HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 05-6822 (exhibit)Exhibit A: FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This document provides the Findings of Facts required for the approval of the Downey Vision
2025 General Plan Update project, as defined in the Draft EIR.
As required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to prepare the City of Downey General Plan Update EIR and Initial Study of
Environmental Impact was distributed from March 26, 2004 to April 27, 2004 to responsible and
trustee agencies as well as private organizations and individuals 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, 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 where the project could have potentially significant effects,
as well as those areas where the project would have no effect. It also identified alternatives that
were dismissed from further consideration. The NOP and responses to the NOP are included in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
On July 28, 2004, the City of Downey issued a Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45
days ending on September 13, 2004. A Notice of Completion was circulated, which 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 EIR are available for review, and stated the period for submittal of
comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City of Downey distributed the Draft EIR to
interested individuals, agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and businesses. Copies
of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the city of Downey Planning
Division, the City library and on the City's website (www.downeyca.org). The City received
three (3) 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/Existing General Plan Alternative;
• Reduced Intensity Alternative; and
• Mixed Use Alternative.
The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, significant
irreversible environmental effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts.
In September 2004 the City of Downey 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 four (4) letters commenting on the Draft EIR, and corrections and revisions to the Draft
EIR.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
The objectives of the City of Downey (i.e., the Lead Agency) for the project are as follows (see
Draft EIR, p. 3 -1):
• Provide a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan to more effectively deal with
contemporary issues facing the City of Downey.
• Preserve and enhance Downey's position as the quality premier City in the southeast area of
Los Angeles.
• Preserve the single- family character of residential areas in the City.
• Promote land uses that address the needs of residents, workers and visitors to the City.
• Promote managed and reasonable growth.
• Develop a network of streets, pedestrian paths, and bikeways, which promote the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods.
• Concentrate and enhance commercial uses in strategic locations, primarily at the City's major
intersections.
• Intensify the development potential of the area around Downey Landing.
• Create a pedestrian friendly, active Downtown that reflects the character of the City.
• Create and maintain a public system of park and recreational facilities.
• Preserve and enhance Downey as a premier community by developing policies and programs
that promote positive design characteristics and a strong visual image for the community.
• Change the General Plan land use designations for 16 areas throughout the City consistent
with the goals and policies contained in the updated General Plan.
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan. The
proposed General Plan Update reflects the City's vision for its development through build -out of
the City. The General Plan is divided into various topical sections, or Chapters, that address a
wide range of subjects and provide goals and policies that will guide future development in the
City. As an example, the updated Land Use Chapter proposes goals and policies that will help
ensure a balance of land uses throughout the City, enhance and protect residential areas, provide
for pro- active code enforcement, and promote home ownership. The General Plan update also
provides for the following:
• Revisions to the existing Land Use Chapter including the change to some land use goals,
revision to the wording of some issues, policies and programs to carry out policies that are
currently included in the Chapter. Also, new issues, policies and programs have been added
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
to the Chapter to reflect more contemporary land use issues being faced by the City. Some
policies currently included in this Chapter were moved to the Design and Noise Chapters of
the General Plan
• Revisions to the Circulation Chapter were made, with some issues currently in the Chapter
being reworded. An issue concerning the age and capacity of Downey's Infrastructure was
added to the Chapter. A number of policies and programs in the Circulation Chapter have
also been removed or had their language of the policy revised. A number of policies were
moved to the Safety, Open Space and Design Chapters of the General Plan. A number of
programs to implement circulation policies have been reworded, and new programs have
been added to the Chapter to aide in implementing these policies. Some programs have also
been removed from the Chapter and moved to other existing programs in the Chapter.
• Revisions to the Conservation Chapter were made included the rewording of Chapter goals
and issues. The language of some of the policies and programs supporting them were
reworded, and some programs supporting Conservation Chapter policies were reworded,
eliminated or moved to other existing programs within the Chapter;
• Revisions to the Safety Chapter were made to include adding hazardous materials to the title
of the Chapter and considering these materials in this Chapter. This Chapter is now called
the Safety and Hazardous Materials Chapter. Some of the Goals of this revised Chapter were
removed and new issues were added to the Chapter, including disaster response, air traffic
and hazardous waste. Policies and programs to support these new issues were added to this
Chapter. The policies and programs to many of the existing issues in the Chapter were also
reworded, removed entirely or added to other existing policies within the Chapter. One issue
on a land fill site was moved to an existing policy within the Chapter;
• Revisions to the Noise Chapter were made, including the rewording of the Chapter goals.
Some of the issues covered in the Chapter were revised, as were the policies and programs
used to support Chapter policies. One policy was moved to the Design Chapter. One
program was also moved to the Circulation Chapter. A table showing acceptable noise levels
for land uses was added to the Chapter;
• Revisions to the Open Space /Recreation Chapter were made, including removal of one of
the Chapter goals and rewording of two other goals. The language of some issues in the
Chapter was revised. One issue was removed and two new issues were added to the Chapter.
Various policies and programs in the Chapter had their language revised, or removed. Some
policies were also moved to existing programs in the Chapter. A number of new programs
were added to support the policies in the Chapter. One program was moved to the
Conservation Chapter;
• Revisions to the Design Chapter, including the elimination of three issues and the addition of
three new issues. Some Chapter policies were removed, the language of some were revised,
and some new policies were added. Some programs to support Design Chapter policies were
removed, or were moved to other programs in the Chapter. Many new programs were also
added to support Chapter policies;
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
• Revisions to the Economic Development Chapter, including revisions to Chapter goals. Two
Chapter issues were eliminated and the wording of the remaining issues was revised. Some
policies in the Chapter were moved to other policies in the Chapter. Many new policies were
added to the Chapter to strengthen the Chapter. Many of the existing programs within the
Chapter were revised, with some being moved to other programs within the Chapter. New
programs were also added to the Chapter to help support Chapter policies.
• The Hazardous Materials Chapter has been eliminated and the Safety and Hazardous
Material Chapter now covers the issues in this chapter.
The full text of the proposed General Plan Update is available at the City of Downey Planning
Department, at the City library, and on the City's website (www.downeyca.org).
Issues addressed through the proposed General Plan Update include: maintaining clean and safe
neighborhoods; maintaining the quality of the City's Police and Fire Departments; provision of
more sit down restaurants and shopping areas in the City; appearance of residential areas
including the design and scale of residents; street tree preservation/replanting; impact of parking
restrictions on City residents, traffic congestion; the impact of crime /gangs /graffiti on the City;
and the appearance of commercial streets in the City.
The major components and discretionary actions considered as part of the General Plan Update
by the City include:
• Reclassification of land use designations to reflect the changes to these land use
designations in the proposed General Plan Update;
• Amendments to the Circulation Element to maintain acceptable levels of service at build -
out and address land use changes associated with the proposed General Plan;
City of Downey
Adoption of the Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Update, which will replace the existing
General Plan.
The findings in Section 4 of the Findings of Fact describe the effects of the project as defined
above.
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 Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project;
• Other public notices prepared in conjunction with the project;
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
• 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 that 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]).
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
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 II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565
[276 Cal. Rptr. 410].).
Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of
overriding considerations. (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 II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal.
Rptr. 401]. )
This document presents the City of Downey'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 of
Downey 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 General Plan Update.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(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
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (NMZP) has been prepared for the project, as
required by PRC Section 21081.6, and included as Exhibit C to this resolution. The City of
Downey will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Downey will consider the MMRP during the approval of the Downey Vision 2025 General Plan
Update. 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 less than
significant levels are listed below. The City of Downey 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 Final EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact
Impact 5.3 -1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could include land uses that could
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Draft EIR, p. 5 -37).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hazard and hazardous materials would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with
applicable plans and policies, conducting Health Risk Assessments or Phase I Environmental
Site Assessments as required in the MMRP and formulation of a procedure to be implemented in
the event of discovery of previously unknown pockets of contaminated soils.
Impact
Impact 5.3 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update could include development proposals
that could be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result,
could be impacted by pre- existing hazardous materials or wastes (Draft EIR, p. 5 -39).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with
applicable plans and policies, conducting Health Risk Assessments or Phase I Environmental
Site Assessments as required in the MMRP and formulation of a procedure to be implemented in
the event of discovery of previously unknown pockets of contaminated soils.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact
Impact 5.4 -1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could violate water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements (Draft EIR, p. 5 -52).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of continuing to monitor
water usage in the City, obtaining additional water entitlements as necessary to provide for future
growth and compliance with Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions and with the Goals,
Policies and Programs listed in Appendix A of the DEIR.
Impact
Impact 5.4 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update could substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR, p. 5 -53).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of the creation of
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans for new and redevelopment projects and
compliance with Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions and with the Goals, Policies and
Programs listed in Appendix A of the DEIR
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Impact
Impact 5.4 -3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of a site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on -or off -site (Draft EIR, p. 5 -54).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of having all future
development proposals providing detailed hydrology analyses and mitigation measures if
necessary, and compliance with all applicable State, Local and Federal regulations relating to
hydrology and water quality.
Impact
Impact 5.4 -4: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern or a site or area in a manner that would result in flooding on -or off -site
(Draft EIR, p. 5 -56).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with all
applicable State, Local and Federal regulations relating to hydrology and water quality.
Impact
Impact 5.4 -5: Implementation of the General Plan Update would create or contribute runoff
water that would exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR, p. 5 -57).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of providing detailed
hydrology analyses for future development projects and compliance with all applicable State,
Local and Federal regulations relating to hydrology and water quality.
Impact
Impact 5.4 -6: Implementation of the General Plan Update would otherwise substantially degrade
water quality (Draft EIR, p. 5 -58).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding hydrology and water quality would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with all
applicable State, Local and Federal regulations relating to hydrology and water quality.
Noise
Impact
Impact 5.6 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in exposure of persons to
or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR, p. 5-
92).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding noise would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of requiring site - specific noise analyses for all
new residential uses in potentially noise - impacted areas, limiting construction activities to hours
with least noise sensitivity and compliance with the goals, policies and programs in the General
Plan.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Impact
Impact 5.6 -4: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project
(Draft EIR, p. 5 -97).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding noise would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of limiting construction activities to hours with
least noise sensitivity and compliance with the goals, policies and programs in the General Plan.
Public Services and Utilities
Impact
Impact 5.7 -1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the demand for fire
protection (Draft EIR, p. 5 -107).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to
a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the goals, policies
and programs in the General Plan.
Impact
Impact 5.7 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased demand for
police protection (Draft EIR, p. 5 -108).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to
a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the goals, policies
and programs in the General Plan.
Impact
Impact 5.7 -3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increased demand
for schools (Draft EIR, p. 5 -108).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to
a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the goals, policies
and programs in the General Plan and having project developers pay appropriate school fees
before projects can be developed.
Impact
Impact 5.7 -4: Implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the demand for parks
(Draft EIR, p. 5 -110).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to
a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with existing
regulations and standard conditions related to parks and recreation, requiring future residential
development projects to assess the feasibility of providing parkland on -site and City review of
the feasibility of acquiring surplus school sites within the City for park and recreation purposes.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Recreation
Impact
Impact 5.8 -1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated (Draft EIR, p. 5 -117).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact to recreational facilities would be mitigated to a
less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with existing regulations
and standard conditions related to parks and recreation, requiring future residential development
projects to assess the feasibility of providing parkland on -site and City review of the feasibility
of acquiring surplus school sites within the city of park and recreation purposes.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact
Impact 5.10 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the construction or
expansion water or wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or expansion of which could
have significant environmental effects (Draft EIR, p. 5 -246).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding utilities would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of purchasing additional water rights as additional
land uses are developed and payment of sewage system connection fees by all new development
within the City.
Impact
Impact 5.10 -3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the construction or
expansion of storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could have environmental
effects (Draft EIR, p. 5 -248).
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findinm
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding utilities would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the mitigation measures
related to stormwater drainage facilities located in Section 5.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, in
addition to compliance with existing regulations and standard conditions.
Impact
Impact 5.10 -4: Implementation of the General Plan Update would require new or expanded
water entitlements (Draft EIR, p. 5 -248).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findinm
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding utilities would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of having any proposed development that falls
under the parameters of SB 610 or SB 221 complete Water Supply Assessments and monitoring
of water use and water availability by the City. The city would also monitor water usage in the
City and obtain additional water entitlements to meet future water demand.
Impact
Impact 5.10 -5: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in a determination by a
wastewater treatment provides that it has insufficient capacity to serve the additional projected
demand in addition to existing commitments (Draft EIR, p. 5 -249).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findinm
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding utilities would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of requiring payment of sewage system
connection fees for all new development within the City and compliance with existing
regulations and standard conditions.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Impact
Impact 5.10 -6: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased solid waste
production and additional demand on landfills (Draft EIR, p. 5 -250).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding transportation and traffic would be
mitigated to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as well as with AB 939 and
other existing regulations and standard conditions.
Impact
Impact 5.10 -7: Potential lack of compliance with Federal, State and Local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR, p. 5 -251).
Finding
Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above impact regarding utilities would be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level. Required mitigation consists of the City's continued implementation of solid
waste reduction programs in compliance with AB 939 and of the City's requiring that
development projects comply with the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and
Recycling Access Act of 1991.
7.2 Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant And Unavoidable After
Mitigation
Air Quality
Impacts
Impact 5.1 -1: Construction activities associated with individual development projects in
accordance with the proposed General Plan Update could potentially exceed AQMD significance
thresholds (Draft EIR, p. 5 -8).
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Finding
Mitigation measures included in the MMRP will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible;
however, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The
No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be most useful in minimizing significant
unavoidable air quality impacts from the proposed project. This alternative is infeasible,
however, because it does not fulfill the project objectives stated in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Findin
As detailed in the MMRP, although the mitigation measures included in the MMRP will reduce
air quality impacts to the extent feasible, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant
Unavoidable Adverse Impact. Required mitigation consists of developing and implementing a
construction management plan, as approved by the City of Downey, which includes measures
recommended or equivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD regarding
construction parking, traffic, and equipment, as well as implementing all rules and regulations by
the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the project
(such as Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fu6tive Dust) and which are in effect at the time of
development.
Noise
Impacts
Impact 5.6 -1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in exposure of persons to
or generation of outdoor noise levels in excess of established standards (Draft EIR, p. 5 -92).
Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above noise impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible;
however, no mitigation measures could reduce these impacts to a less - than - significant level. The
No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be most useful in minimizing significant
unavoidable noise impacts from the proposed project. This alternative is infeasible, however,
because it does not fulfill the project objectives stated in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above noise impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, but
not to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the noise -
related goals, policies and programs in the General Plan.
Impacts
Impact 5.6 -3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient outdoor noise levels where sensitive land uses are located next to
arterial highways or freeways that have a CNEL level of 65 dBA or above (Draft EIR, p. 5 -93).
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Find
As detailed in the MMRP, the above noise impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible;
however, no mitigation measures could reduce these impacts to a less - than - significant level. The
No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be most useful in minimizing significant
unavoidable noise impacts from the proposed project. This alternative is infeasible, however,
because it does not fulfill the project objectives stated in the Final EIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above noise impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, but
not to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of compliance with the noise -
related goals, policies and programs in the General Plan.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact
Impact 5.9 -2: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase
in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and to a resultant
decrease in the Level of Service (LOS) at the following intersections within the City: Lakewood
Boulevard/Firestone Boulevard (EW); Brookshire Avenue (NS)/Firestone Boulevard (EW); and
Lakewood Boulevard /Imperial Highway(EW) and Lakewood Boulevard /Gardendale Street
(EW). This decrease in LOS is the result of an increase in background traffic; it is not the result
of the development that would occur in the future due to the update of the City's General Plan
(Draft EIR, p. 5 -154).
Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above traffic and circulation impacts would be mitigated;
however, no mitigation measures could reduce these impacts to a less - than - significant level. The
No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be most useful in minimizing significant
unavoidable traffic impacts from the proposed project, yet this Alternative was found to be
infeasible in the DEIR. The No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is not feasible because
it does not fulfill the project objectives stated in the DEIR.
Fact in Support of Finding
As detailed in the MMRP, the above traffic and circulation impacts would be mitigated, but not
to a less - than - significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing roadway and /or
intersection improvements to: Old River School Road (NS) at Florence Avenue (EW); Old River
School Road (NS) at Imperial Highway (EW); Paramount Boulevard (NS) at Telegraph Road
(EW); Paramount Boulevard (NS) at Florence Avenue (EW); Paramount Boulevard (NS) at
Firestone Boulevard (EW); Paramount Boulevard (NS) at Stewart & Gray Road (EW);
Paramount Boulevard (NS) at Imperial Highway (EW); Downey Avenue (NS) at Firestone
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Boulevard (EW); Brookshire Avenue (NS) at Firestone Boulevard (EW); Lakewood Boulevard
(NS) at Telegraph Road (EW); Lakewood Boulevard (NS) at Florence Avenue (EW); Lakewood
Boulevard (NS) at Firestone Boulevard (EW); Lakewood Boulevard (NS) at Stewart & Gray
Road (EW); Lakewood Boulevard (NS) at Imperial Highway (EW); Lakewood Boulevard (NS)
at Foster Road (EW); Bellflower Boulevard (NS) at Imperial Highway (EW); Woodruff Avenue
(NS) at Stewart & Gray Road (EW) and Woodruff Avenue (NS) at Imperial Highway (EW).
However, traffic improvements at the three intersections where LOS would drop to an
unacceptable level cannot be mitigated using traffic improvements that are considered acceptable
by the City (e.g. adding more than two left -turn lanes, one right -turn land and one or more new
through lanes at an intersection
8. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as
outlined above, the City of Downey must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternatives to the proposed project. The City of Downey must evaluate whether one or more of
these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant
environmental effects. (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. (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 Cal.3d 376, 400 -403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].). Accordingly, in
adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City of Downey considers only those
environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through
mitigation.
Chapter 6 of the DEIR examined 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/Existing General Plan Alternative;
Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative
Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative
These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant
environmental effect. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City of Downey is not
required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts that are insignificant or
avoided through mitigation.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
In addressing the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the City of Downey followed the
direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that:
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]).
8.1 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the
impacts of the "No- Project" Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use
or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no- project alternative will be the
continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project/Existing
General Plan Update Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzes the effects of
continued implementation of the City's existing General Plan. This alternative assumes the
existing General Plan remains as the adopted long -range planning policy document for the City.
Development would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the existing General
Plan. Build -out pursuant to the existing General Plan would allow current development patterns
to remain. The No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would provide 2,413 fewer
dwelling units, a decrease in population of 11,337 persons, and provide 4,900 fewer jobs within
the City at build -out, as compared to the proposed General Plan Update.
Attainment of Proiect Obiectives
The adoption of the No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would leave the City open for
future growth that may not be compatible with the goals and objectives of the City. In addition,
such growth would not be comparable in quality with the development under the Recommended
Land Use Alternative. The No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative fails to accomplish the
project objectives in the City's vision and has other potential environmental impacts resulting
from its implementation. Specifically, the No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative does not
provide a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan to more effectively deal with
contemporary issues facing the City of Downey, concentrate and enhance the development
potential of the area around Downey Landing, or change the General Plan land use designations
for 16 areas throughout the City consistent with the goals and policies contained in the updated
General Plan. The No- Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is, therefore, not considered
environmentally superior to the Recommended Land Use Alternative.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
8.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the remaining growth potential associated with
the proposed General Plan Update by 20 %. The 20% reduction was based on the total remaining
build -out potential of the proposed General Plan as compared to existing land uses and applied
on a citywide basis. This Alternative would reduce total dwelling units at build -out by 580 units,
decrease population at build -out by 2,768 persons, and provide 980 fewer jobs at build -out, as
compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Land use designations would remain the same,
although allowable intensities would be reduced.
Attainment of Proiect Obiectives
This Reduced Intensity Alternative would lessen impacts associated with noise, public services,
recreation, transportation/traffic and utility and service systems by approximately 20 %. The
remaining impacts are generally the same as the proposed project. However, the benefits of
providing additional housing in a job rich area would be fewer under this Alternative than under
the proposed project. By comparison, the proposed Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Update
allows for the development of housing opportunities in close proximity to regional employment
and activity centers within the City. The Reduced Intensity Alternative may also impede the
City's ability to achieve its housing goals contained in the adopted Housing Element. The
Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet most but not all of the project objectives as described
in Section 6.1.2, as it would contribute less housing to a jobs rich region. Although the Reduced
Density Alternative does not fully achieve all of the City's objectives established for the
proposed project, it would reduce many environmental impacts and is considered
environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, the City considers the Reduced
Intensity Alternative infeasible for the above listed reasons.
8.3 Mixed Use Alternative
The Mixed Use Alternative would include the re- designation of two additional areas in the City
as Mixed Use that would allow the development of a mix of commercial and residential land
uses on these sites. The General Plan currently includes a Mixed Use designation in part of the
downtown Downey area and on the Downey Landing site (see previous Figure 4.3.1). The
Mixed Use designation allows development of a maximum of 24 dwelling units an acre and
General Commercial uses.
The Mixed Use Alternative includes the re- designation of an 11.4 -acre site on the west side of
Lakewood Avenue near the intersection of Stewart & Gray from its current General Plan
designation of Office to Mixed Use. This site is located to the west and across the street from the
Downey Landing site. Existing land uses on this site include commercial, single- and multi-
family residential, offices - medical, medical care, auto sales, auto service and a church. Also
included would be the re- designation of an 15.7 -acre triangular parcel of land bordered on the
east by Clarke Avenue, Imperial Highway on the south and Lakewood Boulevard on the west.
Existing land uses on this site consist of commercial uses along Lakewood Avenue and Imperial
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
Highway, and multi - family uses along Clarke Avenue. This site is also located just to the west
of the Downey Landing site on the east side of Lakewood Boulevard.
Attainment of Proiect Obiectives
The Mixed Use Alternative would lessen impacts associated with air quality, hydrology and
water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation
and traffic and utilities by approximately 30 %. The remaining soils and geology impact would
be worse than the propose project. This Alternative would also proved additional housing in a
job rich area. However, the Mixed Use Alternative would not meet all of the project objectives
as described in Section 6.1.2 of the DEIR. The Mixed Use Alternative would not change the
General Plan land use designations for 16 areas throughout the City, and would not be consistent
with the goals and policies contained in the updated General Plan. Only the land use
designations for sites No. 1 and 2 would be changed. Therefore, the Mixed Use Alternative is
considered infeasible by the City of Downey.
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 the 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 5.1 -1: Daily Demolition and Construction Emissions
Noise
• Impact 5.6 -1: Noise levels in excess of established standards.
• Impact 5.6 -3: Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in some areas of the
City near arterial highways or freeways.
Transportation and Traffic
• Impact 5.9 -1: Substantial Increase in traffic in relation to existing street system traffic load
and capacity and a resultant decrease in service at three intersections within the City.
The City of Downey 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.
Exhibit A: Finding of Facts
As a result, to approve the Project, the City of Downey 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 judgment, the project's benefits outweigh its
unavoidable significant effects. The City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the proposed Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Update project.
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 of Downey independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determined that the
Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making
this determination, the City of Downey circulated the Final EIR, as described above. With the
adoption of these findings, the City of Downey concludes that the Final EIR reflects its
independent judgment.
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 of Downey, having reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project (which includes
the Final 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:
• Replace the existing General Plan with a General Plan that more effectively deals with
contemporary issues facing the City of Downey.
• Provides for the General Plan redesignation of 16 areas throughout the City that
recognizes the existing land uses or will provide for the optimal development of those
sites in conformance with the goals and policies contained in the updated General Plan.
• Preserves and replaces street trees throughout the City that help filter air pollutants from
the air.
• Provides for some mixed -use development within the City that will include homes along
with commercial and other land uses that will reduce automobile trips and promote
walking within these areas.
• Minimizes disruption to existing buildings adjacent to intersections where future traffic
improvements will be needed.
• Provides for the managed and reasonable growth of the City of Downey.
• Preserves the single- family character of residential areas in the City of Downey.
• Provide a mixture of land uses that addresses the existing and future needs of residents,
workers and visitors to the City of Downey.
Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Updates the network of streets, pedestrian paths and bikeways to provide for the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods in the City of Downey.
• Concentrates and enhances commercial uses in strategic locations, primarily at the City's
major intersections.
• Provides mixed uses adjacent to Downey Landing that will enhance the use of this major
new development in the City of Downey.
• Provides a pedestrian friendly, active Downtown that reflects the character of the City of
Downey.
• Maintains the City's system of park and recreational facilities.
• Provides policies and programs that promote positive design characteristics and a strong
visual image for the community.
Exhibit C: MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Air Quality
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
• Future development
projects shall include
suppression measures for
fugitive dust and those
associated with
constriction equipment in
accordance with SCAQMD
Rule 403 and other AQMD
requirements. Prior to
issuance of each grading or
demolition permit, the
project property
owner /developer shall
obtain the appropriate
permits from the
SCAQMD and submit
them to the City.
• Future development
projects shall adhere to the
requirements of SCAQMD
Rule 1403 (Asbestos
Emissions for Demolition /
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
Responsible Entity
Applicant/Des-elope N/A
r /South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
Applicant/Des-elope N/A
r South Coast Air
Quality
Management
Monitor
Action by Monitor
NA
N/A
NA
N/A
Timing/
Frequency
Compliance Check
NA
N/A
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures:
MM 5.1 -1 Water all active construction
areas at least twice daily.
MNh.1 -2
MM 5.1 -2
Mm 5.1 -3
MINI 5.1-4
MINI 5.1-5
MM 5.1 -6
Mitigation Measure
Renovation Activities) for
projects where demolition
is anticipated.
Cover all haul tricks or
maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
Pave or apply water four
times daily to all unpaved
parking or staging areas.
Sweep or wash any site
access points within 30
minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public
roadway.
Cover or water twice daily
any on -site stockpiles of
debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
Suspend all operations on
any unpaved surface if
winds exceed 25 mph.
Hydroseed or otherwise
stabilize any cleared area
which is to remain inactive
for more than 96 hours after
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Responsible Entity
District.
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Applicant/Develope
r
Monitor
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
Action by Monitor
Visual Inspection
Visual Inspection
Timing/
Frequency
Visual Inspection Twice a Day
Visual Inspection As Necessary
Within thirty
minutes of soil
reposition on load.
Visual Inspection Twice a day.
Visual Inspection Stop when winds
exceed 25 mph.
Hydroseed within
96 hours after
sites completed.
Compliance Check
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
Visual Inspection Four Times a Day City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
clearing is completed.
MM 5.1 -7 Require 90 -day low -NOX
tune -ups for off -road
equipment.
MM 5.1 -8 Limit allowable idling to
minutes for trucks and
heavy equipment.
MM 5.1 -9 Limit individual
construction sites to less
than 1Oacres for extended,
continuous constriction.
MM 5.1 -10 Encourage car pooling for
construction workers.
MM 5.1 -11 Limit lanes closures to off -
peak travel periods.
MM 5.1 -12 Wet down or cover dirt
hauled off -site.
MM 5.1 -13 Encourage receipt of
materials during non -peak
traffic hours.
Geology and Soils
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Responsible Entity
Applicant/Des-elope
r
10 Applicant/Des-elope
r
Applicant/Des-elope
r
Applicant/Des-elope
r
Applicant/Des-elope
r
Applicant/Des-elope
r
Applicant/Des-elope
r
Monitor
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Public
Works
Department.
City Building
and Safety
Division
City Building
and Safety
Division
Action by Monitor
Review of
maintenance
records
Visual Inspection
Visual Inspection
Verification with
Construction
Contractor
Visual Inspection
Visual Inspection
Verify delivery
time with
Contractor
Timing/
Frequency
Tune ups every 90
days.
Turn off truck
after 10 minutes
of idling.
Limit
construction site
to 10 acres at a
time.
At start of project
construction.
Lanes may be
closed between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m.
Wet down / cover
dirt as necessary.
Encourage
material delivery
between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m.
Compliance Check
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
City Building and
Safety Division
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Draft Environmental Impact Report [DEIR])
Mitigation Measures:
MM 5.3 -1
M1/15.3-2
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor
• Compliance with the City of Downey NA NA
Uniform Building Code
(UBC) and applicable
policies of the Safety
Element of the General
Plan would ensure that
impacts would be less than
significant.
Prior to the approval of any
specific proposed change in
land use within 0.25 mile of
any existing or proposed
school, a Health Risk
Assessment shall be
conducted to determine the
significance of any potential
health risk associated with
the proposed change in land
use.
Prior to the constriction of
any facility that may
generate hazardous
materials or waste, or that
may use hazardous materials
within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school,
a Health Risk Assessment
shall be conducted to ensure
that the proposed facility
Applicant /
Developer
Applicant /
Developer
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
City Planning
Division.
City Planning
Division.
Review Health
Risk Assessment.
Review Health
Risk Assessment.
NA
Timing/
Frequency Compliance Check
During Project
Design before
construction
begins.
During Project
Design before
construction
begins.
NA
City Planning
Division.
City Planning
Division.
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM5.3 -3
MM 5.3 -4
Mitigation Measure
would not significantly
impact any existing or
proposed schools.
Prior to issuance of any
discretionary permit for a
current or former hazardous
waste disposal site or solid
waste disposal site, the
project property
owner /developer shall
submit a Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessment to the City. If
possible hazardous materials
or wastes are identified
during the site assessments,
the appropriate
response /remedial measures
will be implemented in
accordance with the
requirements of the Los
Angeles County Health Care
Agency (LAHCA) and/or
the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB),
as appropriate.
If, during constriction of
any future project, soil
contamination is suspected,
construction in the area shall
stop, and appropriate health
and safety procedures shall
be implemented in
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR I[IIDLITRLI
Responsible Entity
Applicant /
Developer
Applicant /
Developer
Monitor
City Planning
Division.
City Planning
Department/
County Health
Care Agency.
Action by Monitor
Review Phase I
Environmental
Site Assessment.
Stop construction
in area where
contaminated soil
is found or
suspected.
Timing/
Frequency
Before Issuance of
any Permits for a
project.
City Planning
Department /
County Health
Car Agency
Compliance Check
City Planning
Division.
During
Construction.
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
M/1 5.3 -5
M/1 5.3 -6
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
accordance with the
requirements of the Los
Angeles County Health Care
Agency (LAHCA) and/or
the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB),
as appropriate.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
Prior to the approval of any Applicant / City Planning Review Health During Plan City Planning
specific proposed change in Developer Department Risk Assessment Check Division
land use within the areas
proposed for re- designation,
or within 0.5 mile of the
areas proposed for re-
designation, a Health Risk
Assessment shall be
conducted to determine the
significance of any potential
health risk associated with
the proposed change in land
use.
Prior to the constriction of Applicant / City Planning Review Health During Plan City Planning
any facility that may Developer Department Risk Assessment Check Division
generate hazardous
materials or waste, or that
may use hazardous materials
in its operations, a Health
Risk Assessment shall be
conducted to ensure that the
proposed facility would not
significantly and adversely
impact any adjacent or
surrounding land uses.
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM 5.3 -7
Mitigation Measure
Prior to issuance of any
discretionary permit for a
current or former hazardous
waste disposal site or solid
waste disposal site, the
project property
owner /developer shall
submit a Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessment to the City. If
possible hazardous materials
or wastes are identified
during the site assessments,
the appropriate
response /remedial measures
will be implemented in
accordance with the
requirements of the Los
Angeles County Health Care
Agency (LAHCA) and/or
the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB),
as appropriate.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR I[IIDLITRLI
Responsible Entity
Applicant /
Developer
Monitor
City Planning
Department
Action by Monitor
Review Phase I
Environmental
Site Assessment
Timing/
Frequency
During Plan
Check
Compliance Check
City Planning
Division
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM 5.3 -8
Mitigation Measure
If, during constriction of
any future project, soil
contamination is suspected,
construction in the area shall
stop, and appropriate health
and safety procedures shall
be implemented in
accordance with the
requirements of the Los
Angeles County Health Care
Agency (LAHCA) and/or
the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB),
as appropriate.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR I[IIDLITRLI
Responsible Entity
Applicant /
Developer
Hydrology and Water Quality (Draft Environmental Impact Report [DEIR])
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
• Future projects shall
comply with all applicable
State, Local and Federal
regulations relating to
hydrology and water
quality.
• As new and redevelopment City Planning
projects are planned and Divisioni
designed, water quality
standards such as Standard
Urban Stornwater
Mitigation Plans
(SUSWMP) will be
Monitor
City Planning
Department/
County Health
Care Agency/
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board.
NA
Action by Monitor
Review Proposed
Safety
Procedures.
NA
Timing/
Frequency
During
Construction
NA
Compliance Check
City Planning
Division
NA
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE 4 -1
DIITIGATIONDIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
Timing/
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
utilized.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 5.4 -1 The City will continue to
monitor water usage in the
City and will obtain
additional water
entitlements as necessary to
provide for future growth
for the City.
MM 5.4 -2 Future development projects Applicant
within the 16 areas subject Developer
to changes in land use
designation would have to
provide detailed hydrology
analyses to determine
impacts to local drainage
systems and provide project
mitigation measures, if
necessary, due to the
potential increase in
imperviousness to these
areas provided by the
changes to the land use
designations.
Land Use and Relevant Planning
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
City of Downey
City Planning
Division/ Public
Works
Department
City Planning
Division
Monitor Water
Usage in the City
Review Project Plan Review
Hydrology Report
Analyze Growth City Planning
in Water Usage Division / Public
Annually Works Department
• The goals, policies and City Planning NA NA NA NA
programs in the General
City Planning
Division
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Noise
Mitigation Measure
Plan serve to mitigate any
potential impacts to land
use and relevant planning.
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
• The goals, policies and
programs in the General
Plan would serve to reduce
potential noise impacts to
the extent possible.
Public Services and Utilities
Existing Regulations and Standards:
• The goals, policies and
programs in the General
Plan serve to mitigate any
potential impacts to fire
and police services.
• Project developers would
have to pay appropriate
school fees before the
project can be developed.
• Existing regulations and
standard conditions, as
well as mitigation
measures, related to parks
and recreation are located
in Section 5.8, Recreation.
TABLE 4 -1
DIITIGATIONDIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
Responsible Entity
Division
City Planning
Division
City Planning
Division
City Planning NA
Division/Downey
Unified School
District
City Planning
Division
NA
NA
NA
Monitor
Action by Monitor
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Timing/
Frequency
Compliance Check
NA
NA
NA
NA
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Recreation
MM 5.9 -1
MM 5.9 -2
Mitigation Measure
• The goals, policies and
programs in the General
Plan serve to mitigate any
potential impacts to other
public facilities.
Mitigation Measures:
As future residential
development applications
are submitted, the City shall
review each project and
assess the feasibility of
providing parkland on -site,
rather than payment of in-
lieu fees. At a minimum,
redevelopment of sites
larger than five acres would
be considered appropriate
for the provision of on -site
parkland dedication.
The City shall review the
feasibility of acquiring
surplus school sites within
the City for parks and
recreation purposes,
pursuant to California
Education Code Section
17485, which requires
school districts to offer
surplus property for sale or
lease to cities for
Responsible Entity
City Planning NA
Division
Applicant/Dev.
TABLE 4 -1
DIITIGATIONDIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
City of Downey
Community
Services
Department.
Monitor
City Community
Services
Department /
City Planning
Division.
City Community
Services
Department
Action by Monitor
NA
Plan
review/Verificatio
n of provision
Coordination with
Downey Unified
School District
NA
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to issuance
of Occupancy
Permit
Review Notices of
Surplus School
Property as issued
by the school
district.
Compliance Check
NA
City Community
Services
Department / City
Planning Division.
City Community
Services
Department
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
conununity playgrounds,
playfields, or outdoor
recreation purposes.
Traffic and Circulation
Responsible Entity
Mitigation Measures:
MM 5.9 -1 Old River School Rd. (NS) Applicant / City Public Plan Review Prior Issuance of
at Florence Avenue (EW): Developer Works Verification of Occupancy
Department Provision Permit
• Construct one additional Applicant / City Public Plan Review / Prior Issuance of
northbound approach lane Developer Works Verification of Occupancy
(total of four approach Department Provision Permit
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
one through lane, and one
right tuna lane.
• Construct one additional
southbound approach lane
(total of three approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes
one shared through -right
lane.
• Construct two additional
eastbound approach lanes
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
Applicant /
Developer
Applicant /
Developer
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Plan Review / Prior Issuance of City Public Works
Works Verification of Occupancy Dept.
Department Provision Permit
City Public Plan Review / Prior Issuance of City Public Works
Works Verification of Occupancy Dept.
Department Provision Permit
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM 5.9 -2
Mitigation Measure
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct two additional
westbound approach lanes
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
Old River School Road (NS) Applicant
at Imperial Highway (EW): Developer
Re -stripe the southbound
approach to provide one left
tuna lane, one through lane,
and one shared through -right
lane.
Applicant /
Developer
• Construct one additional Applicant
eastbound approach lane Developer
(total of six approach
lanes) and strip the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane with
overlap phasing.
MM 5.9 -3 Paramount Boulevard (NS) Applicant
at Telegraph Road (EW): Developer
• Construct one additional Applicant
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Responsible Entity
Monitor
City Public
Works
Department
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Timing/
Frequency
Prior Issuance of
Occupancy
Permit
Prior To Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior To Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior To Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior To Issuance
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Timing/
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
northbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior To Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM 5.9 -4
Mitigation Measure
Paramount Boulevard (NS)
at Florence Avenue (EW):
• Construct one additional
northbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional
southbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tuna lane.
• Construct two additional
eastbound approach lanes
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct one additional
westbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
Responsible Entity
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
City Public Works
City Public Works
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
MM 5.9 -5 Paramount Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Firestone Boulevard Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(EW): Provision Permits
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tuna lane.
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
• Construct one additional Applicant
westbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -6 Paramount Boulevard (NS) Applicant
at Stewart & Gray Road Developer
(EW):
• Construct two additional Applicant
eastbound approach lanes Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant
westbound approach lane Developer
(total of four approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
one through lane, and one
shared through -right turn
lane.
• Re -stripe the eastbound Applicant
approach to provide one Developer
left tum lane, two through
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Responsible Entity
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
City Public Works
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
lanes, and one shared
through -right lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Responsible Entity
• Re -stripe the westbound Applicant
approach to provide one Developer
left tum lane, two through
lanes, and one shared
through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -7 Paramount Boulevard (NS) Applicant
at Imperial Highway (EW): Developer
• Construct one additional Applicant
northbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant
southbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant
eastbound approach lane Developer
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
City Public Works
City Public Works
City Public Works
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct two additional Applicant
westbound approach lanes Developer
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
MM 5.9 -8 Downey Avenue (NS) at
Firestone Boulevard (EW):
• For the northbound
approach, provide left turn
protected and pennitted
phasing.
• For the southbound
approach, provide left turn
protected and pennitted
phasing.
• Construct one additional
eastbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide one left turn lane
with protected and
pennitted phasing, three
through lanes, and one
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Responsible Entity
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
City Public Plan Review /
Works Dept. Verification of
Provision
City Public Plan Review /
Works Dept. Verification of
Provision
City Public Plan Review /
Works Dept. Verification of
Provision
City Public Plan Review /
Works Dept. Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
right tum lane.
• For the westbound
approach, provide left turn
protected and pennitted
phasing.
MM 5.9 -10 Brookshire Avenue (NS) at
Firestone Boulevard (EW):
• Construct two additional
northbound approach lanes
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional
southbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct two additional
eastbound approach lanes
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
Responsible Entity
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
City Public Works
Dept.
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
one right turn lane.
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
MM 5.9 -11 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Telegraph Road (EW): Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Provision Permits
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and two
right tine lanes.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tine lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach lane to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach lane
to provide two left turn
lanes, two through lanes,
and one shared through -
right lane.
MM 5.9 -12 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Florence Avenue (EW): Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Provision Permits
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -13 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Firestone Boulevard Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(EW): Provision Permits
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left tuna lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
Provision Permits
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
MM 5.9 -14 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Stewart & Gray Road Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(EW): Provision Permits
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane with
overlap phasing.
• Construct four additional Applicant
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION DIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -15 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Imperial Highway (EW): Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Provision Permits
• Construct four additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of eight approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide three left turn
lanes, three through lanes,
and two right tum lanes.
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of six approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
City Public
Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor
eastbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept.
(total of eight approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
four through lanes, and two
right tuna lanes.
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public
westbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept.
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide three left turn
lanes, two through lanes,
and one shared through -
right lane.
MM 5.9 -16 Lakewood Boulevard (NS) Applicant
at Foster Road (EW): Developer
• Construct two additional Applicant
northbound approach lanes Developer
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct four additional Applicant
southbound approach lanes Developer
(total of seven approach
lanes) and stripe the
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Compliance Check
Dept.
City Public Works
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
four through lanes, and one
right tuna lane.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[\ I D LITRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
eastbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of four approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
one through lane, and one
shared through -right lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of four approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
one through lane, and one
shared through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -17 Bellflower Boulevard (NS) Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
at Imperial Highway (EW): Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Provision Permits
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
northbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of four approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
one through lane, and one
shared through -right lane.
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
• Construct one additional Applicant
southbound approach lane Developer
(total of four approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
one through lane, and one
shared through -right lane.
MM 5.9 -18 Woodruff Avenue (NS) at Applicant
Stewart & Gray Road (EW): Developer
• Construct one additional Applicant
northbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
northbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant
southbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left tum lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct one additional Applicant
eastbound approach lane Developer
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Responsible Entity
Monitor
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Timing/
Frequency
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy
Permits
Compliance Check
City Public Works
Dept.
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance City Public Works
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
City Public Works
City Public Works
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
free right turn lane.
• Construct two additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
westbound approach lanes Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two lett turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
MM 5.9 -19 Woodruff Avenue (NS) at Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
Imperial Highway (EW): Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
Construct two additional Provision Permits
northbound approach lanes
(total of six approach lanes)
and stripe the northbound
approach to provide two left
turn lanes, two through
lanes, and two right tum
lanes.
• Construct one additional Applicant City Public Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
southbound approach lane Developer Works Dept. Verification of of Occupancy Dept.
(total of five approach Provision Permits
lanes) and stripe the
southbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
right tum lane.
• Construct two additional Applicant
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[\ I D LITRLV
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
City Public
Plan Review / Prior to Issuance City Public Works
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
eastbound approach lanes
(total of six approach
lanes) and stripe the
eastbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
three through lanes, and
one right turn lane.
• Construct one additional
westbound approach lane
(total of five approach
lanes) and stripe the
westbound approach to
provide two left turn lanes,
two through lanes, and one
shared through -right lane.
No mitigation measures are required.
Utility and Service Systems
Existing Regulations and Standard
Conditions:
• Connection and service
fees charged by the County
Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County allow that
agency meet wastewater
treatment requirements of
the Los Angeles Regional
Water quality Control
Applicant
Developer
Applicant
Developer
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[l I D LITRLV
Responsible Entity Monitor
Developer Works Dept.
City of Downey N/A
/County Sanitation
Districts of Los
Angeles County
City Public
Works Dept.
City Public
Works Dept.
Action by Monitor
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
Plan Review /
Verification of
Provision
N/A
Timing/
Frequency
of Occupancy
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
Prior to Issuance
of Occupancy Dept.
Permits
N/A
Compliance Check
Dept.
City Public Works
City Public Works
N/A
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Board.
• Payment of a sewage
system connection fee will
be required for all new
development within the
City prior to receiving a
permit to connect to the
sewer system is issued.
• The City will purchase
additional water rights as
additional land uses are
developed within the City.
• Any proposed
developments falling under
the parameters of SB 610
or 221 must complete
Water Supply
Assessments.
• The City will ensure that
sufficient water supplies
are available for use as
additional land uses are
developed in the City by
monitoring water use and
water available for use in
the City.
• Payment of a sewage
system connection fee will
be required for all new
development within the
City prior to receiving a
TABLE 4 -1
DIITIGATIONDIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGR 1[\IDL4TRLI
Responsible Entity
City of Downey N/A
City of Downey N/A
City of Downey N/A
City of Downey N/A
City of
Downey /County
Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles
County.
N/A
Monitor
Action by Monitor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Timing/
Frequency
Compliance Check
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I erification
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity
permit to comiect to the
sewer system is issued.
• The City will continue to City of Downey N/A
implement solid waste
reduction programs in
compliance with AB 939.
• In accordance wit the City of Downey N/A
California Solid Waste
Reuse and Recycling
Access Act of 1991, each
development project shall
be required by the City to
provide an adequate
storage area for collection
and removal of recyclable
materials.
TABLE 4 -1
MITIGATION IONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR 1[\ I D LITRLI
Timing/
Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check I erification
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A