Loading...
CC - 2005-44 - Mitigation Monitoring Programs for General Plan Amendment 03-02RESOLUTION NO. 2005-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-39 ADOPTING AND APPROVING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-02 AND DENYING THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26827 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 02-882 FOR A MINI- MALL ON PARCEL 2 AND 03-939 FOR ALCOHOL SALES AT THE MAJOR TENANT ON PARCEL 1 The City Council of the City of Rosemead does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. A. Development Resource Consultants filed applications for development of a 22.5 acre site bounded by Delta Street to the west, Rush Street to the north, Walnut Grove Avenue to the east, and the Panda Restaurant Group corporate building which is located immediately south of and adjacent to the southern border of the project site. Development Resources Consultant seeks approval of a . 253,267 square foot retail/commercial center which would include a 230,367 square foot general merchandise/grocery sales store (Wal-Mart), a gas station with eight fueling pumps, and approximately another 22,000 square feet of restaurant and retail uses in three outlying building pads (the "Proposed Project'). B. The Proposed Project required approval by the Planning Commission of a tentative parcel map to divide the parcel into 6 lots and conditional use permits to establish a gas station, allow the sale of. alcoholic beverages, and establish a "mini- mall as defined by Chapter 17.04 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The Project also requires approval by the City Council of a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Element, changing the designation of the site from "Office/Light Industrial" to "Commercial" and making corresponding textual changes. The Developer also requested approval of a 10 year Development Agreement between -the City of Rosemead and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust which would have given Wal-Mart a vested right to develop and construct the project in accordance with the entitlements received from the City pursuant to its discretionary approvals as well as all existing land use regulations and development standards in existence at the time the Development Agreement is approved. C. The City of Rosemead conducted an extensive environmental review for the so 0 Proposed Project which included an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by the independent consulting firm of Applied Planning, Inc., with technical reports concerning traffic and circulation impacts; air quality, noise, and geotechnical effects; and an economic/market impact analysis, as well as a review of the Proposed Project site's previous environmental documentation. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review: A Scoping Meeting was held on November 19, 2003, to solicit input from the public on the content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). This meeting was held at the Doubletree Hotel in Rosemead, and was attended by approximately 300 people. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study identifying the scope of environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and organizations on December 12, 2003. A total of 12 comment letters were received from state, regional and local agencies and an additional 29 letters were received from individuals. Copies of those comment letters, along with copies of numerous signatures on "Petition Protesting Wal-Mart" forms, are included in Appendix A of the DEIR (under separate cover). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP/Initial Study were incorporated into the DEIR. The DEIR was distributed for public review on May 17, 2004, for a 45-day review period; the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") includes responses to comments received through July 20, 2004, well past the public review period. A Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent with the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on May 13, 2004. A Notice of Availability of the DEIR for public review was mailed to interested parties on May 13, 2004. The Notice of Availability was transmitted to the Los Angeles County Clerks office for posting on May 17, 2004 and published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on May 12, 2004. Comment letters on the DEIR were received. The letters and responses to these comments are included in the FEIR. Responses to comments were distributed in accordance with CEQA ten (10) days prior to the August 16, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on August 16, 2004 to consider the FEIR, the parcel map and conditional use permits and recommendation on the General Plan z 40 4P Amendment and Development Agreement to the City Council along with the staff recommendations on these items, at which time oral and written testimony was considered. Notice of this Planning Commission hearing was provided through publication on August 2, 2004. D. At the close of the public hearing on August 16, 2004, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-22, certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Parcel Map 26827 and Conditional Use Permits 02- 882 (mini-mall), 02-883 (gasoline station) and 03-939 (alcohol sales) and recommending that the City Council certify the EIR for the Development Agreement and General Plan Amendment; and 2. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-23, approving tentative parcel map 26827 for the Project Design Alternative for a four parcel division and conditional use permits 02-882 ' (mini-mall), 03-939 (alcohol sales), denying conditional use permit 02-883 (gasoline station), adopting and approving findings, mitigation measures, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring program for the approved actions and recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement subject to the same environmental findings. E. On August 17, 2004, Mayor Pro Tern Imperial filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's actions in order that the City Council could decide all matters pertaining to the applications so that there would be uniformity of approvals, disapprovals and/or conditions. F. On August 25, 2004, the City Council continued its regular meeting to September 7, 2004 in order to hear testimony on this matter. G. On August 25, 2004, a public hearing notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. H. On September 7, 2004 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both oral and written, after which the City Council took the following actions: 1. Approved Resolution No. 2004-36 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Project; 2. Approved Resolution No. 2004-37 approving the General Plan Amendment changing the Land Use Designation of the property from Office/Light Industrial to Commercial; 3 40 .09 3. , Approved Resolution No. 2004-38 denying the appeals and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission relating to approving the tentative parcel map for a four-lot division, approving conditional use permits for a mini-mall on one of the parcels and alcohol sales at the major tenant (Wal-Mart), and denying a conditional use permit for a gasoline station; 4. Approved Resolution No. 2004-39, adopting and approving findings, mitigation measures, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring program for the project; and 5. Introduced Ordinance No. 836 approving a Development Agreement with Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for the development of the property, which was adopted on September 14, 2004. This Ordinance was later rescinded by the City Council on December 14, 2004 as a consequence of a referendum petition. 1. The Rosemead Community Development Commission joined in the certification of the Revised EIR and the approval of the Approved Project pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-16. J. On or about October 7, 2004, Save Our Community ("SOC") filed a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief based, in part, on the following alleged violations of,CEQA: Failure to provide adequate identification and analysis of significant impacts related to: inconsistencies between the Project, the General Plan, and zoning; traffic and circulation; air quality; water quality; seismic activity; noise; light and glare; blight; growth-inducing impacts; cumulative impacts; and failure to analyze a 24-hour operation; Failure to provide adequate identification and analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives; Failure to make findings regarding the project's significant impacts; and 4. Failure to adequately respond to public comment. K. The minute order issued by Judge Yaffe of the Superior Court on April 6, 2005, as modified by the minute order of June 30, 2005, found that the only deficiencies of the EIR,related to a discussion of alternative sites and an analysis of a 24-hour operation; all other challenges to the EIR were found to be without merit. 40 4P L. In accordance with the minute orders, on August 18, 2005, Judge Yaffe issued a writ of mandate that directed the City to void its certification of the EIR for the Project and certify a new EIR that adequately addressed alternative sites for the Project and dealt with the hours of operation. The land use approvals were not voided. . M. In response to the writ of mandate, the City prepared and circulated a revision to the EIR on the alternative site analysis. The issue of the 24-hour operation was mooted by the applicant's decision to limit the hours of operation and provide a covenant to the City for recordation to this effect. The public review period ran from September 26, 2005 through November 10, 2005; late comments were also responded to. N. On December 13, 2005, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Complete EIR for the Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both oral and written. 0. Prior to approving this Resolution, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 2005-43 decertifying the original Final EIR and certifying the Complete Final EIR for the Proposed Project. The approvals for the Project Design Alternative embodied in Resolution No. 2004-37 approving the General Plan Amendment to the land use designation and corresponding text and Resolution No. 2004-38 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission approving tentative parcel map 26827 for a four lot division for the Project Design Alternative, approving conditional use permits for the mini-mall on Parcel 2 and alcohol sales at the major tenant, and denying the conditional use permit for a gasoline station remain valid as the writ of mandate specifically provided that the approvals remained valid unless the Project was not approved or an alternate site was selected. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 2004-39 Resolution No. 2004-39 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is hereby amended as set forth below (new text is shown as underscored, deletions are shown as and all other text is the same as what is in Resolution No. 2004-39): A. Section 2.A, PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE, is hereby amended as follows: The Project Design Alternative (the "Project"), which is described in the Alternative section of the Draft EIR and which has been approved by the City Council, is less intensive than the Proposed Project. As ized ,The certification of the Complete EIR for the Proposed Project is applicable to the Project Design Alternative as well. B. Section 2.1, REVISIONS NOT SIGNIFICANT, is hereby amended as follows: 5 4 09 5. Table 1,.10-2, the Conditions of Approval, have been revised and included in the Revised Final EIR (as-per With the exception of the change of conditions regarding the light standards, none of the changes which have been made from the preliminary conditions impact the Project as originally described and analyzed; the conditions have been amended to more clearly articulate all of the requirements described and assumed in the EIR analysis and to list all of the City's conditions of approvals. With respect to the light standards, the height has been changed from 17 feet to 24 feet; however, such change is not significant because this is an insignificant modification. The Draft EIR identified potential light and glare impacts of the project as less-than-significant based on location of the Project within an existing built urban environment, the overall design concept, and the commercial retail uses proposed, which typically do not result in substantial significant new sources of light a'nd glare. At 24 feet, the light standards will still be no higher than the walls on the residential side of the property and the walls will further act to contain light within the Project site. Furthermore, the height of the light standards is only one variable in providing in providing adequate lighting for the Project area in a manner that does not adversely affect surrounding land uses; equally important is the number of light standards, locations, light fixtures and bulb types. The Project will still be required to comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance which provides general performance standards for illumination of parking lot areas, including the requirement that lights shall be so arranged so as to reflect the light away from adjoining premises and streets. Based on all of this, there will not be any spillover and the impact is still less-than-significant. 6 40 40 A condition has also been added regarding a yearly review before the Planning Commission to insure that all conditions of approval are being complied with by the major tenant. This condition has no impact upon the environmental analysis. C. The findings set forth in Section 2.G are hereby augmented based on the Revised Final EIR by adding new subsections 4 and 5 to read as follows: 4. Alternative Sites Rejected I Project. 7 M 40 b Alternative Site 2• Northeast corner of Valley Boulevard and 40 PM peak hours. development of such a store would put Wal-Mart at a competitive Except for temporary significant impacts associated with noise v 40 e. Other suaaested alternatives - 10 s 40 would remain the same as this alternative is still within the same air basin as the Project Design Alternative. 69, 4. Northeast corner of Walnut Grove Avenue and Mission nriva - thic annrnximata 3 5 arrp site is not under the control of the activities. Based on these factors this site has been determined to be infeasible and rejected as a reasonable alternative. Based on all of these factors, this site has been determined to be infeasible and rejected as a reasonable alternative. 12 the reasons previously discussed, none of the significant impacts would be reduced. El 40 5 Infeasibility of Previously Considered Sites D. Section 5, Applicability Of This Resolution, is hereby amended to read as follows: The approval and adoption of the CEQA findings, mitigation measures, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the. Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in this-Resolution 2004-39 and this Resolution are for all approvals for this Project. The City Council specifically denies Mayor Pro Tern Imperial's appeal of these actions of the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF RECORD Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision and its findings are based are located at the City of Rosemead Planning Department, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770, in the custody of Brad Johnson, Director of Planning. On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of Dec tuber, 2005, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California. by the following vote: AYES: (irirt I r0Q -x"% NAYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: M ATTEST: ofn , (iB;C-&t NINA CASTRUITA, CITY CLERK 14 Go STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-44 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-39 ADOPTING AND APPROVING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, A SETTLEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-02 AND DENYING THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26827 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-882 FOR A MINI-MALL ON PARCEL 2 AND 03-939 FOR ALCOHOL SALES AT THE MAJOR TENANT ON PARCEL I was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 13th of December, 2005 by the following vote to wit: YES: CLARK, IMPERIAL, TAYLOR NO: NUNEZ, TRAN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE r Nina Castruita City Clerk