dhammakaya international meditation center

SCH 2014121060 AUGUST 2015 CITY OF AZUSA dhammakaya international meditation center Final Environmental Impact Report Hogle-Ireland 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 951-787-9222 www.migcom.com

- This document is designed tor double-sided printing -

Dhammakaya International Meditation Center Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH 2014121060 August 2015 City of Azusa

This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources

Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 2 Responses to Comments... 3 3 Errata... 29 4 Public Circulation... 32 5 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program... 36 List of Tables Table 1 DEIR Comments... 3 Environmental Impact Report i

Table of Contents This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii City of Azusa

1 Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared to comply with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As noted in Section15089 (b) of the Guidelines, the focus of a FEIR should be on responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Accordingly, this document incorporates the Dhammakaya International Meditation Center Specific Plan DEIR, Volumes I and II (State Clearinghouse No. 2014121060) by reference, in its entirety. The DEIR is available for review at the City of Azusa, Community Development Department, 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702, and on the City s website (http://www.ci.azusa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1350). The contents of this FEIR include: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Responses to Comments The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated a DEIR for public review and comment, for the period of May 1, 2015 through June 15, 2015. A total of four different pieces of correspondence were submitted to the City during the review period. This section includes a list of all correspondence submitted to the City of Azusa on the DEIR, each identified by a letter for later reference, together with the authors and the dates the letters were issued. Following this list, all of the letters are presented, with numbered brackets to highlight specific comments that are responded to in the next section. Public comments were received at the City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Meeting held on May 19, 2015, at the City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting held on June 10, 2015, and at the City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting held on June 29, 2015. Comments and responses to the comments are listed in this section in the same format. Review of Environmental Documents Section 15204 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides guidance to the public in reviewing CEQA documents. This section is designed not to limit the scope of comments that can be submitted by the public but to focus comments on issues that are substantive to the environmental analysis. Commenting entities should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing impacts to the environment and identify any areas they believe to be inadequate. The guidance indicates that comments should be submitted in a manner that: Identifies a specific environmental effect Supports the effect and its significance with substantial evidence Comments should include alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified, specific environmental effects. This section reiterates that the lead agency is bound by reasonableness and good faith in its analysis and that the lead agency is not required to respond to comments in the FEIR that do not identify significant environmental issues. Each response provided herein is coded to correspond to the individual comment/author and each of the bracketed comments in that letter. A summary table is included with each response to identify if the response introduces new significant information under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq of the CEQA Guidelines. Evaluation of Comments Section 15088 et seq of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the evaluation and response to comments received during circulation of the DEIR. To summarize: The lead agency must evaluate all comments received during the public review period and prepare a written response to comments on significant environmental issues Environmental Impact Report 1

1 Introduction The lead agency must provide the response to the commenting entity at least ten days prior to certification of the EIR The response must: o Identify any significant environmental issues raised in the comment o Explain, if necessary, why any recommendations provided in the comment were not accepted o Be supported by reasoned analysis Responses may be provided as direct revisions to the DEIR or as a separate section of the FEIR with marginal notes in the DEIR text indicated that it was subsequently revised A lead agency is required to recirculate the DEIR if significant new information is introduced during the public comment period. Significant new information includes: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Recirculation is not required when new information is not significant, this includes: Revisions that clarify or amplify an adequate analysis Insignificant modifications (such as spelling and grammar corrections) Section 3: Errata This section identifies revisions to the DEIR to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the DEIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. No substantial revisions were made to the DEIR and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA. Section 4: Notices and Distribution This consists of notices concerning the release of the Draft EIR for public review and comment, and the list of agencies, groups and individuals who were sent notices and/or a copy of the Draft EIR. 2 City of Azusa

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period, beginning May 1, 2015 and ending June 15, 2015. Correspondence was received from multiple parties during this time period. The correspondence listed in Table 1 (DEIR Comments) was submitted to the City of Azusa concerning the DEIR. Public comments were also submitted during the City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Meeting held on May 19, 2015 and at the City of Azusa Planning Commission Meetings held on June 10, 2015 and July 29, 2015. Written responses to comments are subsequently provided. The following responses to comments include a summary statement to identify if the response will introduce new significant information under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines or if it does not introduce new significant information. The four general categories are: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Table 1 DEIR Comments ID Commenting Agencies and Individuals Date A City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting May 19, 2015 B Los Angeles County Fire Department June 8, 2015 C City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 2015 D California Department of Transportation District 7 June 15, 2015 E State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit June 16, 2015 F Los Angeles County Department of Public Works June 17, 2015 G City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 2015 Environmental Impact Report 3

Comment A City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting On May 19, 2015, the City of Azusa Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission held their monthly meeting at which time they discussed details of the proposed project, specifically, the swimming pool located on the project site. The swimming pool was filled with soil in the late-1990s and has since been utilized as a rose garden. Commissioner Jule Arevalo led the discussion regarding the pool. Her comments are summarized herein. A-1 Commissioner Jule Arevalo commented that the pool was constructed before the MacNeil Mansion. She further commented that the pool and the MacNeil Mansion function as one unit that establish the historic character of the property and as such, both are cultural resources. After deliberation, the Commissioners prepared the following recommendation for submittal to the City of Azusa Planning Commission regarding the pool: The pool and balustrade pool walls shall remain in place. The pool shall be restored using existing coping and tiles, along with new matching materials as required, to allow the use of the pool to be a reflecting pool, with a maximum depth of 18 inches, to meet California Building Code. Comment A-1 suggests that the pool is a significant cultural resource in contradiction with the conclusions made by the architectural historian in the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment in July 2014. While the Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission indicated a preference for preservation of the pool, the Commission decided to recommend a condition of approval to convert the pool to a reflecting pool. In its action, the Commission did not present any evidence or new information that would change the conclusions presented in the EIR nor did it present evidence of new information supporting the statement that the pool is a unique historical resource. The discussion in the EIR regarding the history of the construction of the pool and MacNeil Mansion is consistent with the history presented by Commissioner Arevalo; however, in determining significance, the technical report notes that the primary reason the pool has lost its historic integrity is due to changes from its original design and thus no longer qualifies as a significant cultural resource. The conclusion of the technical report remains unchanged by Comment A-1. Therefore, while there are competing opinions on the significance of the pool as a historic resource, the analysis of this issue in the DEIR remains adequate, supported by substantial evidence without new information to the contrary. 4 City of Azusa

Comment B Los Angeles County Fire Department B-1 B-2 Environmental Impact Report 5

B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 6 City of Azusa

B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 Environmental Impact Report 7

B-13 B-14 8 City of Azusa

B-15 Environmental Impact Report 9

Response B Los Angeles County Fire Department B-1 The commenter indicates that the Planning Division has no comments at this time. No response to this comment is required. B-2 Comments B-2 through B-13 were submitted by the Land Development Unit. The commenter suggests that the proposed project may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. As mentioned in the Draft EIR, the project proposed an additional ingress/egress point located on Monrovia Place, an upgraded emergency access road, and improved circulation throughout the project site. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-3 The commenter indicates that the proposed project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-4 The commenter notes that the project site is located within the area described by the Fire Department as the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and that a Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to public hearing. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. In addition, the project site is entirely surrounded by the Rosedale residential community for which fuel modification was installed around its perimeter. The applicant is currently working with the Fire Department on review of the landscape plans and any changes will be incorporated into the final project plans. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-5 The commenter indicates that fire sprinkler systems are required in all residential and most commercial occupancies, and that fire sprinklers systems are strongly suggested even in occupancies where they are not required. The commenter further references Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 of the Los Angeles County Fire Code for the proper placement of sprinkler systems. The proposed project includes fire sprinklers in all of the new buildings and will also comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-6 The commenter indicates that every building constructed shall be accessible to the Los Angeles County Fire Department s apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The commenter further states that the roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. The proposed parking lot and emergency access road provides access to all parts of the Meditation Hall and Organizational Housing structures to within 150 feet, consistent with the Fire Code. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-7 This comment is related to access requirements for the proposed Meditation Hall and storage/workshop building. The commenter indicates that the proposed project shall provide a minimum unobstructed with of 28 feet exclusive of shoulders except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance clear to sky Fire Departments s vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the 10 City of Azusa

exterior of the building when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department s vehicular access road is more than 30 feet high or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The commenter further indicates that the side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. The commenter further states that cross hatches shall indicate the Fire Department s vehicular access on the site plan and clearly depict the required width. The proposed project provides a new emergency access road around the northern perimeter of the property consistent with Fire Code requirements that also provides emergency access to within 150 feet of all structures. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-8 This comment is related to access requirements for the proposed two-story organizational housing structures. The commenter indicates that the proposed project shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet exclusive of shoulders except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance clear to sky Fire Department s vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building (Fire Code 503.1.1 and 503.2.2). The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-9 This comment is related to access requirements for the proposed two-story organizational housing structures. The commenter indicates that turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet and that this measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. The commenter further indicates that the Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-10 This comment is related to access requirements for the proposed two-story organizational housing structures. The commenter states that dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround on the site plan with dimensions of the turnaround included. The commenter further states that the orientation of the turnaround shall be properly placed in the direction of travel of the access roadway. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-11 This comment is related to water requirements. The commenter states that fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and midblock. Environmental Impact Report 11

e) A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-12 This comment is related to water requirements. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gpm at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for the duration up to four hours as outlined in the 2013 County of Los Angeles Fire Code Appendix B, table B105. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. The proposed project will comply will all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department codes and ordinance requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. B-13 This comment closes out the Land Development Unit s portion of the comment letter and states that the comments are only general requirements and that further requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. No response to this comment is required. B-14 Comment B-14 was submitted by the Forestry Division. The commenter states the statutory requirements of the Division and indicates that the Forestry Division has no objection to the proposed project. No response to this comment is required. B-15 Comment B-15 was submitted by the Health and Hazardous Materials Division. The commenter states the the Division previously submitted comments regarding the proposed project in January 2015 and has no additional comments at this time. No response to this comment is required. 12 City of Azusa

Comment C City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting #1 On June 10, 2015, a public hearing was convened with the City s Planning Commission to discuss the proposed project and its DEIR. Comments from the Planning Commissioners regarding the following topics were addressed during the workshop by City of Azusa Planning Staff and by the applicant s representative: Commissioner Donnelson Commissioner Contreras Commissioner S. Avila - Use of reclaimed water for the control of fugitive dust during demolition and grading - Water restrictions and the proposed reflecting pool - Fencing requirements for the proposed reflecting pool - Adequate parking - Permeable pavement code requirements - Future installation of access gates - Meditation Hall use restrictions (weddings) - Use of retaining walls on the project site As mentioned herein, responses to the Commissioner s comments were provided by the City of Azusa Planning Staff and the applicant s representative. These comments do not identify any significant new information and do not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Three people provided public testimony at the hearing regarding topics such as traffic and cultural resources. Their comments and responses to their comments are provided herein. C-1 Mr. Jorge Rosales addressed the Commission and commented on the importance of re-connecting Citrus Avenue and commented that the traffic analysis should analyze that scenario. The completion of that road is a requirement of the Rosedale development and is in the engineering design stage. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. C-2 Ms. Jule Arevalo addressed the Commission and commented on the historic significance of the pool and advised the Commissioners to consider the Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission s recommendation to preserve the pool. C-3 Mr. Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk, addressed the Commission and gave a detailed description of the pool s history and of the architect who designed the pool. Mr. Cornejo provided similar testimony to Commissioner Arevalo that the pool and MacNeil Mansion are historically linked and both are significant cultural resources. Mr. Cornejo expressed the importance of preserving the pool. Comments C-2 and C-3 suggest that the pool is a significant cultural resource in contradiction with the conclusions made by the architectural historian in the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment in July 2014. In their comments, the Ms. Arevalo and Mr. Cornejo did not present any evidence or new information that would change the conclusions presented in the EIR nor did their comments present evidence of new information supporting the statement that the pool is a unique historical resource. The discussion in the EIR regarding the history of the construction of the pool and MacNeil Mansion is consistent with the history presented by Ms. Arevalo and Mr. Cornejo; however, in determining significance, the technical report notes that the primary reason the pool has lost its historic integrity is due to changes from its original design and thus no longer qualifies as a significant cultural resource. The conclusion of the technical report remains unchanged by Comments C-2 and C-3. Therefore, while there are competing opinions on the significance of the pool as a historic resource, the analysis of this issue in the DEIR remains adequate, supported by substantial evidence without new information to the contrary. Environmental Impact Report 13

Comment D California Department of Transportation, District 7 D-1 D-2 D-3 14 City of Azusa

D-4 D-5 Environmental Impact Report 15

Response D California Department of Transportation, District 7 D-1 The commenter is requesting additional traffic analysis for the I-210 freeway and Citrus Avenue on-ramp/offramp and other nearby ramps. The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan identified six key roadway segments within the project vicinity that may be impacted by the proposed improvements to the project site. Utilizing the criteria outlined in the current Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Los Angeles County, a traffic study is typically required when a proposed development project is forecast to generate 50 or more two-way peak hour trips on a typical weekday. Based on the trip generation forecast the proposed project is not anticipated to generate more than 50 peak hour trips. As such, it was concluded that a traffic study was not required for the proposed project. Nevertheless, to document to potential impacts of the proposed project, an assessment of six roadway segments in the vicinity was conducted. The results of roadway segment capacity analysis indicate that all study locations are expected to operate at acceptable LOS A or B. Hence, based on the City of Azusa s LOS standards, the proposed project will not have a significant traffic impact. Without any significant traffic impacts attributable to the proposed project, project-related mitigation measures are not necessary. According to the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), the following criterion is a starting point in determining when a Traffic Impact Study is needed: 1) Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility 2) Generates 50 to 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and, affected State highway facilities are experiencing noticeable delay; approaching unstable traffic flow conditions (LOS C or D ). 3) Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility the following are examples that may require a full TIS or some lesser analysis: a) Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS E or F ). b) The potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased (i.e., congestion related collisions, non-standard sight distance considerations, increase in traffic conflict points, etc.). c) Change in local circulation networks that impact a State highway facility (i.e., direct access to State highway facility, a non-standard highway geometric design, etc.). This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. D-2 The commenter is requesting that cumulative traffic impacts to State Facilities (I-210 freeway) generated by the proposed project as well as future projects be considered. As mentioned in the response to Comment B- 1, based on the trip generation forecast the proposed project is not anticipated to generate more than 50 peak hour trips. Since the trip generation for the proposed project is below the established Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Los Angeles County threshold, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on a State Facility. This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. D-3 The commenter suggests the implementation of smart growth strategies to reduce the demand on single occupancy trips. As mentioned in the Draft EIR, the DIMC will encourage the use of public transportation by providing a shuttle service to and from the Gold Line station located at Citrus Avenue during major ceremonies. This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. 16 City of Azusa

D-4 This comment is a reminder that heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will require a permit from Caltrans. The commenter also requests that the use of large size trucks be limited to off-peak commute periods. The proposed project will comply will all applicable California Department of Transportation requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. D-5 This comment is a reminder that stormwater runoff is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles County and that the discharge of runoff onto State highway facilities is not permitted. As mentioned in the Draft EIR, the project proposes a detention basin that is sufficiently sized to reduce peak storm flows to below existing conditions. The proposed project will comply will all applicable California Department of Transportation requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Environmental Impact Report 17

Comment E State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 18 City of Azusa

Environmental Impact Report 19

20 City of Azusa

Response E State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit This letter is not a comment on the DSEIR. This letter indicates that the Notice of Availability (NOA) was received by the State Clearinghouse and circulated to State agencies for review. One state agency (California Department of Transportation, District 7) submitted comments to the State Clearinghouse by June 15, 2015. Environmental Impact Report 21

Comment F Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 22 City of Azusa

F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 Environmental Impact Report 23

24 City of Azusa

Response F Los Angeles County Department of Public Works F-1 The commenter has indicated that a connection/construction permit is required from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) prior to construction of any new connection to LACFCD drains or facilities. In addition, the commenter has indicated that a Hydrology Study and Storm Drain Improvement Plans must be submitted to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) for review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed project will comply with LACFCD and LACDPW permits and requirements. This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. F-2 The commenter is requesting a minor revision to the Existing Conditions portion of Section 4.7 of the DEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality. The minor revision was made and is included in the Errata Section of this Final EIR. This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. F-3 The commenter is requesting a minor revision to the Existing Conditions portion of Section 4.7 of the DEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality. The minor revision was made and is included in the Errata Section of this Final EIR. This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. F-4 The commenter suggests that the DEIR should reflect the most updated information regarding stormwater requirements such as Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. LID requirements are discussed within the Regulatory Setting Section of 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4.7-8). This comment does not identify any significant new information or comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. No further response is required. Environmental Impact Report 25

Comment G City of Azusa Planning Commission Meeting #2 On June 29, 2015, a public hearing was convened with the City s Planning Commission to discuss the proposed project and its DEIR. Two people provided public testimony at the hearing regarding topics such as aesthetics, parking, public noticing, traffic, lighting, and drainage. Their comments and responses to their comments are provided herein. C-1 Mr. Fred Madjar addressed the Commission and commented on aesthetics, parking, and public noticing requirements. He stated that views of the proposed project would be visible from surrounding roadways and that the views would not be consistent with the area. In regards to parking, he stated that the City of Azusa does not have a mechanism to ensure that the DIMC will provide a shuttle from the Gold Line Station to the DIMC during events. He also stated that there might be insufficient parking available for Gold Line riders if DIMC guest utilize the new Gold Line parking garage during events. Lastly, he requested clarification on the public noticing for the planning commission meetings. C-2 Ms. Vanessa Alikhan, President of the Rosedale Promenade Community Association (RPCA), addressed the Commission on behalf of her organization and commented on drainage, lighting, traffic, and public noticing. She stated that the regional detention basin located east of the proposed project site (Los Angeles County Basin 4D) has not been properly maintained. In regards to lighting, she stated that light from the proposed Buddha statue will be visible from the properties to the south during nighttime hours. She also stated that the proposed project will increase traffic impacts in the area. Lastly, she requested clarification on the public noticing for the planning commission meetings. Response to Comment C-1 Aesthetics The commenter stated that views of the proposed project would be visible from surrounding roadways and that the views would not be consistent with the area. Development of the proposed project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site s existing surroundings. The Specific Plan prepared for the project site includes Design Guidelines pertaining to the proposed structures, landscaping and signage. In addition, renderings are included within the Specific Plan that depict views of the proposed Meditation Hall looking west from East Manresa Drive, the proposed Organizational Housing looking east from Azusa Veterans Drive, the proposed Organizational Housing looking east from Rosedale Avenue, and the proposed Meditation Hall front entrance off of Monrovia Place. In addition, the proposed Landscape Plan (included within the Specific Plan) indicates that many of the existing trees will remain in place and additional trees will be planted along the north, south, east, west, and interior portions of the project site. After analysis of the landscape plan and renderings, the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project found that impacts related to visual character and the quality of the site and its surroundings will be less than significant. This topic was screened out of the EIR. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Parking In regards to parking, the commenter stated that the City of Azusa does not have a mechanism to ensure that the DIMC will provide a shuttle from the Gold Line Station to the DIMC during events. Parking was analyzed in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers dated May 20, 2014. According to the Specific Plan and Section 4.10 Transportation and Traffic of the DEIR, the DIMC will encourage the use of public transportation by providing a shuttle service to and from the Gold Line station located at 26 City of Azusa

Citrus Avenue during major ceremonies. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Public Noticing The commenter requested clarification regarding the public noticing procedure for public hearings. According to Azusa Municipal Code (88.58.030), after the completion of any environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the matter shall be scheduled for public hearing on a Commission, or Council agenda (as applicable). According to Azusa Municipal Code (88.58.020) when a planning permit or other matter requires a public hearing, the public shall be provided notice of the hearing in compliance with state law (Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, 65094, and 66451.3, and Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.), as applicable. All public noticing for the proposed project has complied with State law. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Response to Comment C-2 Drainage Regarding drainage, the commenter stated that the regional detention basin located east of the proposed project site (Los Angeles County Basin 4D) has not been properly maintained. A Drainage Study was prepared by Walden & Associates for the proposed project dated May 15, 2014 and is included as Appendix F of the DEIR. Due to the increase in impervious surfaces, runoff is anticipated to increase with implementation of the proposed improvements to the project site. As stated within the Drainage Study and in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIR, the existing 50-year peak discharge was estimated to be 29.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the 50-year peak discharge in the proposed condition is estimated to be 34.8 cfs. In order to match the existing peak discharge, the proposed on-site detention basins will be sized to capture 382 cf based on the 50-year hydrograph (Exhibit 4.7-1 in the DEIR). To treat the additional runoff generated due to the increase in impervious surfaces, the MS4 Permit requires an additional treatment volume of 16,357 cubic feet (cf). The water quality detention basins will be designed to have a total capacity of 42,100 cf and therefore are of sufficient size to adequately treat runoff from the project site. Maintenance of the on-site detention basins will be provided by the DIMC. Maintenance of the eastern adjacent Los Angeles County Basin 4D is the responsibility of the Rosedale Land Partners (RLP); responsibility is anticipated to be conveyed to the North Rosedale Homeowners Association at sometime in the future. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Lighting In regards to lighting, the commenter stated that light from the proposed Buddha statue will be visible from the properties to the south during nighttime hours. Section 4.1 of the DEIR examines impacts due to light and glare. As stated in Section 4.1, the Buddha statue will be surrounded on three sides by a solid shell structure with the opening towards the meditation area. Thus, the Buddha statue will not be visible to residents to the north of the project site. The Buddha statue will be screened by vegetation within the roof deck planters and the screening surrounding the roof deck and thus will not be visible from the residential uses to the south of the project site. Minimal outdoor lighting on the roof level will be provided for safety purposes and to accent the ceremonies. Illumination of the Buddha statue will only take place during ceremonies and will be shielded by the solid shell structure. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Traffic The commenter stated that the proposed project will increase traffic impacts in the area. A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers dated May 20, 2014 and is attached as Appendix H of the DEIR. All six roadway segments analyzed in the TIA currently operate and are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service for both existing and existing plus project traffic conditions. It should be noted that the purpose of the proposed improvements to the project site is to provide enhanced facilities Environmental Impact Report 27

and is not expected to increase the number of participants attending. However, to be conservative the total daily volumes estimated for Vesak Day were completely additive to the counted daily volumes. As such, based on the TIA, the proposed improvements to the project site will not have a significant traffic impact on the roadway network in the immediate vicinity of the project. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Public Noticing The commenter requested clarification regarding the public noticing procedure for public hearings. According to Azusa Municipal Code (88.58.030), after the completion of any environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the matter shall be scheduled for public hearing on a Commission, or Council agenda (as applicable). According to Azusa Municipal Code (88.58.020) when a planning permit or other matter requires a public hearing, the public shall be provided notice of the hearing in compliance with state law (Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, 65094, and 66451.3, and Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.), as applicable. All public noticing for the proposed project has complied with State law. The commenter s name and email address (the commenter s preferred method of communication) were provided to City staff. The commenter received an emailed public notice for the June 29, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing and received an emailed public notice for the September 8, 2015 City Council Public Hearing. This comment does not identify any significant new information and does not comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the DEIR. 28 City of Azusa

3 Errata This section identifies revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the EIR or minor errors corrected through subsequent review. It also identifies any insignificant corrections to the EIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. The minor modifications and corrections below are provided to ensure that all information presented is correct. In addition, corrections to mitigation are intended to clarify the extent of mitigation required to ensure feasibility and continued mitigation of identified impacts. The corrections do not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts or required mitigation measures and are within the scope of impact analysis studied in the Draft EIR. Explanation of Corrections The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works comments F-2 and F-3 required minor revisions to the EIR. Both comments are regarding information within the Existing Conditions portion of Section 4.7 of the DEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality. The changes are included in the Errata on the following pages. No substantial revisions were made to the DEIR and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA. Environmental Impact Report 29

3 Errata 30 City of Azusa

3 Errata This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Impact Report 31

4 Public Circulation Notice of Availability Environmental Impact Report 32

4 Public Circulation Distribution The Notice of Availability (NOA) was distributed to all agencies and persons on the Planning Department s standard notification list via Certified Mail. The NOA and Notice of Completion (NOC) were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies. Environmental Impact Report 33

4 Public Circulation Notice of Completion 34 City of Azusa

4 Public Circulation Environmental Impact Report 35

5 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Air Quality Mitigation Measures 4.2.B-1 Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of building permits, construction drawings shall indicate the types of architectural coatings proposed to be used in interior and exterior applications on the proposed buildings and verification that daily application will conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or exterior coatings will not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The performance standard may be met through use of low-volatile organic compound coatings, scheduling, or other means that may be identified on the construction drawings. Construction drawing shall specify use of High-Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of coatings. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of and with oversight by the Building Division. DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Monitoring Timing/ Frequency Prior to issuance of building permits Action Indicating Compliance Ensure construction drawings and procedures reflect mitigation measure Monitoring Agency Building Division Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Environmental Impact Report 36

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 5 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 4.3.B-1 Mitigation Measures In the northwest portion of the property an archaeological monitor shall be present to observe ground disturbing activities in the top seven feet in depth from the current surface. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards-M.A./M.S. in anthropology, or related discipline with an emphasis in archaeology and demonstrated experience and competence in archaeological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation). 1. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site at the pre-construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols. 2. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during excavation within the top approximately seven feet from the current surface. If, after excavation begins, the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments are not likely to produce historical archaeological resources, monitoring efforts shall be reduced. 3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if archaeological resources are discovered. 4. In the event of an archaeological discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified archaeologist has cleared the area. 5. In consultation with the qualified archaeologist, the monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the discovery is not significant it shall be quickly mapped, documented, removed and the area cleared. 6. If the discovery is significant, the qualified archaeologist shall notify the applicant and the City immediately. 7. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified archaeologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include salvage excavation, laboratory analysis and processing, research, curation of the find in a local museum or repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Monitoring Timing/ Frequency Pre-construction, Action Indicating Compliance Documentation from qualified archaeologist Monitoring Agency Planning Department Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Environmental Impact Report 37

5 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 4.3.C-1 Mitigation Measures A paleontological monitor shall be present to observe ground disturbing activities below five feet in depth from the current surface in the southern portion of the property and below two feet in depth from the current surface in the northern portion of the property. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated experience and competence in paleontological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation). 1. The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the preconstruction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols. 2. Paleontological monitoring shall start at half-time. If after two weeks of monitoring no paleontological resources are discovered, monitoring shall be reduced to spot-checking on a weekly basis. If significant paleontological resources are identified then monitoring shall be increased to fulltime when working in paleontological bearing sediments, as determined by the paleontologist. 3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if paleontological resources are discovered. 4. In the event of a paleontological discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared the area. 5. In consultation with the qualified paleontologist the monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant it shall be quickly removed and the area cleared. 6. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall notify the applicant and the City immediately. 7. In consultation with the applicant and the City the qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include salvage excavation and removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research to identify and categorize the find, curation of the find in a local qualified repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. DHAMMAKAYA INTERNATIONAL MEDITATION CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Monitoring Timing/ Frequency Pre-construction Action Indicating Compliance Documentation from qualified paleontologist Monitoring Agency Planning Department Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks 38 City of Azusa