Loading...
CC - 2010-23 - Considering an addendum to the certified final environmental impact report and adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the Rosemead General Plan Amendment 09-01a~ CC RESOLUTION 2010-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead ("City") adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2008 to guide decision-making about land use, circulation, resource management, public safety, noise, and the general quality of life in our City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) (Public Res. Code §§21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§15000 et seq.), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Rosemead General Plan ("Project') analyzing all potential adverse environmental impacts of Project implementation; and WHEREAS, the certified Final EIR identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, these effects can be mitigated to below levels of significance except for the unavoidable significant impacts to population and housing, recreation, utilities and service systems: solid waste, transportation, and air quality; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines §15093 requires that if the Project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are accepted if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2010 to consider the adoption of General Plan Amendment 09-01, attached hereto as Attachment "A", at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan Amendment 09-01 were heard; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider an Addendum EIR based on the 2008 Program EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 13, 2010 to consider the Addendum to the certified Final EIR, adoption of environmental findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of the General Plan, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan were heard; and 1 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed General Plan, Addendum to the certified Final EIR, environmental findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and considered all public comments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: Section I - CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 Findings. The City Council hereby finds that: 1. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as General Plan Amendment 09-01 is not proposed to make substantial changes to the 2008 General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as General Plan Amendment 09-01 did not cause substantial changes to occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would have required major revisions to the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 3. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: a) The General Plan Amendment will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. FINDING: Only minor revisions are proposed by General Plan Amendment 09-01, involving text and map changes to clarify the City's intent, and to expand upon and/or provide additional focus for action strategies. Other minor revisions are proposed to address recent changes in State planning law regarding consideration of flood hazards as part of a Housing Element. The environmental effects of General Plan Amendment 09-01 were assessed in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan. Each impact topic is described below: 2 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 3 of 13 A. Aesthetics: Proposed changes in land use planning policies would not increase building intensity standards in any of the affected areas, compared to the adopted Plan standards. Therefore, aesthetic impacts related to building height and bulk would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan EIR. Less land area is now designated for medium to high density residential development in mixed use settings. Therefore, the updated Plan would result in less of a residential character in some mixed use areas, compared to the adopted Plan. Development standards and project review requirements will be required to ensure quality and character of design would not be affected. Therefore, aesthetic impacts involving new development and effects on the quality and character of the site and surroundings would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan EIR. No changes in any lighting sources or lighting regulations are proposed, thus, the updated Plan would result in no changes in potential lighting impacts. B. Air Quality: No new sources of air pollutant emissions would occur as a result of the proposed Plan revisions. Therefore, potential impacts would be no worse and no additional control measures would be warranted beyond than those identified for the adopted Plan. Total traffic generated within the Planning area would be lower under the proposed Plan as described in full below. Therefore, total vehicular emissions would be lower than estimated for the adopted Plan. Air quality impacts would be similar to, and in some cases less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. C. Biological Resources: All of the updated land use policies affect land in the City's already urbanized area along developed corridors. There are no sensitive biological resources in these areas. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources would occur due to the updated Land Use Element. Changes in vehicular trip volumes and distributions associated with the Land Use Element revisions would have no effect on any biological resources. Revisions to the Public Safety Element pertain to documentation of flood hazards and to ongoing flood risk management programs. These changes would not affect the use of any land areas that support an important biological resource. Proposed revisions to require greater variety in the City's street tree palette are expected to reduce potential problems of disease and blight, which could also have a positive effect on the biological and aesthetic values of the street trees. Biological resource impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. D. Geology and Soils: Proposed Land Use Element revisions would result in a decrease in development potential for non-residential uses and a reduced potential increase in housing and residential population. This would mean that over the long term, the land use plan revisions would result in fewer habitable structures that could be affected by local 3 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 4 of 13 geological hazards and soils constraints. These changes would have no effect on any existing geology/soils constraints or any related regulations governing design and construction of structures that could be affected by such constraints. Geology and soils impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The proposed Land Use Element revisions would allow for less non-residential development and less residential development when compared to the adopted plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes generally associated with commercial and industrial activities would decrease as a result of the General Plan Amendment. The primary cause for the decrease in non-residential development is the substantial conversion of Mixed-Use land uses (that support floor area ratios (FAR) of 1.6 to 2.0) to Commercial and High-Intensity Commercial land uses (that supports a reduced FAR of 0.35). No new kinds of industrial or commercial uses would be allowed that could involve handling of higher volumes or more dangerous kinds of hazardous substances/wastes. All existing federal, state, county and local regulations governing the storage, transport, use, generation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes will continue to apply. Revisions to the Circulation Element would not affect any routes where hazardous materials can be transported, and would have no impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials. Revisions to the Resource Management and Public Safety Elements would have no effect on how land is assessed for possible environmental contamination or how hazardous substances/wastes are managed. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. F. Hydrology and Water Quality: Proposed revisions to the Land Use Element would not change any land use policies related to sites affected by flood hazards. No new types of land uses would be allowed that could have a more adverse effect on surface and ground water quality or supplies. No regulations or project review procedures related to storm drainage and water quality controls would be affected by any of the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed revisions in the Public Safety Element would actually increase the level of scrutiny of future development proposals, with respect to flood hazards and mitigation thereof. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. G. Land Use and Planning: All of the proposed General Plan revisions affect land in already developed areas, along well-established corridors. No changes to the established physical structure of any part of the community would be required to implement the proposed refinements to 4 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 5 of 13 land use policies. There is no land in the City of Rosemead that is governed by some form of habitat conservation plan or any other kind of conservation plan; therefore, the updated Plan elements would have no effect on such plans. Proposed changes in mixed use areas are consistent with regional planning strategies to facilitate future growth in established urban areas and in nodes of intensity that can link to transit opportunities. Land use and planning impacts would be similar to and no more adverse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. H. Noise: Proposed General Plan revisions would not allow for any new or more intensive noise sources, and would not relax or otherwise affect any policies, standards, regulations or plan review procedures related to noise control and mitigation. Since traffic volumes in all nine traffic analysis zones would decline, compared to the adopted Plan, roadway noise levels are not expected to be any higher than was estimated for the adopted Plan. Noise impacts would be similar to and possibly less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Population and Housing: Proposed Land Use Element revisions would decrease total residential capacity by approximately 5,444 housing units and 18,906 residents and would reduce total non-residential development capacity by approximately 4,090,000 square feet. Total long-term residential growth, therefore, would be lower and total economic growth in terms of potential job base would decrease, compared to the adopted Plan. No land is being re-designated to allow development which was formerly targeted for some conservation or resource management or extraction purpose. No changes to any supporting infrastructure systems are proposed, therefore, there would be no direct growth inducing effects in terms of removing a physical obstacle to growth. J. Public Services: Demand for public services related to residential population would be reduced, because the updated Plan would reduce the City's residential capacity, as noted above. No physical environmental impacts to alter, expand or build new public facilities, therefore, would occur. Since future commercial, industrial and other non-residential development would occur in the City's already urbanized areas, where law enforcement, public safety and fire protection services are already available, no additional facilities associated with those services would be required to maintain sufficient response times. Public services impacts would be similar to and no worse than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. K. Recreation: Since the total potential residential capacity in the updated Plan would be lower than in the adopted Plan, demand for parkland and impacts to existing parks and recreation resources would be reduced. The increased development potential for non-residential land uses is not expected to result in a significant impact involving the demand for parkland or use of existing parks and recreation resources, since those 5 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 6 of 13 resources are enjoyed primarily and sometimes exclusively, by local residents. Recreation impacts would be similar to and possibly less than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. L. Transportation and Traffic: Traffic impacts associated with the proposed changes in land use plan policies were assessed by KOA Corporation, based on the traffic impact analysis they completed for the 2008 General Plan. Trip generation for each of the nine traffic analysis zones (TAZ) was recalculated and distributed to the 28 study area intersections, to determine whether long range congestion impacts during the AM and PM peak hours would differ substantially from the findings of the previous traffic impact analysis. Overall, the updated traffic study determined that the proposed Land Use Plan revisions would not result in any new significant intersection impacts and also would not worsen projected LOS at any intersection that was previously projected to have a significant impact. Specific findings include: • Trip generation for the nine TAZs would change as follows: o AM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four to the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non-residential trips would decrease in eight of the nine TAZs. o PM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four of the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non-residential trips would decrease in all nine TAZ. • Eight intersections impacted in the AM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant peak hour impacts with the proposed Plan revisions • Eleven intersections impacted in the PM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant impacts with the proposed Plan revisions. • Significant AM peak hour congestion impacts that were forecast for the 2008 Plan would be reduced to less than significant at five intersections with the proposed Plan • The intersection of San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. would be significantly impacted in the AM Peak hour, but not in the PM peak hour under the revised Plan. • Significant impacts were not forecast for the 2008 Plan or the proposed Plan revisions for 15 intersections during the AM peak hour and at eight intersections during the PM peak hour • Long-range daily traffic volumes on four roadway segments are projected to exceed desired volume/capacity ratios, compared to fifteen with the adopted Plan 6 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 7 of 13 M. Utilities and Service Systems: Total residential demand for water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems would be lower and total residential solid waste disposal requirements would be lower because the total residential capacity would be reduced by approximately 5,444 housing units. With a non-residential development potential of approximately 4,090,000 less square feet, water demand, wastewater collection and treatment needs, and solid waste disposal requirements from commercial and industrial uses would probably be higher than with the adopted Plan. Solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Impacts on the local and regional storm drainage network would be about the same for the adopted Plan or the updated Plan, since the planning area is already mostly developed and a substantial increase in impervious surface area that generates runoff would not occur. Impacts to the Utilities and Services systems would be similar to the impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR, and would not result in any new significant impacts. N. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts: Proposed General Plan revisions involving site-specific land use designations would have no effect on land outside of Rosemead and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the use of land, i.e. aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils constraints, mineral resources, or noise. Since traffic volumes throughout the planning area are projected to decline, compared to the volumes projected for the adopted Plan, there would be no cumulatively considerable traffic congestion impacts or traffic-related air quality or noise impacts due to the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed changes to the Land Use Plan would change the ultimate mix of jobs/housing opportunities in the planning area, i.e., more weighted with employment growth than residential growth. This is not expected to affect the rates of residential or employment growth in Rosemead, however, and no conflicts with regional growth forecasts are anticipated. Proposed revisions to the Resource Management Element could reduce the level of potential cumulative effects on parks and recreation resources inside and outside of Rosemead, to the extent that the proposed recreation master plan program is successful. As noted in the preceding discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Additional residential and non-residential growth is desired and being planned for in the adopted Plan as well as the updated Plan. The proposed Plan would establish lower limits of total non-residential growth and residential growth. No revisions to the General Plan are proposed that would have a direct growth inducing effect, in terms of expanding utilities and transportation infrastructure into undeveloped areas 7 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 8 of 13 or designation of any open land for development that was previously designated for conservation, resource management, open space or recreation purposes. , Section 2 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 Findings. The City Council hereby finds that: 1. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on evidence presented in Section 1 of this resolution; and 2. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project such that a City Council public hearing was held on October 14, 2008. 3. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis in that the EIR has been subject to comment and revision by City staff and reflects the independent judgment of the Rosemead City Council. Section 3 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 Findings. The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate, through adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, all potential impacts that may result from the Project. However, there are several areas in which there could be unavoidable significant impacts. These areas include population and housing, transportation, recreation, air quality, and utilities and service systems: solid waste. CEQA requires that the Council adopt at least one of the following three findings for each unavoidable significant impact: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The following have been identified as unavoidable significant impacts: Population and Housing - The General Plan has the potential to result in a substantial population and housing unit increase in comparison to population and 8 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 9 of 13 housing growth projections at the local, sub-regional, and regional levels. Mitigation measures PH-1 and PH-2 in the certified Final EIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are included to assist with coordination with regional policy makers; however, the measures are not able to reduce the impacts to less than significant. With regards to Population and Housing the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Transportation - Implementation of the General Plan may result in a substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and an individual or cumulative level of service condition that exceeds standards established by the City. Regional traffic growth and increased development intensities within the City will result in increased through traffic volumes on Rosemead streets. While the Circulation Element includes policies and physical roadway and control improvements, that over time will improve service levels, the certainty and timing of such cannot be established. Accordingly, the traffic impacts of General Plan development will be significant and unavoidable. While the General Plan has policies and programs that help minimize impacts, the following impacts remain: ❑ Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St. (a.m. and p.m. peak hours) ❑ Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Boulevard. (p.m. peak hours) That being said, the construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land will take a concentrated effort by both City staff and local decision makers. At this time, there is no guarantee that new facilities will be built. No feasible additional measures are available to further mitigate impacts at the analyzed intersections. With regards to Transportation the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Recreation - Both the current and proposed General Plans note that the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) recommends 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recommends 4 acres per 1,000 persons. The City currently provides 0.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The proposed General Plan update anticipates an increase in population and coupled with the lack of available land within the City, the issue of providing parkland will be exacerbated. In order to meet the goal of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the City will need to provide an additional 73.3 acres that can be used for public park and recreation purposes. The lack of sufficient parks and recreation opportunities could result in the accelerated deterioration of existing facilities due to potential overuse. Additionally, the lack of adequate, local recreational facilities increases reliance on the facilities of other jurisdictions that in turn could result in accelerated deterioration of those facilities as well. The lack of available park and recreation facilities, therefore, is considered a significant project-level and cumulative impact. Mitigation measures R-1 and R-2 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are included to assist with coordination 9 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 10 of 13 with regional policy makers; however, the measures are not able to reduce the impacts to less than significant. With regards to Recreation the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Air Quality With implementation of the identified General Plan policies and implementation measures, short-term and long-term air quality impacts will be reduced. However, the degree to which these measures will reduce emissions cannot be fully quantified. Cumulatively, emissions of all pollutant levels will continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels, although the cumulative emissions of CO, VOG, and NOx are projected to decrease relative to current levels. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 are projected to increase and continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for significance. Emissions of SOx are also expected to increase, but not significantly. Commission of CO2 will also increase. Impacts associated with PM10 and PM2.5 emissions and cumulative impacts are significant and unavoidable. GHG emissions will be reduced over the life of the General Plan update. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions will be less than significant. Impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Given the extent of this project, impacts to air quality will be significant and unavoidable. Additional mitigation was considered to reduce impacts associated with emissions of particulate matter, however they have been found to be infeasible to implement at this time due to the broad scope of the General Plan update. No mitigation has been included. With regards to Air Quality the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Utilities and Service Systems: Solid Waste --Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional concern. Many programs are in place at local and countywide levels to reduce waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites). The Chiquita Canyon and Puente Hills Landfills are the end destination of the City of Rosemead's solid waste. Both of these landfills have enough capacity to accommodate the City's existing and future needs. However, Chiquita Canyon is scheduled, to close in 2019 and Puente Hills in 2013. After their closures, waste must be taken to alternative sites. Despite the continued efforts of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority to increase its diversion rates, technologies are not currently available to completely recycle, destroy, or reuse all solid waste. Likewise, continued disposal of solid waste at landfills would contribute to the eventual closure of existing landfills and any future landfill sites. Although the amount of solid waste originating from Rosemead is very small relative to the volumes accepted annually at each of the regional landfills, diminishing landfill space is a significant regional issue, and cumulative impacts are considered significant. With regards to Solid Waste the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. 10 I City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 11 of 13 Section 4 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 Findinqs. The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Rosemead General Plan to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures in the certified Final EIR, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts listed in Section 2 acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: 1. The Land Use Element will contribute toward the preservation of the City's distinctive residential character and individual neighborhood identity by preserving existing residential densities in long-established neighborhoods. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-18) 2. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element support the maintenance and stability of existing residential neighborhoods contributing to Rosemead's unique character. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-18) 3. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element will provide for expanded opportunities for concentrated commercial development that will reduce trip generation and will establish additional direction regarding revitalization of the key corridors. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-20) 4. The anticipated enhancement of Valley Boulevard and the area's reinvention as a vibrant, mixed-use area consistent with General Plan policy direction will lead to a beneficial aesthetic result. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-22) 5. The anticipated in-fill development and redevelopment of properties along Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue resulting from implementation of the goals and policies of the Land Use Element are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on jobs and tax revenues to the community. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-22) 6. Implementation of the Land Use Element will create opportunities for high- quality, well-designed mixed use residential and commercial projects that will rely on appropriate Mixed Use Design Guidelines to achieve a quality product. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-8) 7. Mixed Use development will result in reduced need for auto trips and will encourage walking and bicycling by providing residences, jobs, and shopping opportunities within close proximity of each other. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-22) 8. The General Plan will result in the beneficial effect of providing opportunities for development of new housing and employment-generating uses. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-23) 9. The implementation of in-lieu fees for public art will promote the Arts in public spaces. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-9) 11 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 12 of 13 10. Implementation of transportation goals and policies in the General Plan will have the beneficial impacts of increasing the use of alternative modes of transportation, which also benefits air quality. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-174) 11. Requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for major projects as an in-lieu mitigation measure will benefit the City where physical traffic mitigations are infeasible or undesirable to the City. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-174) 12. Preparing a Parkland Leasing Program, along with conducting a Parkland and Recreational Facilities Acquisition and Development study will aid the City in creating new passive and active open space areas and recreational amenities for City residents. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-158, 4-159) 13. Implementation of the land use policies related to mixed use development will encourage pedestrian activity and transit use. As a result, air quality and noise benefits are anticipated as people walk or use the mass transit rather than individual cars/trucks. 14. Implementation of the land use policies related to commercial and industrial development will continue to provide an economic engine for both residents and for the City without creating undue impacts on transportation systems, air quality resources, and noise resources. 15. Implementation of the land use policies regarding potential housing production in both mixed use settings as well as neighborhood settings will assist the City in meeting its housing "fair share" as determined by SCAG. 16.The implementation of a curbside commingled recycling program, together with public education, will reduce waste generation and lessen impacts on local landfills. Section 5 - General Plan Consistency with State Law Determination. The City Council finds that the Rosemead General Plan as proposed is consistent with the requirements of State law governing general plans. Section 6 - CEQA Document Adoption and Certification. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council on the Project, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby takes the following actions: (i) certifies the Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, (ii) adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts described herein that remain significant and unavoidable. Section 7 - Adoption of the General Plan. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council on the Project, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby adopts the Rosemead General Plan. 12 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 13 of 13 Section 8. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF April, 2010. G Taylor, or CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a meeting held on the 13th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010.23 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09.01 was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 13th of April, 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Gloria Molleda City Clerk ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2010 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with. limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. If the proposed amendment is approved by the City Council, the majority of all existing portions of the City that are currently designated for mixed-use development would change to their prior land use designation as stated in the 1987 General Plan. The General Plan Amendment also proposes to create a new High Intensity Commercial land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The proposed High Intensity Commercial land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, the Circulation element will be modified to address the proposed land use changes, and the Resource Management and Public Safety Elements will be revised to comply with Assembly Bill 162. Attached is a map (Exhibit A), which highlights the properties that will be affected by this General Plan Amendment. The Draft General Plan document is referenced in the CC Resolution No. 2010-23, and has been labeled Attachment "A." On March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission was presented with this matter and adopted Resolution No. 10-03 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 09- 01 to the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report, Resolution No. 10-03, and meeting minutes have been attached to this report (Exhibits "B" through "D" respectively). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2010-23 (Exhibit E), considering an Addendum (Exhibit F) to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Rosemead General ITEM NO. ~3A