance No. 4606, no construction will occur between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure NOI -1c: All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 15 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Measure NOI -1d: All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure N01-1 e: Signs shall be posted at all construction sites within the Specific Plan area that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the City of Downey Building and Safety Department, in the event daytime noise exceeds 85dBA across any property boundary. In that event the standard is exceeded, the City shall place a limit on the number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Noise Impact Impact NOI -2: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6 -13) Facts in Support of Finding Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures within newly constructed or renovated buildings would consist of package rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors could exceed the City's 55 dBA residential daytime noise standard. This would be a less -than- significant impact with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2a. Loading Dock/Truck Delivery Noise Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on -site commercial operations. The number of delivery trucks would depend on the individual businesses. Truck noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. Noise measurements of passing and idling delivery trucks were taken by Environmental Science Associates in 1999. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal -OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These noise levels could potentially exceed the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards if loading docks were to occur near residents. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI -2b and NOI -2c, this would be a less- than - significant impact. Finding The potential impacts associated with the exposure of persons or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plans, noise ordinances, or applicable standards or other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2a would reduce potential impacts associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI -2b and NOI -2c would reduce these potential impacts associated with on -site commercial operations to a Tess- than - significant level. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 16 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Measure NOI -2a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of site of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure NOI -2b: In order to avoid noise - sensitive hours, commercial and retail land uses shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Measure NOI -2c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, commercial and retail uses shall locate all loading areas for commercial and retail uses at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed -use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project. Aesthetics Impact Impact AES -4: The proposed Specific Plan would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7 -13) Facts in Support of Finding Currently, the Downtown Plan requires that exterior lighting be provided with opaque deflection or shielding devices to prevent lighting from glaring or shining onto abutting properties and /or public rights -of -way. The Downtown Plan also requires regular maintenance of exterior signs. The proposed Downtown Specific Plan would not directly address exterior lighting, which would provide the City with flexibility in lighting. To ensure that light and glare are adequately addressed and that the impact is less than significant, the Downtown Specific Plan shall adopt the light and glare provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan, as stated in Mitigation Measure AES -1, below. Finding The potential impacts associated with the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare are discussed in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts related to light and glare would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less -than- significant level. Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. Aesthetics Impact Impact AES -5: The proposed Specific Plan could result in cumulatively and substantially adverse aesthetic impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7 -13) Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 17 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Facts in Support of Finding The Downtown Specific Plan would apply to a discrete area in Downey. A unified strategy and vision for the downtown would result in an improvement in the visual quality of downtown. This improvement would result in creating a distinctive downtown. Surrounding residential areas would benefit by the proposed upgrade in visual quality in the downtown and the unified and integrated vision for the downtown. Currently, undeveloped edges detract from the neat residential areas surrounding the downtown. The Downtown Specific Plan promotes the visual quality of the downtown area. This would be considered a beneficial impact. By focusing attention and feasible development strategies in an expanded downtown area, the Specific Plan would eliminate the possibility of streets without adequate landscaping, conflicting architectural elements and building mass, and "blind walls" along street facades. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -2 would eliminate the potential for cumulative impacts related to Tight and glare and result in a less than significant impact. Finding The potential impacts associated with potential cumulative impacts to aesthetics are discussed in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts related to cumulative aesthetics impacts would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -2 would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure AES -2: Implement Mitigation Measure AES -1: Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. Cultural Resources Impact Impact CUL -1: The implementation of the Specific Plan could adversely affect recorded historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to the historical setting. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -13) Facts in Support of the Finding Numerous provisions within the Downtown Specific Plan are designed to protect and enhance cultural resources. For example, the overall intent of the design standards and guidelines contained within the Downtown Specific Plan is to both encourage new infill construction and retain and rehabilitate older structures towards the creation of an eclectic mix of new and old buildings that can accommodate the widest range of local and national businesses. To encourage this mix, the following standards and guidelines are provided: 3.6.10.A. Architecturally or Historically Significant Buildings as Defined by the City of Downey — If a building within the specific pan area is determined by the City of Downey to be architecturally and historically significant, appropriate reuse, rehabilitation, and /or preservation of the structure may be required by the City in accordance with adopted ordinances. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 18 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission The design guidelines and standards also state that "Architecturally and /or historically significant storefronts within the Downtown Specific Plan Area shall be maintained, restored, and /or rehabilitated in place. Moving historic storefronts to other building locations for any purpose is not allowed. Any new use or renovation of a storefront shall retain to the maximum extent feasible historic features and spatial relationships that characterize a property." The Design Element of the City of Downey 2025 General Plan contains a number of program policies designed to preserve the City's cultural resources, including Program 8.4.2. (Promote the preservation and restoration of older structures), Program 8.4.2.4 (Encourage adaptive re- use of older structures), Program 8.4.2.5 (Reuse existing historic architectural elements in new construction when preservation of historic resources is not feasible), and Program 8.4.2.6 (Discourage the relocation of historic resources, or if necessary, relocate the historic resource within Downey). While all of the existing and proposed policies listed above would help to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources, potential widening of the major arterial, secondary arterial, or collector streets identified in the Specific Plan could result in significant direct or indirect impacts to two recorded historic structures within the Plan area: the James C. Rives Mansion on Paramount Boulevard or the Union Pacific Railroad. As specific impacts to these recorded resources are unknown, they are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2a would reduce impacts to these known, recorded historic resources to a less- than - significant level. Findings 3.6.10.B. Renovation of Existing Buildings — To the maximum extent feasible, when existing buildings are improved and /or repaired, character - defining features such as ornament, proportions of windows, storefronts, and other original features should be retained and repaired. The potential impacts associated with recorded historic architectural resources, including demolition, substantial alteration or through changes to the historical setting are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to recorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure CUL -1: Implement Mitigation Measure CUL -2a: Measure CUL -2a: The City of Downey shall evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects to the James C. Rives Mansion and the Union Pacific Railroad prior to any roadway widening efforts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan. If the evaluation determines that the roadway widening efforts (or any other activity resulting from Plan implementation) would directly or indirectly impact either the Rives Mansion or the applicable segment of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the City shall redesign the project to avoid significant impacts, such as retaining the existing width of the street(s) in the location of these Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 19 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission historical resources and /or the retention of historic roadway or railway materials (in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad). Cultural Resources Impact Impact CUL -2: The implementation of the Specific Plan could adversely affect unrecorded historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to the historical setting. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -14) Facts in Support of the Finding The construction of new parking, residential, commercial, or infrastructure facilities within the Downtown Specific Plan area has the potential to impact historic architectural resources directly through demolition or substantial alteration, or indirectly through changes to structures' historic settings. While the City's existing and proposed policies regarding historic resources, would help to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources, because no comprehensive historic inventory of the Downtown Specific Plan area has been completed to date, the number of buildings or structures that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources is unknown. The Downtown Specific Plan area contains numerous buildings 45 years old or older, which may qualify as historic resources upon future review if other evaluation criteria apply such as the buildings are important associations with historical events or important people, or are examples of fine architecture or were designed by master architects. A review of Assessor Parcel Data for the Specific Plan area by the City identified 94 properties dating to 1965 or older with an average construction date of 1961, or 49 years old, as of 2010. Many of the oldest buildings in the Downtown Specific Plan area are concentrated on Downey Avenue, as well as La Reina Avenue, 3 Street, Paramount Boulevard, and Firestone Boulevard. If determined eligible, proposed future projects resulting from implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan could result in the demolition or substantial alteration of potential historic resources, which would be considered a significant impact. Future projects resulting from the Downtown Specific Plan could also indirectly alter historic resources through changes to their immediate historic setting, which would also be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -2a and CUL -2b would minimize this impact to a Tess- than - significant level. Findings The potential impacts associated with unrecorded historic architectural resources through demolition or substantial alteration, or through changes to the historical setting are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for significant impacts to potential unrecorded historic architectural resources would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -2a and CUL -2b would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure CUL -2a: The City of Downey shall evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects to the James C. Rives Mansion and the Union Pacific Railroad prior to any roadway widening efforts resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan. If the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 20 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission evaluation determines that the roadway widening efforts (or any other activity resulting from Plan implementation) would directly or indirectly impact either the Rives Mansion or the applicable segment of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the City shall redesign the project to avoid significant impacts, such as retaining the existing width of the street(s) in the location of these historical resources and /or the retention of historic roadway or railway materials (in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad). Measure CUL -2b: The Downtown Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.0 — Site Specific Historical Survey and Evaluation - which states that a survey and evaluation shall be completed for all structures on a proposed project site or immediate vicinity that are 45 years old or older at the time of project initiation or if sufficient time has passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource to understand its historical importance. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Cultural Resources Impact Impact CUL -3: Construction of future projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could have substantial adverse impact to previously unknown archaeological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -16) Facts in Support of the Finding The City of Downey General Plan Program 8.4.2.7 calls for the City to work to preserve or relocate archeological resources within the City. Although no prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources have been recorded within the Downtown Specific Plan area or within one -half mile of the Specific Plan area, it is possible that previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3a and CUL -3b would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. Findings The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of unknown archaeological resources within the City are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of archaeological resources could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3a and CUL -3b would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure CUL -3a: In the event that such archaeological resources are uncovered during construction - related activities, the on -site contractor's construction supervisor shall stop all activity within the immediate vicinity of the discovery, unless safety issues are of concern. Specifically, the construction crew will stop work at the location where the find Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 21 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission was uncovered and shall not resume construction within 20 feet of the find until cleared to proceed by the archaeologist. The construction supervisor shall immediately notify the City, who will then notify the qualified archaeologist and, if appropriate, a Native American monitor, in coordination with the City staff, will assess the geographic extent and scientific value of the resource. If significant archaeological materials are determined, the archaeologist shall record and recover the resources using standard professional archaeological methods. Measure CUL -3b: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.D — Halt Work for Accidental Discovery of Historic Materials, which states that should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the lead agency and the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Cultural Resources Impact Impact CUL -4: Construction of future projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could have substantial adverse impacts to previously unknown paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -16) Facts in Support of Finding The Downtown Specific Plan area is underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits. Disturbed soils, artificial fills, and Holocene -aged deposits are unlikely to have preserved fossil remains. However, beneath the surficial material lies Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits known to have yielded significant paleontological resources. These deposits are likely to exist at variable and unknown depths beneath the surface. Any project - related excavations beneath or beyond previously disturbed fills would have the potential to disturb or uncover fossil remains. In addition, the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources increases with depth, and is dependent on the sub -grade footprint of the proposed structure. Generally, the potential to encounter paleontological resources in the Downtown Specific Plan area is low. However, because disturbance of in situ sediment is certainly possible, the impact of the Project on paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. Finding The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of unknown paleontological sites are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of paleontological could be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduce these potential impacts to a less -than- significant level. Measure CUL -4: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.E — Halt Work for Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources, which states that in the event Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 22 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Findings paleontological resources are discovered, the lead agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil- bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards). The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the lead agency determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval prior to implementation. Cultural Resources Impact Impact CUL -5: Construction of future projects could result in the substantial change of previously unidentified human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8 -17) Facts in Support of Finding A search of the Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File, along with confirmation from the tribal chair of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, indicate that no known site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -5 would minimize this potential impact to a less- than - significant level. The potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human burial sites are discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for the unintentional disturbance of human remains would be significant. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CLIL -5 would reduce these potential impacts to a Tess -than- significant level. Measure CUL -5: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy that states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he /she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The Most Likely Descendant will make recommendations for the treatment of any human remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 23 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Impact Impact HAZ -1: Disturbance and release of contaminated soil during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated material, or contaminated groundwater could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handling. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9 -11) Facts in Support of Findings Future development within the Downtown Specific Plan area could include excavation for installation of utilities, building foundations, subterranean development, or for re- grading purposes. Disturbance of subsurface soils and groundwater at locations that may have been previously contaminated by prior uses could further disperse existing contamination into the environment and expose construction workers or the public to contaminants. If high enough levels of hazardous materials in excavated soils should go undetected, health and safety risks to workers and the public could occur. Exposure to hazardous materials could cause various short-term and /or long -term health effects. Possible health effects could be acute (immediate or of short-term severity), chronic (long -term, recurring, or resulting from repeated exposure), or both. Acute effects, often resulting from a single exposure, could result in a range of effects from minor to major, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, or burns. Chronic exposure could result in systemic damage or damage to organs, such as the lungs, liver, or kidneys. Health effects would be specific to each hazardous material. Two Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) sites are present within the Downtown Specific Plan area. These sites have had documented releases of hazardous materials that affected the subsurface soil or groundwater or both. One of these sites is in varying stages of investigation and cleanup, and has already received site closure from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Contamination may also be present at some other unidentified locations where unidentified releases have occurred. It is not uncommon to encounter unexpected conditions once excavation and groundbreaking activities commence. Implementation of the mitigation measure below can minimize potential exposure to workers, the public and the environment and result in a less than significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Findings The potential impacts associated with the disturbance and release of contaminated soils during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated material, or contaminated groundwater that could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handling are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for disturbance and release of contaminated soils during demolition and construction, or transportation of excavated workers could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions in regard to hazardous materials handling. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 24 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure HAZ -1: Prior to issuance of any building permit, all proposed development sites where previous hazardous materials releases have occurred shall have a Phase I site assessment performed by a qualified environmental consulting firm in accordance with ASTM E 1527 -05. All proposed development in the Specific Plan area shall require remediation and cleanup to levels established by the overseeing regulatory agency (HHMD, RWQCB or DTSC) appropriate for the proposed new use of the site. All proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall be conducted according to a site - specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Impact Impact HAZ -2: Disturbance and release of hazardous structural and building components (i.e., asbestos, lead, PCBs, USTs, and ASTs) during demolition and construction phases of development or transport of these materials could expose construction phases of development, or transport of these materials could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to adverse conditions related to hazardous materials handing. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9- 12) Facts in Support of Findings Asbestos Asbestos could be encountered during structural demolition of the existing buildings and may require containment and disposal. Based on the age of the buildings within the Specific Plan area, it is likely that some asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) are present. Affected buildings would need appropriate abatement of identified asbestos prior to demolition or renovation. ACMs are regulated both as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal /OSHA. The renovation or demolition of buildings containing asbestos would require retaining contractors licensed to conduct asbestos abatement work and notifying the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 10 days prior to initiating construction and demolition activities. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The SCAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. Potential exposure to asbestos, and its related chronic adverse health effects, is possible throughout demolition and renovation if ACMs are present during operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2d, below, would reduce potential impacts to less- than - significant levels. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 25 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Lead and Lead -Based Paint Lead -based paint could be separated from building materials during demolition activities. Separated paint can be classified as a hazardous waste if the lead content exceeds 1,000 parts per million; such paint would need to be disposed of accordingly. Additionally, lead -based paint chips can pose a hazard to workers and adjacent sensitive land uses. Both the federal and California Occupational Safety and Heath Administrations (OSHAs) regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that involve and affect lead -based paint. Interim Final Rule found in 29 CFR Part 1926.62 covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during activities such as demolitions, removal, surface preparation for re- painting, renovation, clean up and routine maintenance. The OSHA - specified method of compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing, housekeeping (collecting and containing all debris), hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, training, etc. Demolition and renovation work could create exposure to lead -based paint present in building structures. Dust generating activities that include removal of walls, sanding, welding, and material disposal could produce airborne quantities of lead -laden material. These materials could expose workers and persons in close proximity, including occupants of off -site locations. The Specific Plan area contains buildings with painted surfaces, such as drywall, ceilings, and exterior stucco, which could contain lead -based paint. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2c would reduce potential impacts from exposure to lead -based paint to less- than - significant levels. PCB- Containing Materials Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) or PCB - containing materials may be present within existing structures in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Demolition of these structures could disturb these materials and expose workers or the public to adverse effects. Similar to the procedures for removal of ACMs, an initial site - specific survey to determine the presence of PCBs would need to be conducted, followed by implementation of appropriate measures to handle any materials with PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2e, below, would require demolition activities to be conducted by licensed contractors according to the standards of overseeing agencies that would reduce the potential impacts of hazardous building materials to less- than - significant levels. Findings The potential impacts associated with disturbance and release of hazardous structural and building components, such as asbestos, lead, PCBs and ASTs, are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for releases of hazardous materials into the environment during demolition and construction phases of development or transport of these materials and their potential to expose construction workers, the public and /or the environment to these hazardous materials would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b, and HAZ - 2d would reduce the potential impacts of exposure to ACMs to a less- than - significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2c would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to lead -based paint to a less -than- significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -2a, HAZ -2b and HAZ -2e Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 26 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Finding would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to PCBs to a less -than- significant level. Measure HAZ -2a: Each structure proposed for demolition shall require an assessment by licensed contractors for the potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings, asbestos containing materials, or PCB - containing equipment prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Measure HAZ -2b: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a establishes the presence of lead -based paint, asbestos, and /or PCBs, the developer or project applicant shall create and implement a health and safety plan to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous materials during demolition or renovation of affected structures. Measure HAZ -2c: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of lead -based paint, the developer or project applicant shall develop and implement a lead -based paint removal plan by a licensed contractor. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, the measures taken to contain, store, and transport paint waste in accordance with the licensed disposal facilities requirements. Measure HAZ -2d: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of asbestos, the project sponsor shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building demolition. Measure HAZ -2e: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of PCBs, the project sponsor shall ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to building demolition or renovation. Hazardous Materials and Hazards Impact Impact HAZ -3: Hazardous materials used on any individual site during construction activities (i.e., fuels, lubricants, solvents) could be released into the environment through improper storage. Proposed development of the Specific Plan area could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to hazardous materials in the City of Downey. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9 -14) Facts in Support of Finding Future construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, lubricants, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. Larger developments could potentially include on -site storage and /or use of quantities of materials capable of significantly impacting soil and groundwater. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 would reduce the impacts to a less- than - significant level. The potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities and the potential for releases through improper storage are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential for releases of hazardous materials into the environmental through improper storage would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 27 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure HAZ -3: All development and redevelopment shall require the use of construction BMPs to control handling of hazardous materials during construction to minimize the potential negative effects from an accidental release into storm drains, groundwater and soils. Biological Resources Impact Impact BIO -1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or though habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12 -9) Facts in Support of Finding The complete urbanization of the City prohibits the possibility of any special- status species to occur within the City's limits and therefore be affected by the proposed Project. Moreover, there are no recorded occurrences of special- status species in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed Project could affect nesting native birds that have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the site. The project site contains some large street trees that could provide nesting opportunities for resident birds. Impacts to individual nesting or migratory birds could occur if these species were nesting or foraging on or adjacent to the construction areas at the time of construction. Removal of trees or shrubs that provide nesting habitat could result in the direct mortality of birds. Tree removal, construction noise, vibrations, and human disturbance could cause nest abandonment, death of the young, or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located near project activities. Finding The potential impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly or indirectly through habitat modifications would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure BIO -1: Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre- construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall cover all reasonably potential nesting locations located on or closely adjacent to the project site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on -set of construction. A survey shall also be conducted no more than five days prior to initiation of clearance or construction work. If ground disturbance activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys will be conducted such that no more than five days will have Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 28 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Finding elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If an active nest is located, a qualified biologist shall determine a suitable buffer distance, which shall be placed around the nest and shall remain off - limits to construction until it is determined (by a biologist) that the nest is no longer in use. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Biological Resources Impact Impact BIO -5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12 -11) Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the removal of several mature trees located on public and private property, some of which may be considered "significant trees," according to Chapter 4, Conservation Element, Vision 2025 General Plan. Per Chapter 6, Section 7605 of the City's Municipal Code also stipulates that: "Any street tree removed shall be replaced if a replacement is deemed appropriate and if it is mutually agreed to by both the City and the property owner. The replacement tree shall be selected in accordance with the official Tree Species List and Master Street Tree Plan. No public street tree will be removed /planted without having obtained a permit from the Public Works Department." The removal of any tree identified as a significant tree would be considered permanent and irreplaceable. The potential impacts associated with potential conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EIR. The EIR analysis concluded that the Project's potential to conflict with the City's Tree Ordinance would be considered a significant impact. As a result, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10-5a through B10-5g, below, would reduce these potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Measure B10-5a: Coordination with Community Development Department. The applicant shall work with the Community Development Department to identify significant trees that may be impacted by implementation of the Project. If a significant tree is identified within the Project site, the applicant shall work with the Public Works Department on measures to preserve significant trees. Measure B10-5b: Tree Permit. No public street tree will be removed or planted without having obtained a permit from the Public Works Department. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 29 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Measure B10-5c: Tree Survey. The applicant shall retain a certified arborist to conduct a tree survey and evaluation of all significant trees that would be removed or potentially impacted. The survey shall identify the species and trunk diameter (when measured at 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade). The physical condition of each significant tree will be assessed and an alphabetical ranking shall be assigned to each tree (A' being best and 'F' being worst) for rating the tree's overall health. In addition, a Tree Replacement Plan shall be developed for the development site. The Plan shall include a minimum 2 -year monitoring plan that includes performance standards for measuring and evaluating the health of all replacement trees and significant trees that would be preserved. Measure B10-5d: Replacement Trees. All replacement trees shall be selected in accordance with the City's official Tree Species List and Master Street Tree Plan. All replacement trees will be planted on -site, following grading activities. Measure B10-5e: Preservation of Significant Trees. All significant trees that would be preserved that are located within 50 feet of land clearing or areas to be graded shall be enclosed in a temporary fenced zone for the duration of the clearing or grading activities. Fencing shall extend to the root protection zone (i.e., the area at least 15 feet from the trunk or five feet from the drip line, whichever distance is greater). No parking or storage of equipment, solvents or chemicals that could adversely affect the trees shall be allowed within 25 feet of the trunk at any time. Removal of the fence shall occur only after the project biologist confirms the health of significant trees that would be preserved. Measure B10-5f: Construction Monitoring. A certified arborist shall periodically monitor on -site construction and grading activities occurring near all preserved significant trees to ensure that damage to these trees does not occur. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the certified arborist shall schedule a field meeting to inform personnel (involved in construction) where all protective zones are located and the importance of avoiding encroachment within the protective zones. 7.2 Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Air Quality Impact Impact AIR -2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -12) Facts in Support of Finding Construction - related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 15 years. Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut - and -fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as structures and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include: • Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 30 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission • Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, CO, CO PM10, and PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off -road construction equipment (primarily diesel- operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline- operated); and • Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and architectural coatings. Construction - related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance -type impacts. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust (SCAQMD, 2005b). Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO construction emissions were estimated for a worst - case day based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.4 -6 of the EIR. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -2a through AIR -2e would help reduce construction - related emissions, as shown in Table 3.4 -6 of the EIR, construction emissions of NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant without mitigation. The City has adopted policies that support the project as part of the General Plan. These policies include: • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, Policy 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1). Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 31 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Finding • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed -use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). Issues associated with the proposed Project on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below would not reduce emissions during the short-term duration of construction to a less- than - significant impact under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The following mitigation measures from the EIR are applicable and will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; however, construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Measure AIR -2a: The City shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403 for all new development. Measure AIR -2b: Prior to grading and construction, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders. 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 32 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Measure AIR -2c: Prior to grading and construction, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel- washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving the site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off -road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. L. Measure AIR -2d: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure AIR -2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Building & Safety Division, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Air Quality Impact Impact AIR -3: Project operations could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long -term operations. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -16) Facts in Support of Finding Operational emissions for the proposed Project would be generated primarily from on -road vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings proposed under the proposed Specific Plan. Because power is provided to the City via an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil - fueled power plants in California or neighboring states, Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 33 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants, it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the power plant is built or expanded. Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from LIRBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.4 -7 of the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -3a, AIR -3b and AIR -3e would be required to reduce the impact of operational emissions, although build -out of the proposed Specific Plan would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. Findings Issues associated with the proposed Project on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below would not reduce emissions during project operations to a less than significant impact under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The following mitigation measures from the EIR are applicable and will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; however, air quality impacts associated with project operations would remain significant and unavoidable. Measure AIR -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure AIR -3b: Coordinate traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure AIR -3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job /housing balance. Air Quality Impact Impact AIR -6: Air pollutants emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact on air quality (Cumulative Construction Emissions). (Draft EIR, p. 3.4 -18) Facts in Support of Finding A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts, meaning that the project's incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Notably, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative impact. Construction Construction activity associated with other projects in the SCAB would generally involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the project. Because Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 34 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission the project has a significant and unavoidable impact, the project would also have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Operation SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative operational impacts is based on the SCAQMD's AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (FCCA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). This forecast also takes into account the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts (see Chapter 4 of the EIR) focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth. As presented in Impact AIR -1, the project would be consistent with AQMP forecasts and would result in a less- than - significant cumulative impact. As discussed in Impact AIR -2, Project Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions would not have a significant impact on community health. However, cumulative sources from projects throughout the Basin would emit substantial amounts of TACs. The estimated carcinogenic risk in the Basin is currently about 1,400 per million people (SCAQMD, 2005a). The impact of TACs to community health within the Basin is a regional concern that has been addressed by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has published an Air Toxics Control Plan designed to limit TAC emissions in an equitable and cost - effective manner (SCAQMD, 2000b). In addition, the SCAQMD addressed health risk in the Basin and TAC emissions reduction measures in the 2007 AQMP. While the total TAC emissions from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations and would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Therefore the Project would have a less- than - significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs. Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project's impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 3.4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts that would remain. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Impact Impact GHG -1: Construction and implementation of the project could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not potentially conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5 -12) Facts in Support of Finding The proposed Project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily CO emitted by construction and operational activities. Greenhouse gas impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 35 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission non - cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable. Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the proposed Specific Plan could be cumulatively considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB's 39 recommended actions in California's AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. B. The relative size of the project. The project's GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons /year of CO to the State. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals, CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions. C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. With regard to Item A, the proposed Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies. With regard to Item B, the proposed Project's construction GHG emissions would be approximately 8,156 metric tons of CO /yr. The proposed Downey Specific Plan's operational GHG emissions at build -out from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 258,543 metric tons of CO /yr, indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 17,226 metric tons of CO /yr, indirect operation emissions from the increase in water conveyance would be approximately 43,469 CO2e /yr, totaling 319,251 metric tons of CO2e /yr. The proposed Project would be classified as a major source of GHG emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO /yr). When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO2e /yr, the proposed Specific Plan at build -out (319,251 metric tons CO /yr) would be 0.07 percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO /yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO /yr), the Project would potentially conflict with the State's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. For GHG calculations see Appendix 6. As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project's total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects would generally not conflict with State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 36 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission With regard to Item C, the Project would introduce high- density residential uses, thus creating a mixed -use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community's reliance on automobiles. With regard to Item D, the City does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the Project would not pose a conflict. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and, therefore, this impact would be significant without mitigation. The State of California Attorney General's office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice, 2008) where practicable; many of these measures are included in Mitigation Measure GHG -1, below. Findings Issues associated with greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in Section 3.5 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG -1, below, to the extent feasible would not reduce greenhouse gases sufficiently to avoid potential conflicts with AB 32 goals. Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits, as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Measure GHG -1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following where practicable: Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. • Install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy • Install solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy - efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on non - residential carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 37 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water - efficient landscapes. • Install water - efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation controls. • Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water - efficient. Install water - efficient fixtures and appliances. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non - vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low- impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on -site can drastically reduce the need for energy- intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Land Use Measures • Include mixed -use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. • Educate the public about the benefits of well- designed, higher density development. • Incorporate public transit into project design. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. • Develop "brownfields" and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs. • Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides). • Encourage the development of facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero - emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 38 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Noise Impact Impact NOI -4: The proposed Project, together with anticipated future development could result in long -term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6- 15) • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low -cost monthly transit passes. • Promote "least polluting" ways to connect people and goods to their destinations. • Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle - friendly intersections into street design. • For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. • Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. • Institute a telecommute and /or flexible work hours program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high - quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation - related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. Facts in Support of Finding When considered alone, the proposed Project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Table 3.6 -6 of the EIR shows the future cumulative traffic with the project and existing traffic with the project and the difference between the two. As depicted in Table 3.6 -6 of the EIR, three out of eleven roadway segments would result in a significant increase in traffic noise from the proposed Project. Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences along roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound -rated assemblies at the exterior facades of project buildings and insulation (multi - family). Although implementation of measures required by Title 24 and City requirements would reduce proposed residences' interior noise levels to conform to Title 24 standards, existing noise - sensitive receptors would still be affected, particularly at Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street). Therefore this impact is cumulatively considerable, and significant and unavoidable for Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street), which would affect existing residences west of Paramount Boulevard. Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts related to long -term traffic are discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Title 24 and City requirements would not reduce cumulative impacts associated with noise for Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 39 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Third Street). Consistent with the adopted policies and programs associated with the social benefits of the project identified by the General Plan, including General Plan Policy 1.1.2, Program 1.1.2.2, Program 1.1.5.2, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.2.1, Program 1.2.1.2, Program 1.2.1.4, Program 1.2.2.2, and Program 1.2.2.3, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Traffic and Circulation Impact Impact TRAF -1: The proposed Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3 -20) Facts in Support of Finding For the Long Range with Currently Adopted General Plan scenario, all study area intersections would operate at or above LOS E with improvements during peak hour. Without improvements, all would fall below LOS E during the PM peak hour, and three intersections would fall below LOS E during the AM peak hour. The improvements discussed in the General Plan would be sufficient to mitigate the increase in vehicular traffic that would occur as the General Plan approaches full build -out. See Table 3.3 -5 of the EIR for intersection analysis for the long range General Plan conditions. General Plan conditions assume all project area roadways are built to their full classifications, a TSM program is implemented, and the intersection improvements outlined in the General Plan EIR have been developed. The proposed Specific Plan would increase the amount of retail, office, and other uses within the project area, but not by as much as the currently adopted General Plan. With improvements proposed by the Specific Plan, all study area intersections would perform at or above LOS E during peak hours. Without Specific Plan improvements, three intersections would fall below the standard set by the City during the PM peak hour. All intersections perform at the same LOS or better when comparing the proposed Specific Plan to the adopted General Plan. Still, three intersections would perform at LOS F without improvements. Improvements to these roadways, however, are not necessarily consistent with the overall goal of creating a vibrant, pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly downtown area. Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 would require the proposed Specific Plan to implement a program to monitor conditions at the three failing intersections and to fund alternative improvements, if necessary. Mitigation Measure TRAF -2 would require all new development to meet the City's LOS standard. The Downey Specific Plan area would not conflict with policy on congestion, mass transit, bicycle facilities, parking, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed Project is designed to promote alternative forms of transportation and be a walkable community. However, all development in the project area must conform to the City's traffic standards and intersections that are near capacity should be monitored throughout the implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF -1 and TRAF -2 would not, however, reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level under the cumulative scenario and the impacts on the Intersection of Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard and Downey Avenue at 2 Street would remain significant and unavoidable as described in Appendix 5 of the EIR. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 40 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Finding Issues associated with the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts are discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF -1 through TRAF -5 would not entirely mitigate impacts to the intersection of Downey Avenue at 2 Street nor for Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard (see Appendix 5 of the EIR). Consistent with the goals of this project, as well as the goals for Downtown provided in the adopted General Plan, the impact is overridden by the Project's benefits. Measure TRAF -1: The proposed Specific Plan shall implement a program for monitoring conditions at the following intersections: • Paramount Boulevard at Firestone Boulevard; • Downey Avenue at 2nd Street; and • Downey Avenue at Firestone Boulevard. Should conditions continue to deteriorate at these intersections, the program shall fund alternative improvements, such as Transportation Systems Management (traffic signal coordination, traffic incident management, etc.), Transportation Demand Management (ridesharing, transit information kiosks, etc.), or improvements to the infrastructure for alternative modes of transport (walking, bicycling, NEVs). Measure TRAF -2: All new development within the Specific Plan area shall be required to conform to the City's traffic standards. Measure TRAF -3: Third through lanes shall be established on northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches to the intersection of Paramount Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard. The through lanes will replace right turn lanes (either striped or de facto) in each case and will require eliminating parking on the departure legs of the intersection. Measure TRAF -4: Transportation Systems Management (traffic signal coordination, traffic incident management, etc.); Transportation Demand Management (ridesharing, transit information kiosks, etc., or improvements to the infrastructure for alternative modes of transport, such as walking, bicycling, neighborhood electric vehicles) shall be implemented for the intersection of Paramount Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard. Measure TRAF -5: A third eastbound through lane shall be added to the intersection of Downey Avenue at Firestone Boulevard, by eliminating parking during the PM peak hours. 8. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed Project. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the Project's unavoidable significant environmental effects (See Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 -445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 41 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be Tess severe than those of the proposed Project as mitigated (See Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [1978] 83 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [1988] 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400 -403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR examines three alternatives to the proposed Project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the Project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Build); Alternative 2: No Project Alternative (Build under the Existing Plan); and Alternative 3: 50 Percent Residental /50 Percent Commercial Alternative. These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts that are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Project Alternative, the City followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). 8.1 No Project Alternative (No Build) Description Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition of the project site, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved. The "no project" alternative represents the status quo, or maintaining the project site in its current state. Under Alternative 1, no changes would be made to the Downtown Specific Plan area other than changes related to normal repairs and maintenance. Because no construction would occur, nothing would change. No new architectural elements would be added to the area, vacant buildings /boarded up buildings would remain vacant and boarded up, and no construction equipment or other signs of construction would be visible. No new environmental effects would directly result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in the present state would allow the site to continue in its current state. Because the site would not be developed, any significant and adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed Project would be avoided. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 42 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Project Goals and Objectives The EIR includes the following goals and objectives in Chapter 2 (Project Description): • Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan, Policy 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed -use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Landing Project (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Develop the downtown area as a destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1). • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed -use housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment opportunities. • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined above. Maintenance of current conditions would continue to detract from the creation of a vital 24 -hour downtown that serves the City and enhances the City's economic base. In addition, no additional retail merchandise shopping opportunities would be created to serve the residents of Downey; the visual character of the site would not be enhanced; and businesses that generate positive net revenues for the community would not be attracted to the area. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 43 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission 8.2 No Project Alternative (Build under the Existing Plan) Description Under Alternative 2, or the No Project (Build) Alternative would continue existing policies and regulations for the Specific Plan area; and development would continue under existing regulations. The Downtown would continue to be defined by the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone and would not actively include the proposed Civic Center District nor parts of the proposed Paramount Boulevard Professional District. Portions of these areas would be subject to C -P, C- 1, C -2 and C -3 zoning. Some areas would be within the Downtown Plan Overlay Zone, which includes height restrictions and use restrictions. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined above. Under Alternative 2, development would occur in conformance to existing General Plan land use designations and zoning, principally the Downtown Plan Overlay zone. The edges of the Specific Plan area are outside of the downtown zone and would instead be subject to a wide variety of uses, ranging from single - family housing to C -3 commercial zones. Because of the lack of a unified and far - reaching vision for the entire downtown area, and the continuation of existing uses for a longer period of time due to the slump in the housing market and the general economic slump, development is likely to take longer than 2025, the horizon year for Downey's General Plan. The lack of a unified vision for the Specific Plan area would conflict with the policies established by the General Plan for downtown and make development downtown (as currently delineated by the Downtown Plan Overlay and the Redevelopment Plan) more difficult. As a result, Alternative 2 would have a greater impact than the proposed Specific Plan. 8.3 50 Percent Residential /50 Percent Commercial Alternative Description Alternative 3 would split development in the Specific Plan area so that the 50 percent of development would be residential and 50 percent would be commercial. This approach establishes a goal of 1,423 net new dwelling units in Specific Plan area, and approximately 777,408 square feet of net new commercial space, for a total of 1,620 residential units and 2.6 million square feet of commercial space. Alternative 3 would result in a goal of 189 net new dwellings in the Paramount Boulevard Professional District, 80 net new dwelling units in the Downtown Residential District, 165 net new dwelling units in the Downtown Core, and 989 net new dwellings in the Firestone Boulevard District. Most of the commercial development would take place in the Firestone Boulevard Gateway District, where approximately 873,470 net new square feet, or approximately two- thirds of anticipated commercial development under Alternative 3, would be targeted. This would be the only change to the Specific plan. All other guidelines and requirements under the Specific Plan would remain the same, including design guidelines, proposed densities and floor -to -area ratios, and proposed building heights. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would occur in conformance to the Specific Plan. New development would focus on developing more residential uses and less commercial uses than the proposed Specific Plan. Impacts to the environment under Alternative 3 would result in a lower jobs -to- housing ratio than under the Specific Plan. Although not a significant impact, the result would be a need to balance the need for jobs against the need for additional residences. Because of the ongoing slump in housing prices, it may be difficult to line up substantial housing development. However, this would not necessarily be a significant environmental effect. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 44 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission 9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision - making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and /or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project- Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Air Qualit • Impact AIR -2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. • Impact AIR -3: Project operations could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long -term operations. • Impact AIR -6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality. Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Impact GHG -1: Construction and implementation of the project could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions. The project would not potentially conflict with the state goal of reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Noise • Impact NOI -4: The proposed Project, together with anticipated future development could result in a long -term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels particularly at Intersection No. 2 (Paramount Boulevard south of Third Street). Traffic and Circulation • Impact TRAF -1: The proposed Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The City has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts, they would not reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 45 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations merely allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. 10. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must: (1) independently review and analyze the EIR; (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and determined that the Draft EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City circulated the Draft EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City concludes that the Draft EIR reflects its independent judgment. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 46 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission Exhibit B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level, the City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR for the project (which includes the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project, or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project implementation will: ■ Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the city's future population growth (see General Plan 1.1.2). • Promote housing projects and mixed -use projects that include housing within areas designated for the downtown area, transit - oriented developments, and areas in the vicinity of the Downey Downtown Specific Plan (see General Plan, Program 1.1.2.2). • Promote Downtown Downey as a destination draw for entertainment and dining uses (see General Plan, Program 1.1.5.2) ■ Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.2). ■ Develop the downtown area as destination point for entertainment, dining, civic, and other activities (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.1) • Capitalize on existing pedestrian traffic generated by the Downtown area by the movie theater, hotel, civic center and offices (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.2). • Promote housing, mixed housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown (see General Plan, Program 1.2.2.3). • Promote project designs that reduce dependency on vehicles and promote pedestrian transit, and alternate modes of travel (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Promote mixed -use developments with housing on the same site or in proximity to commercial services to reduce the need for trips by vehicles (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.1). • Provide dining opportunities within walking distances of employment centers (see General Plan, Program 1.2.1.4). • Promote Downtown Downey as an economic core creating new employment opportunities. • Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit - oriented characteristics while ensuring access for automobiles. • Preserve and enhance the unique character of existing structures. • Identify Downtown as a cultural center for Downey. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 47 Resolution No. 10 -2664 Downey Planning Commission • Concentrate growth in Downtown while respecting and preserving surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Respect the needs of existing landowners in the downtown and minimize the use of eminent domain in the downtown area. Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) September 15, 2010 - Page 48 X 2 2 & C 2 Verification Timing Frequency k C C a) -= 0220 a » » m 3g0 _ a — % @ COCe Action by Monitor 0 g co � 0 0 : O 2 E ' @E _ _ '§ 'E E 3 w 2 M k 0 2 E a) co a. O co o « ®02 § CO a o « - k m 0 _ O� 1121Od321 ONV ONI IO1INOW NOIIVOIIIW Compliance Check on c _ k § : k o �£ @ �E ° k o a) co Ucc kRu3 a1g1suodsab U � & 0 k (� L b , �� Q o • < ci Mitigation Measure Land Use Measure LU -1: The City of Downey shall, in conjunction with the approval of the proposed Specific Plan, amend the General Plan so that the entire planning area is designated as Mixed Use and change the residential density ranges of the planning area to reflect those in the proposed S•ecific Plan. Population and Housing 2 4 $ o 2 2 2 2 7$ i E _c WO 3 ° 0 3 ° o ct 2E2o2� _c�� ®� _ @ »a)n 2 .L= cu � k� 24 >m @n co % �� \��v 0 �c @ >oc�@ 0 « ° ) o - U .2 C °- -0 E ' > � � 2 @ m u O a. m m _c ' o@ m@@ c@ -c0< Q� /= 0a) . m% 00 CC , X 32 \ ■'e ■£ ooa m E o 7 E k c 0 ©C E k 2 k 0 %a) & @ d - a) a) 2 2 o -c< O cc O .§@ 2 0 020= co E o ■ kk 0 C� EXHIBIT C Verification Timing / Frequency § % Iii R 2 0 CD CN0 CL CO 0 C EL) § 0 2 — 13 >, . 5 3 E =.- w = When a traffic report is submitted to the City for new development As part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and /or Action by Monitor a) 3 o/ -- /k CL CD <� Site plan review and project approval Site plan review and project approval Compliance Check .0 0 2 ■ - o r o c o3:cD City Public Works Department; City Planning Division City Public Works Department; City Planning Responsible Entity 1 0_ • @ £ s wog OH City Public Works Department; City Planning Division City Public Works Department; City Planning Mitigation Measure Traffic and Circulation 2 c 2 c c J E c } CO 0 2 o o 2; 7o ! o § 2 w 2 =� _ > k$ ■ 2 § m • a 0 o c ■ 2 it k£ �E 8 - - RS -c.-c-- ■ \ § ■ ƒ ill .. q g % ■ ■ k ® L ai - u_ -§.- k c O e E , 2 0 % a) - u a 1- k% 2 k ■ § a) § o§ 2 o §� 2 I " k k k k CCD C 13 0 g § k k k 13 c 1,... § � : ■ 2 1 ■ 3 3 3 -' 0_ o■ co - 5 o co a o 2. § 0- o 4 11 3 0 § 3 m 2 2 ■ E § c§ c 3 2 m 2, • • m 17 3 .— w Q E O �. k Measure TRAF -2: All new development within the Specific Plan area shall be required to conform to the City's traffic standards. Measure TRAF -3: Third through lanes shall be established on northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches to the Verification Timing / Frequency when development traffic affects the intersection o coa > 0. co o 0 0) c 0. c c 0. oc c °) a) a) m O la n. As part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and /or when development traffic affects the intersection On -site inspections during Action by Monitor a) L 4- ., C O ! _ > U O U 0. a) Q Q < Site plan review and project approval Required as a condition on the approved Compliance Check uolslAla _0 7 a C a) E alt Y � O N City Public Works Department; City Planning Division Building & Safety Division; SCAQMD Responsible Entity uolslAla 0 Fa as City Public Works Department; City Planning Division Applicants / Developers Mitigation Measure intersection of Paramount Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard. The through lanes will replace right turn lanes (either striped or de facto) in each case and will require eliminating parking on the departure legs of the intersection. Measure TRAF -4: Transportation Systems Management (traffic signal coordination, traffic incident management, etc.); Transportation Demand Management (ridesharing, transit information kiosks, etc., or improvements to the infrastructure for alternative modes of transport, such as walking, bicycling, neighborhood electric vehicles) shall be implemented for the intersection of Paramount Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard. Measure TRAF -5: A third eastbound through lane shall be added to the intersection of Downey Avenue at Firestone Boulevard, by eliminating parking during the pm peak hours. A3!len° JIV Measure AIR -2a: The City shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant co co O Z C O O N a) O co 9 O J a) m c a _ N a O o p E N U a- T O a) - c o w O 0. m c c O 0 Verification Timing / Frequency construction c 2 0 - 2 2 co a_• 2 o. 2\ Action by Monitor architectural drawings § a / Ti. § 7 @ 22 » as g Compliance Check keg • o * — 0 ) E g 2 kka2 ' S co = @ 0 m n CL CI n I3!3u3 alq!suodse co c 0 0 . J2 < k Mitigation Measure to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403 for all new development. C22ƒ c 0 0) C ® NCO /g c o� \w 2 % k 3 0 7 % 2 v ' E 2@ E 2 — % 2 @ . ' 0. 2 @ 7' 3 0 2 2 �' 2 g Q / 2 Q ■ . 7_c o � d i � §2 � � 2J ° 2 2 -.2 a)U�'0 •c 2 • CO c 2 c L-n o £ q E 4- 2 @ % u) w . c § « 2 CL ƒ - EE a) E k 7 0 o > 2 2 § k 4- co E c k 0 N CO• 0 � - a) a c' k 2>, 7 c c 2 3� ce o 0- 0 2'> E& � '5 c c -0 .c 2 2 2 £ 2 2 ®� o Q 0 2 s° c@ — 7 ° 2 ®c § 2 .. @ 0 @ 3— 2 2 @— ` E c 2 @ @ co co u) — @ c co c Ls � k�7 0 E�72�" ■ 2 � 2 (pop Q = ƒ §a2 � a D° § 0 2 . 4,-_, 0 2 k § v) a_ k ° 0 m co @ a_ o ■ ® @ co v) Q c ° co co co - a L_ E Q a. > a) (0 — @ E a_ @ LO (N a 2% 2 2 2 w / to o z c ct Verification Timing Frequency ck v 0 U) § c g � c -a �' c < % -0 0 Action by Monitor §2 § I- % CO a o 32k CD ■ ■ Compliance Check k e .0 . C7 > be � �2 f 7 d3co Responsible Entity ■ E c 32 < Mitigation Measure construction equipment. 4. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. c 2 2_c o 2@ D @ 6 1 o§ 2 M ƒ ( = -0 2 03 -0 0 o @ @ » %� £ 2 °® c3� E 2 2 � -c � D — . co � 2 2 �as o _c a c(i) � 4_ ® c 3 /" a 0 ca I- 2 ® o C� � k k /r k � k� �2 k O a k 2 c 7� § 0-§ • ƒ § 0 2 c E la c E E 0 - @ 2 w 2 (7 3 2 o w f i.54-• � u co .2 ■ co CO o c 0§ ce § 0- o 2 _ 2'F 2 2 k c ■ 2 2 .% b° 2, o o 5 -0 @ ® � 4 : @ ® Q J _@ @ @ @ o @ v @ o � ■ @ cp-- a) 0 . /. 2 2 - o w 2 2 3 w c _ c yl E . al @ 2 c co CD co 2 ° £ k @ cl§ x 0 $ c o a) a3 k ■ 13 > CO — 2 E E @ o P _0 = o > ■ 3 @ 2 §2 @ 2k 6 U 6 w u _ c § 2 •= o•- D��b �L0 co 7 � % ® L_-0 o q @ a a) co 2 cr c § 2 ƒ 2 R 2 - ■ @ : 7 a) C7) '5 co E d NI 0 / z a ƒ § E k � CD in �� cE o c ƒ gcr) f K 0 Verification Timing / Frequency At plan check and on -site inspections during construction Before building permits are issued and on- site inspections during construction . Action by Monitor Site plan review and project approval Incorporate during Site Plan Review and architectural plan check Compliance Check Building & Safety Division Building & Safety and Engineering Divisions AIRu3 eIglsuodse Applicants / Developers Applicants / Developers Mitigation Measure O t V 4 .D as O Y U N O "- N L E ms+ = O Ea)a . E N O • E O L C .—CDC C O v N E 2 p N O C p 0 O _ c N f° C as O O O •E Q N N (0 N 3 W g co > :.- 1 O O 0 v) U L_ cpp L- 0 N o N fp O y N U Q N om+ Q co„, c t L N - N Q Q O > N [ N N O y o" O C C p) co w O O C > Q O C C •` ' — "0 +� O N >, N O N 0 -p O O y O 0 N C .O N N 0 . O O L O D O N N a Q' N 2, C y N C N N C L 2 N O c w EU O O O O m zo 3 w oce O Q N alo 0) 2 — -i Measure AIR -2d: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure AIR -2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic con • estion. D r O . N E O U 0) C ti 0 co 9 0 Nr Z `n J N a 0) c CD a0 U p N C0 >, a) . C O a o c 0 C 3 0 1 Verification Timing / Frequency On -site inspections during construction Before building permits are issued Long- range; report to City Planning Department annually Action by Monitor Site Plan Review and architectural plan check Review traffic signal improvement plans Coordination among City departments upon project completion Compliance Check Building & Safety and Engineering Divisions; MTA Metro Engineering Division Economic Development Department itinu3 elglsuodseb Applicants / Developers Applicant/Devel oper Applicant/Devel oper Mitigation Measure 2 c° co N O c O O N Cd -c v d QO) G) CO O , c o C) 3 C Q C V G) fG 45 V C C E 7 C V _ V O "•' m 0 O 2 fu O C C L L O L C co G) C O C 0 ai Q G c C o 0 `5 = o .O a N • .N - C L co C „' L N U • •> 6 0 0 0 0 a O C 0 :) co O G) = ( ) . O L C L c O 3 . S V Q a..—ca..—cc.) C O C O N c.) cn V c >> O a) ` G) (.2 C cn 0 E co - . a) Q C O 0 G) O m -0 C m 2 as as •z: o_ .c n �.. o W .. Measure AIR -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure AIR -3b: Coordinate traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure AIR -3c: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job /housing balance. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming 0 . cn 7 E E V o , U 2 0) o c Z (3 oa aa) a a o C o Verification Timing Frequency X20)@ CO co " ■ o c- 0 - a D� @ J q ; 0 o _ o.- On -site building inspections and Action by Monitor c E ® k w £ a) '5 k c 4- @ E ■ / cL as Site Plan Review and Compliance Check k2 as D cc c >.- 0 2 [ .@ 5%ca2 mn Ec Building 8 Safety and AItu3 alglsuodsaa > @ 0 A : O. 0 Applicant/Devel oper Mitigation Measure Ca �§2 •• � 2 0 § & b% c W. 2 0) /k 2% J §� 7 $ §� � §� § a) co % g @ - = @ . E _ @ £ — 8 6 .0 @ 03 _ @ @ o E c ® -0 o o E 2 a_ c 4 c@ _0 2 o o a'■ 2_ E @' : (/) @ — c ® co a) c c a) - o /J1 2 R 2k —co 0 ' E U g _ O 2 a) c o a) E E o 2 @ L 2 E g •• 2 c£ 2_ ®� 3 0) 0 2 @ ■ c @ d C, c 7 0 co E c c o- E > >@ 6 i£ 2 z c3) a) ■ o @ 2 c r o E 2 2L_ o E 2 f ' 2 m c. . 3 c a ° 5 � 2 E:_ @ @ w � . 2 . 2 7 @ ■ � � `� m — E ° 2 o @ 0 E 7■ 2 C E o > ■@ D > o E_ o 0 2 c ,6 . c 15 4_ >, 2: ; ®@' 2 2 0- co 2 2 o R 2 O° o .5 @ 2 g 2 t 2§ \ f k t 7 @%§ c 2 2 k k k§ k ■ 2 E @ c c 0a3-0-0(.000— = o O GO— ■ ■ ■ o —1 o u- @ 2 CO @ E .2 w • • • • • • • • • Renewable Energy • Install solar and tankless hot o '1 ) k E E 3 c c co k (0 a & c 0- £ . 0_ CD /� C� CE 0 0 %ci) c § 0 Verification Timing / Frequency N _ N a -0 N . CC a)10 Lc N 7 N a) C co N '0 0 '0 0 7 co 7 _0 C -0 0 - °?Vy N a0 E' c C N a) C Action by Monitor Ta �a) s °? a 0 C 0 0 " � c Ti oo c 3 0_ al .. 3 c .o 0 a) ca as 2,� � c aco t° •- Z a s Z) a) t hio� .D. D� a Compliance Check cc RS 0 co c rn o a - c'v) a) 'a . 5 cj E a o as c c Responsible Entity a) > a) 0 C � 0 Q a) aQ < 0 Mitigation Measure water heaters, and energy - efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on non- residential carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in a • • ro • riate a • • lications. C C O ( 0 0 O O •V N a N D L C 2 C � .- L N c 7 j ,E 00 'V i ca c0 L � 0 a) Q° oe 3 3 ^ a) co a) ••c 7 .` L C .L.. V N A a) ` cn . c). en o a) ` a c) c a) ca CO 1- L • Q) vi O c ca 3 s 0 �. t 1 3 c a) v v ° ) 0 - 00 u °3 Ec�av°i � a) NC v a c c o v) —ca m a)o ) ° 0 m ° - . a). --0 rn� cn ° -0 c , a) E L c0 C 4 + Q 'C E C 'O j N. "'' 0 "0 C a) a) ' N a0 - 5 V N �. C � fd 4 C To C +o rd Q) a) 7 6 ca c0 ° ° a) c L — C 3 N 0. o L O a) 3 o L Q E a) . 0 N > ` �. v ca N E ° g •' cc c0 =c v c' c a) - - � o NO ° a)� •c -0o •c•E 8 V N C D5 u) •0 CO v C N 2 6. a a 0 C 0 N 0 o E U ca C °° 0 D 0 -Q 0 O 3 o a) L cm .,2 0 V 3 w • • 0 co 9 0 z a rn C O- M d 0 0 N 0 0. to a) . c o° w c c) Verification Timing / Frequency a) a c ca v 0 � a) co Action by Monitor _a Y › op O O a) c "= ;r t O O C N C 7 c)E E O a) t . O 7 E 0 ,0 ca ca — L C` V fa p - N c CL M .g_ - 0 o ao <OP C H Compliance Check 06 E O L _N > C 0 a) cm E c > 0 7 ca7 a) mvo Responsible Entity TD > Ca Mitigation Measure Cto...a)a) a)°?a)(1)u)R c0 L a) 0) -C L_ ca 4— 4... +- 76 = _C 7 t Q " p CO 0 0 ca ca •— f Q E o C,, c"n D 3 3 a o co o c o a)sEOa) a) c o > C c ) a • • . a) o o ca 0 E co R t 0 O 2.6 C o" sm -aaI lam N C cc 8 ' -- C 7 N at co _ 7 > E O C E, o C O E 4... E O 0 C C L_ c co 0 7 ^ O O 0 3o w � — >'Ca? caTiQ -- c O O o w c " u) a) E 0 ' c " c ca > co a) Z a) a). c) 'c Q � : o Z E )a a) a 2 E O - ti) 47 ,, a) a) u_) a) t a) •- L_ ca c- ' a O i_ ca a) a)Ea c" c - > oo n C a) o o cO > — v E 0 U ) 3 v a) C O 0,- U ) CO CL c o y a Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. c 0 . N V O 6 0) c p 'c Z ca o a c a a) ) 0 Verification Timing / Frequency �@ fl ■ - @ o E § %U)U) m o..§ Building plan check Action by Monitor the City's Municipal Code. %2 2 £ @ E � @ cc @ @ 2 ( 2 U) "7 7 U2 §� t Q ■ 2 ° § @ g n . 0 I U): ' -c c § cu 6 Q@ 15 @@ ca@ U o@ c c E-0 Ce ■ 3 o. E 0 To the extent practicable, at Compliance Check : t a. 2 w D • - E ƒ .- % ° w Y.b 0 Planning Division; Responsible Entity > @ 0 % : < 0 Applicant/ Developer Mitigation Measure • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. @ E . - 0 ®c @ @ ® 43 o 8 0)-. / E A w 2: E @ -5, 2 / ca -S _c co 2 . t ' � 2 ° E k% k 8"5 u) . 2 2 _ 0_ ' • a =- 0 2 a @ o o ' U) c c @ ° D 2 c ii E % L_ 2 2 @ ' ■ ' @ @ D % c f O. @ 2 � § a 7 % . 0 .- $ @ - 0 c c c "� U) 2 E.2 ■ 2 2 . §—o� § k § C . o E n � @c / . — L_ = X 22 2: = ���� ,0 0 _ _ a � �k�k� ■ 2 co o w c 1 I- a @' 7 k -0 § 0 o , 2 ■ E 1 2 @■ o@ ® I c Lu t 2 m / ° @ 13 o @ -0 @ % ■ 2 o ® 2 ; "C c >■ ®� >, 2 0 _ 2 0 2 @■ c o 6 _ k 2 k c• %._ k c c §• U)� w 2 > 2% c o c c- ■ ■ @ "0 @ @ c @ U) @ c @ U @ o E ■ § @ 3 lc o t L _o - o 3 a_ a. ■ 0 n c O Q_ 3 -J « E • • • • • • Transportation and Motor Vehicles to co E z k o I co Verification Timing / Frequency Action by Monitor c cc a 3 a) a) a) Compliance Check 06 c Y 0i- 0 > C o a) rn E c > C) - t '°_ 4-. a 5cona) m kilu3 elgisuodsea Mitigation Measure o 'C u) c 8 C) 'C 8 'C a) '~ o C) 'C a) Cl) >, o o 'C 3 a) >. a) o cE�a �•ao CO CO o o c o o c cn cn coc cd>c a) E� ov� rn�� ���?o vE 30 Z vi 4 0 o> a coa a 4,- C°aE-0a0> ..= : c� _ Cr) C o - °v; Y c� -o o � � o c o o m � o � �. L- _C CD Cr) L- C L C) N (n 97 a) co -C u) C i +� "0 >. C U a) O a `- m co c C) co > 'C a) a c co o )0 O U -. co n O CD o N =p L N p a L a) 3 .C2 c a) C 7 V .0 0 .: o " a) O >. N o a C) • E� > > c cf) c c3 o D EE ' ui coo- rn . E •C cc7 rn ca'c o 4-, a) co>.o.0a) o a)co cr c m. -o c a)ca caoo a)co >t4. cn a)oca) a)c a) S +� >, rnc ~ co+ � �c .0E c o . E a? 0 CO ° a ,_ o a cc as � L a n 15 •- - , °) a c ) °)0 a° a))v acn > o aa o n E a a) ) O � . a) v D C 'C ,_ O co 0 c- C E _c c y o-` 7 E `O o C O O a) C C O 'C J > co a a •c co m •c a .a W a a) a) > c..) a v) 4.. a c.) 4. — 2 u) v — . u_ co • • • • • • • • o o c O U) U) c , ,U r c o) O zc ca o a c a) O CC Verification Timing Frequency On -site inspections during construction 6uuna Action by Monitor Ensure necessary permit is issued before construction begins auag ayf }V Compliance Check City Planning Division City Planning Responsible Entity Jado lanaa/}ueollddd Applicant/Devel Mitigation Measure a g ga6a ) o 2o� 8 E 2g2� 2 ■ % - 2 r -c -0 ■ ■ [2 > ? C ° $ k2 • 2� c 0 � � } a 6 E - 0 @ 0 -'E c c■ S = .- c o • @• c p§ n o 0 o J 2 - o @ o E 12 4 @ c w E ■ § @ @ / @ Cl) E 7 c o j % c o Q£ 2 0 2>§ Sƒ - @ § 2 o C) @ - 0 co .5 E 2 E 2 -* 5 2 a a o o e a) >, (n � aa6 �K2 2 2 0k;k�.5 k 2 C > L_ @ co @ o @ > 0 _ 5 n @ - o ■ o c @ o n Ti 2 a o c n z ? 7 7 70 2 o E a 'a . > a o D E3 ■ £ o ._ > 0 . @ £ >- n.§ 8 c '5 § E c 2 R : " a v $ k .§ ° 03 ": ° • 6 1,3 Eƒ 2 0 0 @ @. T S .0 O o _ co -0 _ 4 �._ o . + £ a + L- @._ _ Noise Measure NOI -1 a: Applicants /developers shall be required to secure a construction permit for exemption of the noise standards (Section 4606.5) prior to • ro'ect im • lementation. Measure NOI -1b: As specified in Verification Timing / Frequency construction On -site inspections during construction At the time permits are issued; during construction a) EL.) o) E co L - c ° O O U -0 L- E a o � C -.-• a) co O Q Q.( U During on -site building inspections and before building permits are finalized Action by Monitor building permits are issued Building plan check Building plan check C c0 Q o) C Y "p U = a) M U Building plan check Compliance Check Division; Code Enforcement Building & Safety Division Building & Safety Division C) c c c0 a. C O - -> 3 b Planning Division; Building & Safety Division Responsible Entity Jado Applicant/Devel oper Applicant/Devel oper TD > a) 0 c ca _ Q 0 QQ < 0 Applicant/Devel oper Mitigation Measure City of Downey Ordinance No. 4606, no construction will occur between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure NOI -1 c: All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Measure NOI -1 d: All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. a) ate) 8 >, O:co c< c Cl co�.0 co >m To co c0 'c a) j p) a ) co 0' 'C co ca E 0 t c 0 c 0 c C co a C E =p - a C n 475 0 0 0 C 0 0 CO - 0 C U U -0 v O C .) 8 ct, a) �u c0 U O D U C c0 3 C a) a a) U`. -0 O 0 0 Q 1 = _ o U c 0 E 0 0 f0 0- � as •'- - c U 0- Z cn E 0 1-_, L c v,,. f0 a) o t 0 C v) ` _c 0. ca a > ia ) o_ E 4- o a) m N w C- L o L E U 0 0 C Q co E a3 c ° cn- f0 a cc a o Measure NOI -2a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the roofto• •ara•et or within an o Nr co E co o o C Z C ca ca 0 7 c c co 0 Ce 0 4 ti O O 9 O 7 N Z CD J a) C D- M . Y.. O U p U N u) >0 a)-0 c o a) O Q a) C V) 0 C 0 0 Verification Timing / Frequency Before permits are finalized a) as E E 43 1 : 3 a _ a) a) - L C) — _C C 'Es a) < . O At the time building permits are finalized Action by Monitor Ensure incorporation of this mitigation measure at Site Plan Review; building plan check `- Ca)3C)C oO =aCas CC > > a ornri �C 0E2 C) a co c �c C0 . 11 a ) c� C5 _ w.E -C Ea cam v Ensure incorporation of this mitigation measure at Site Plan Review and during building plan check Compliance Check Planning Division C) C 'E C O E C O U '> b City Planning Division Responsible Entity Applicant/Devel oper N Applicant/Devel oper Mitigation Measure enclosure that effectively blocks the line of site of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure NOI -2b: In order to avoid noise - sensitive hours, commercial and retail land uses shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the night time hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure NOI -2c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, commercial and retail uses shall locate all loading areas for commercial and retail uses at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed -use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project. Aesthetics Measure AES -1: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan requires the minimal glare provisions set forth in the existing Downtown Plan. • o p • 'c Z c c a 7 ▪ a) • C CD 0 CL O co O O 7 M Z c0 J a) a c a as 00 U p �'= N U a >, . o°� O a) O c V) 0 c 0 0 Verification Timing / Frequency co c 0 w2 9-C E § @ o @ co m oo.a a) Ei2 -D % ) @ o E § co o (.0 Ira Action by Monitor o = @ co o 0 2 E CD o c 7' C. wkk -ok 2 a@ @ 7 3 co o f CI) -0 -:E,- o co R Q) q 0 - @ ® h� L_ 2� � � � � 2 ° ° §� iD 2 .C- 0 !4= "C CL Ecn k Compliance Check co k @ 2 £ 2 1a_ c2 a_aa_b k E § : 0 b Responsible Entity ru @ a § < 0 Ti) Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources R @@ o g■■ E _ > co o a 6_ c £ ' C 5 C 0 P ƒ • k � R o-a o (@ E t@ w w ( ( I I o■ I CL co k 8 § La-, 2 : -a 2 C) -a W a \ CD � @ - @m£ 2_c m CD 2 3 721 'E co o W @® ® $ % 0 - 0 2'8§2 fkgSk C v ° W§ P § w g ce? .. Cll .. �@6 >QE£ >3m2 I 2 - c E @ @ @ - 0 L_ @ m -' - U 2' Ps E @ ®@ E>, 2 2 E o R _C -0 • ' k a £ ° 3 _ @ — ®c ■ �: _ C o a- >. k 0- a 4- @ ° E e o: c • i3/ m E _ — £ _ E. 5 o L ._ § 6 d a C C 2 $-1 U> @co ? m§ _ k -6 k _ ° k ∎ ° � i 2 w � Measure CUL -2b: The Downtown Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.0 — Site Specific Historical Survey and Evaluation - which states that a survey and evaluation shall be completed for all structures on a proposed project site or immediate vicinity that are 45 years old or older at the time of project initiation or if sufficient time has •assed to obtain a scholarl k co co § k � J .° : 0 / § a r- k / _ a % Ca E O._ 0 2 \ 0 a) c f 2 a Verification Timing / Frequency E Q ) S ® Ei 2 I - o E § %W■ m 0_ : Action by Monitor ui • Ei -a 2 @ 2 g m o a) @ =� 0 CD R3 W- @ ®� ' L- � 2 � L- @ 2� 2 ■ 0) C C • CD 3 2/ o o W Q@ 0. E « 3 c c E■ m Compliance Check o e . o .§ > b 0 c � � ° L 2 E .§ S % a± mco �c Responsible Entity > @ c % : < o Mitigation Measure perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource to understand its historical importance. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. -s�¢ ,6 "' p 2 // 2 0 fi3- Q ®- ■� §% c o o g o k c �� £ E J (Doc U »2@ c E » .- ■ 2 c co > ■ =� ® @ 2 ® ■ ■.� � ° o c cp );c:) 0 G) W ° 2 o 2§° 3 / a t 2 c) o V C > . § 2@ �� _ _ o '- @ @' . m ca 0, > +■£� 2 "a ® E E £ - o 2 = o.§ Q 3 ez m " E ®• ' � C 2 u) 1 I- � k '� a ® .a : � ��k� ' -- 0 o 2 § 2 U 2.0 U) 0 0 z �� 2• : 2� � L L_ ° R 2 � � 2 @v 2k 2 + 2ƒ U % 2 E_ a) k \ 2 = % b U J o 2 co a) %[ Wk§ o _cEƒoo2co2 =2 =CL , -�2 L_a) 2■= 2 Q ■._ = Q Q = Q % ■ 0■ E 0 2> co V Verification Timing / Frequency C7) CD v E C) EL) y S a E C) m '5 a/ ca C) m 4- v � m a E Action by Monitor N a) U ca O co a) 0 U N o CO co a) o C O O 0. O O To 0 o �' ` p O 0 U O U p ) wc oc 33coow s v o o o o m Q a) ` Ell < 5 as :.=Eu o-a N a) U ca O co a) 0 4 U U N o a) ( C O — O c 0. O O L - o Tr) o �' O N V 0 U - oc 33Coo° 0 - o 0 o U m 0.°D ` < 5 °ooa.=Ecr) ca Compliance Check . o N 0 0) c c c • O '' m c n ao 0 . 0 0) c c c • . o v0c mv) AIlu3 elglsuodsea D > m 0 c ca U _ 0. m 0. 0 < 0 N > co Mitigation Measure record and recover the resources using standard professional archaeological methods. o 2 co . c L o L° 6 1 U C o O 3 .` c " O)' ci — ;a C D .— V - c o o -p c CO 0 ° C E l() n U) a)< fl. O O N- 0 C� L C ` '� U` w N N o o C a L CD 2 ca O U o > > N N t . E a I— O — Y o 0 0 V O L O c a) N J V>2 u) cC;= .. .c N a M C to O — IS a) ` 0 N - rn E V • = a) _ C .0 o a) ;a - a "'' a) y ca �..coo„, ' c 3 tC C o 0 C 8 m L . t Q 0 N t -p a) ca ca o cn co c C N 2 a) U U c U 0 Q co c O O O L 0 N C To " C co E L U ' 4) - `O a) o co co t ` co C O :U j 0 .0 W C) ` E > 0, 2ari 3 O 2 C.)5 o cT)0:= , ca.6Q o ca Measure CUL-4: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy 3.6.10.E — Halt Work for Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources, which states that in the event paleontological resources are discovered, the lead agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the •otential co • E co o I- O C z c O 7 N c co 3 o O 9 0 7 CO Z co 0 a CO C Cu a U o a) in a) a� c o 4- 0 0) c V) 3 0 C 3 0 0 Verification Timing / Frequency Before grading permits are issued Action by Monitor K : % - 0 Add slip sheet to citing measure to the Downtown Downey Specific Plan; incorporate Compliance Check Building & Safety Division; County Coroner; Responsible Entity Applicant/Devel oper Mitigation Measure -c 0 c,¢ ° 9 7 *- cD k 2 § § E a) _c a) co } L- CO 2 2 c k 0 ° 2 m" 2 a) c Tr■ 2 g > - R o S ■ a) %} u Rac2� ��%k 0 a.2 o 0 % ƒ2 § :p■ >, co 2 m � ma_ ■ —�� ,_ . �7 �oR�� a) 1 : 3 © o � cm • c 2 L-■ k 4- 2 2 .C} £ o . m. -g _ 4- Q ■ � £ E 4- � ; 2 / 2 2 2 / c CD -0 -' -- a) m o ) 3 ® — « . § o 0 7 C o S ■ k � 2 7� k E CD ■� C 2 a � . 0. 0 C "$ 2 ) ° 0 - 2 c° 2 q § 9 as / 2 %° c ©: 2 Z m ."- 2 a) co c m > > ® Ea a 2' �OO2Da)Da)a_�kcoas . \ 2 �U)a -a) �U) Measure CUL -5: The Specific Plan shall include a new policy that states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County coroner will be k U) . §k / z § � w k k rs- 9 o a. 0) c ao k � E - m '- a) o o c m 2 k 3 Verification Timing / Frequency Action by Monitor ca 0 v) U as C ( CD Caa O ' 4- U U ca U L 3 a)da) E co ca - 0 Compliance Check I!lu3 eiq!suodsea Mitigation Measure m -a C g _ —, 4E. 0 "•' U a) a) o Lo La a) a) La - E U (n 0 >, .- ' c C o W C a) — c c >, C a) ca t U . m ' � o c o sc ca -c �• o o ca o a) t o t o L >, ca o V w o c° ',.= co .3 U co -E.- Ea a)— ca - o n � aY— co E E E 4.. . to U . c E (n "O co U m U +� co i_ O L c L- co Z U a) o a) "O �, • L L a L Q C 0 L o Q N U a) 0 ) , 1 ° = -a C O N C N O U o- N - ' o • E = E a u i .0 cc cp 0 Eu c c .) 0 4° z E ) Ecuo •� ' 5E _ 0 . N o L a) () 4= 1. o "p >, a) 7- C � ca C ' 'O C 0 ca co `t ca - 0 > a � ) oa a) d' )a) L 3o'c� c -o ( = 0 >E co a) a)ca0 a) ) 7 a a) c 0 +r as E �a'�Y~ '_ N -4 - c a) 4_, o Z 0 _c c J w 73 — d ca o-t a) lc C c > = +-' (a U U _c N. , U E —. a ) o 12 o ca 'U I L E C ._ -c4- C _c o o a) a) N ^ ,,_ _ c 'c c L ca to cc c U L U ca 3 O CO fa U p_c (n a) a) a) 3 0 7 co O C C ca ca U> ca U L U >, C 3 U ca U 0 U E U' a co g o 0 E U • L C -O ca - p U cp ui a) Q C N ... -p ca a) 7 N a) >, O co c -0 O 'o N ,....,„:317.) N o a) p L .c • c a) ca (n aD a) _ c E L ca O ca a) Pr-- aD c CU 3 oc� °) > � - ° a)� �� c� Ec o ' a -° i o ' =°' a)EO) 0 0 0 5 a) 7 O o U o^ O C — a) U •M a) c E o 2 2 E 0 U ( jj N 8 N 0 Y U ° n U2 ca0.(n ca 30 o� _ cm nQ - -o ca - o n tn -o c � a 0 y N0 ca o 'c Z= m c 0 _ O O a 9 co O c0 J a) ca C CO CL U p a • e- V • a) a) - c o O w m c (n 0 C O 0 Verification Timing / Frequency rn c 4 = E a O 0 , oc am o) c = co c 0 0 , 4 - 0 o EE ava Action by Monitor .- cn C ca ca a) a _c c x. °, 4- 3 ° N E ° a ) . ° a ) L ` t > Q = O O Q tt co .O o. CC O o. u) a)C ca ca ° c). U) U c 0 c0 - U) _ • ° E N U 0- _o N 'o a) 0 - = N O i- L < cn ca Q Q o Compliance Check cm c C C O a o C C C oa) N E o 0 C 0) N O C 7 as it o c co co it Responsible Entity c c0 U a°) 0. > Q a) Q as 0 Mitigation Measure multiple human remains. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) v U) a) a) c0 0) W "0 C v a) >, ^ 3 - 0 c U a) _> :.=-. C a) O C L U U o a) s as n N m_1- a c� rn C o u) ) ° Qco a) C� o 0 ° as O ° d f 0 UQ QV as O QV O— a) L- a)� '- d a f Na N ap. 0 0— o L 2 co Ems 3 c E ra O `Q p_— s a N c0 > ( D rn () L a) to d O D ¢ C ' = N 1- C SI ` N C =p C E C O L C U C � a) L ca 0 O a) y N O a ) 0 a ) — p 0) +r "'' N co a) Q a) _ E = c0 •E f0 "'' C c0 0 C 0) 1- L d pi E"0 14) 0..c aN C.4-L O. C c0- y >, p ._ N , C O p y C N O 0 C N E CU , co N 43 O N O N O E N > a) O a) 2 0- a) O N C V 'D N 0 'D L O co 0' N 'D 0 0 0 2 f0 = 0) O 0 co O V Measure HAZ -2a: Each structure proposed for demolition shall require an assessment by licensed contractors for the potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings, asbestos containing materials, or PCB - containing equipment prior to obtaining a demolition •ermit. co C C c0 n. a) C O 0 v ti O w 0 O 7 co J a) C n- CU Q. O U p N Q r N Q L Q) c o w a) a) c 0 C 0 a Verification Timing / Frequency CO CM C c C13 • a co U) O o 0 E o- OE o- •r_ a) a) < a - O a CO CM c c as •5 0_ U) CO o o 0 E a8 Ei o- •c a) a) < a -0 a Prior to issuing permits for new structure Prior to issuing permits Action by Monitor o 3a) >E >�t CO ` O O N U N O N O- 43 ca co ca `O Q aacaaa occoc > Om CL (0 ~= a) t o U M O • O- a) o ca c Q a,_ a(..) Provide documentation from SCAQMD that abatement process is complete Ensure that abatement Compliance Check 05 E o •y co c c c• O "a a) c .N mc) CT_ o 05 c o O) c 1 8 a) 5 as mc/) SCAQMD; Building & Safety Division; LA County Dept. of Public Works; Responsible Entity 4 E' i Om 0 4 E1 1 1 Om 0 Applicant / Developer Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure Measure HAZ -2b: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a establishes the presence of lead -based paint, asbestos, and /or PCBs, the developer or project applicant shall create and implement a health and safety plan to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous materials during demolition or renovation of affected structures. Measure HAZ -2c: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of lead -based paint, the developer or project applicant shall develop and implement a lead -based paint removal plan by a licensed contractor. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, the measures taken to contain, store, and transport paint waste in accordance with the licensed dis•osal facilities re•uirements. Measure HAZ -2d: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of asbestos, the project sponsor shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building demolition. Measure HAZ -2e: If the assessment required by Mitigation CO CO 6 Z 0 0 U) a) N. O co 9 O 1 7 0 Z a) RI a O U 0.• N a) . 0 N C o 0 w c (1) 0 c 0 0 Verification Timing / Frequency c '5 co 2 co 7 o L- a 0_ -c ._ c co o 4- w _ o� @ n k k § E — z z 2 E@ 2 q 7 0 c 'c E/_o 2 Ce S0_0 ƒ< Action by Monitor occurs before permits are issued =,— C @ C° ƒ @ 2 2 E 3 E 0 E z 0_ --@ W CO co m 0 0_ 0_ co -ak \ k co z § C 2 a E § @ 0a) @ " a C § @ 2 a E o c' _ 2 7 f E W 4- w o@ ® : - o c U) W% m_0 0_0 6 6 m @: Compliance Check Fire Department o W E Q k� a c C. ' E 0 g _ k " 2 c ; c > � 3 6mn Responsible Entity =.5 <a Mitigation Measure Measure HAZ -2a finds presence of PCBs, the project sponsor shall ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to building demolition or renovation. Measure HAZ -3: All development and redevelopment shall require the use of construction BMPs to control handling of hazardous materials during construction to minimize the potential negative effects from an accidental release to storm drains, groundwater and soils. Biological Resources 22 0 ® %. o /ge >. c% r 4- g 4- z @ @ m �� X § E C q o 2 � --c aw a2 o a)k "2�@ z_a 2 - 0 . U) 0 ■ 0 E § � @ƒ02U ) _0. 0 >@�@: co k C k 2 k 0 / k 0 co 2 ca @a- owc o 0 @Q 022"0 4 2 k 2 k c f 9 C 2� o 2@ O _ 2 2 2' @ 2\� o c w o c a) -0 C - -0 — o• 2■_ 0 S o c CO 22 C& m = — > @ 277 „is = @ z>, 2 D)> 2 0 O o 2 2 g 2 ■ - E « @ £ � @ ■ zE — §§: @ ol 0 0 2 z o W 0 ƒ O' 2 = 2 o Q m■ C0 C Q w - a< C o 6 m 3 E To co o k k 0 co Verification Timing / Frequency t a) a) c co c O O' O j . U 2 N a) _ N I co O), C 0 .6 P-' c On -site inspections at regular intervals Action by Monitor N C -D co co C O O cu) t a) = • 3 a") -C Li Q O a) ._ 0 0 E t • 5 5 C W 0 0- u- CO 0- Ensure compliance before permits Compliance Check oo E O 'EN . c c CA S C • O C C.N"a a) co > .7 co aom Public Works Department Responsible Entity al o Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure >+"O fd = "D C _N a) C C Z j L 0 O�." al.- - 7 O N= co c �.. 70 a N -a — a) — co CO CD C1 L_ LP C 11:1 lil N O 0.a) a)— =^ c o OI CO O� -° -C C . 0 C p CO 0 O 0) $ C O N to o . - O y C a E N L j O = 0 a U ..,=-• N - N y 0 � C V I N._ > C = N C fd a) el C U f� co . 0 a) O > CO C C Cp >> 3 C c) o o �, v C c W O . - 0• a) 0 -O 0 1) 3 0 -0 O 0 0 a) 0 0 .� a) O. — Cal ....(1j . 0 aj . C O C -0 cC ) "a a) O 0 -p C1 a) 0 a) a n • a) 4-' = > a) N cd t fd C N _ O a) o 2 a) a) 5 U 6 s.. p y N a) co 'a '= O V V co 0 V C J ca . O 0 .E cC Measure B10-5a: Coordination with Community Development Department. The applicant shall work with the Community Development Department to identify significant trees that may be impacted by implementation of the project. If a significant tree is identified within the project site, the applicant shall work with the Community Development Department on measures to preserve significant trees. Measure B10-5b: Tree Permit. No public street tree will be removed or planted without having obtained C O . co O CA r C O •C z C o 7 0 TD C C N- o co 9 O 7 N ti Z a) a C 0 - M a0 0 0 0. N a) c o a) oa c 0 Verification Timing / Frequency throughout construction 22 $ c CC o' 0 0 _ u .0) �k £ 0 2 c ■ CA i_ C O: @ " S On -site inspections at regular intervals throughout construction Action by Monitor are issued co%2 E ® S.- = 0 = J 0 a J E -c .5 2 c 3 S ƒ % Ensure compliance before permits are issued Compliance Check ea ._ 0 / > b c c 0) • 0 >. � •- 22 � J m . ? '5 m EOmn Public Works Department elq!suodsea £ a) 0. k2 < Applicant / Developer Mitigation Measure a permit from the Public Works Department. . 2 a 2� a) c � o 2� Q c %$ 2 7 k kk2)k k§ _ � 2 -> E22 �@ ■� % ■ m e 3 - o 0 0=c ©� @: o a) § 2 2 —% m f a) . 4 @ / § % S @ k k 7:3 § k Tr, $ @ 2m — c � - - §o2 /J�■ -C 2 @ c 2 _c @ XI 2 F CL : E 0 0 0 0 £ c / 2•- 0 - § - C% Cif, 2 3 . 3@@ % L E c N 2 2 0 ■ g y _ >, >� f ja" -@ .c k� "ii w � 70 4 - m • k C U 0/ k o ' E� 0 m . C @ J U3 � � m m m o - co 2 2 � 2wk �k w k w§k§ 0 a) wa) . ��ka) pi 2 e % m .t.7. 0. co 'a 2 @ � L_ 4- » .c � E _ « @ L_ _ Measure B10-5d: Replacement Trees. All replacement trees shall be selected in accordance with the City's official Tree Species List and Master Street Tree Plan. All re • lacement trees will be • lanted k ƒ / K 0 0 / _ / A\ E o t \ CU Lo �- >s a) c 2u) k 0 Verification Timing / Frequency rii2 § c 0 252 g. o • Q a % f . = C U) o° 0 : 2 38 � 2 c CO C £52 o . _ o Q 2 2 % / u, c CL 2@- O: @3Q Action by Monitor co k c 0. E as § = 0 \ $ - ' .0 c c > Q 3 o ce c @ - ■ 0k §� as 0 "= 2 co o E E o co 3 S 2 o_/ Compliance Check �� _ . c _ k �C : : >, k 4- O 6 mco �� 05 2 . g L- § '5 k £ E E cp : >, g c > 4 O Omcoc Responsible Entity £ � k2 co O. 0 CL CD Mitigation Measure on -site, following grading activities. %\_c 2 q 2 a) o a -> o o 2 2 cu— £ c - n 03 • > �� � 2� 2 Q ■ YIC % >_ . t � 2 W o co C 0 2 C -0 : § 2 2 1-0- : 2 - -c C 2 0 g a • 2 c 2 2 2 - @ • E o_ L- E 0 I in o -0 oe a @ W @ _7 - e a$ c 0J �. --c fu , 4 _, _ as -0 — la £ N al _ J 6 c > 3 .4E C § e 2 a 2 0 , 5 c J CO o £ @ p t 0 £ = £ - � 2 � C C " r 1 " � ° —� k02 • Q 4 - C 2 • - o c 2 0 � E , ' 2 2 _ ■ @ E 2 : ai § 7'E 2� fco 22 N 2LI U) o .o a Measure B10-5f: Construction Monitoring. A certified arborist shall periodically monitor on -site construction and grading activities occurring near all preserved significant trees to ensure that damage to these trees does not occur. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the certified CD co CD 0 CO . c1/ k E z as c § � . a) kk > .0 c o 07 a m@ > 2 E @ ® / 0 § @ ■ � 22 > 2 0. 0 a) 2 . 2 2 0 3 @ i 6 al 1E • C 2 • > / N o a 2 c> � � k o o %0 m 2 @ / ° @ C § ■ E t 0 m N k k I n ¥ a % c a E / / \ LO 0- >'© / a O f 2 � f K c RESOLUTION NO. 10 -2665 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REPEAL SECTION 9326 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY REVOKING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR DOWNEY'S HISTORICAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 24, 2000, the City of Downey adopted the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" (hereinafter referred to Downtown Overlay Zone). The Downtown Plan placed an overlay onto the existing downtown area to regulate uses, signs, and parking; and, B. On June 9, 2009, the Community Development Commission approved a contract with Hogle Ireland to analyze the downtown area and prepare a new Specific Plan for Downtown Downey; and, C. As a result of the CDC action, staff and the City's consultant began a public outreach campaign to determine the community's concerns and visions for the downtown. This campaign includes stakeholder interviews in October 2009, a community outreach meeting on December 3, 2009, EIR scoping meeting on May 26, 2010, and presentation to the Downtown Project Area Committee on June 1, 2010. The feedback from these meetings was used to craft the goals and objectives for the Downtown Specific Plan; and, D. On June 28, 2010, the staff released a public draft of the proposed Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This was followed by a joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop on the draft plan that was conducted on July 6, 2010; and, E. On July 15, 2010, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which began the official 45 -day comment period on the DEIR; and, F. On September 3, 2010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, to all property owners within 500' of the boundaries of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan, and published in the Long Beach Press- Telegram; and, G. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2010 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that a Draft EIR has been prepared for the Downtown Downey Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Resolution No. 10 -2665 Downey Planning Commission Downey's Revised Procedures for Implementing CEQA. On September 15, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10 -2662, recommending the City Council of the City of Downey adopt the Draft EIR SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: A. The requested amendment is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed Code Amendment is to repeal the existing Downtown Overlay Zone, which will be replaced by the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. Pursuant to Resolution No. 10 -2664, it was found that the Downtown Downey Specific Plan is needed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. To avoid a conflict with the policies and requirements of the Specific Plan, the Code Amendment is necessary and desirable. B. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the General Plan. Repealing the Downtown Overlay Zone will allow implementation of the new Downtown Downey Specific Plan. This action will allow the Livable Communities concept set forth in the General Plan to be advanced. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council repeal Section 9326 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code and deem the "Downtown Plan for Downey's Historical Downtown District" null and void. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15 day of September, 2010. Robert Kiefer Robert Kiefer, Vice - Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15 day of September, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Murray, Kiefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vasquez ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morales H: \PLAN N I NG \RESOS \PC\201.0 \10 2665.doc Theresa Donahue Theresa Donahue, Secretary City Planning Commission Downtown Downey Specific Plan (PLN -10- 08074) — Code Amendment September 15, 2010 - Page 2 September 8, 2010 David Blumenthal Planning Commission of City of Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Attention: David Blumenthal and the Planning Commission of City of Downey RECEIVED SEP 0 8 201 PLANNING This letter is in response to the PLN -10 -08074 (GPA, SP, CA, EIR) proposal to consider the expansion of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. As a resident of Downey, property owner, tax payer, Downey voter, and homeowner living on Third Street, I am opposed to this plan. I heard the argument that the Rives mansion is part a historical place that represents Downey, so is the McDonald located on Lakewood and Florence and yet that McDonald is not included on the Downey expansion plan. Rives mansion will remain a symbol for Downey whether it is part of the new Downtown or not. It is very upsetting to see how the planning commission is turning Downey into another Huntington Park. This city is well known for its exclusive, quiet, and high price residential areas. On Third Street, we can find several million dollar homes. Therefore, it is not acceptable that you try to include the Rives Mansion, which has been a resident since I moved eight years ago, as part of the new Downey downtown with the sole purpose to turn that resident into a future business. The argument that the mansion represents Downey is so overrated. Over eight years ago, I moved to Downey because I was looking for a quiet residential area away from all the heavy trafficking areas, industrial zones, noisy businesses, and high crime areas. I rejected the idea of living in Montebello, South Gate, Santa Monica, and other cities because I fell in love with the orange estates area. I am a heavy supporter of Downey, and I want the best for this city starting by keeping the Rives mansion for resident. This is a historical home and the city should not turn this residential home located inside the zone of the orange estates into a business. The Rives mansion is still a resident, but I know already the impact that it will cause to our street if this mansion becomes 'officially a business zone. In the last two years, the peace of mind of the many residents from Third Street has been comprised since the new owner of the Rives mansion acquired this resident. The latest owner had parties on the mansion for weddings, graduation parties, photo shoots, etc. There have been other activities going on there, but the city of Downey has not been notified as to what is going on that residency. Every time the owner allows these types of parties, the entire Third Street block is filled with over crowed cars leaving the residents with no space for family members to visit the residents of Third Street. In addition, the streets are left dirty with trash all over the block from the party attendances. The owner has no control as to what these people will do once they leave these parties. If the Rives mansion is turned into a business, this is going to create a lot more serious issue for the residents of Third Street. The planning committee cannot keep our block safe if the Rives mansion becomes part of the new downtown. Businesses on residential areas have been known to increase crimes, attract homeless, dirtier streets, increase noise, increase traffic flow, and bringing other social issues that are consequences of businesses. The homes located in Third Street will lose value. As a homeowner, taxpayer, and Downey voter, I am opposing to the changes the Downey planning commission is proposing. The commission is turning our quiet and expensive residential area into a ghetto, and as a resident, I will fight back. The current downtown does not need expansion. At this time, the current downtown had so many open spaces and empty buildings. The planning commission should be using their time to plan control the traffic flow from our streets. They should be planning how to reduce the flow of the already high tracking Paramount,. Florence, and Firestone streets. We don't need more businesses that will be bringing more problems and pollution to our city. We have too much traffic already, more homeless hanging around the downtown area, and dirtier streets. We need to stop that. Downey is losing its beauty and what it made this city unique, its residential areas. This is why I am taking action this time and I am making my opposition noticed. I am bringing you arguments that will be affecting the well being of all the residents of Downey. I hope that our voice does count in this decision making. Public officials and government officials must know how these changes are making the residents of Downey very unhappy. Thank you, (Oc JT1 Odemaris Valdivia Third Street Resident Cc: Annie Marie Bayer, Mayor Luis H. Marquez, Mayor Pro Term Roger C. Brossmer, Council Member David R. Gafin, Council Member Mario A. Guerra, Council Member