Loading...
CC - 2004-39 - Denying Appeal Relating to the finding, Mitigation Measures, for Parcel Map 26827RESOLUTION NO. 2004-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING AND APPROVING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-02 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 04-01 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 "mink 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 has also requested approval of a 10 year Development Agreement between the City of Rosemead and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust which will give 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 Proposed Project which included an 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. 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 Draft EIR (under separate cover). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP/Initial Study were incorporated into the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was distributed for public review on May 17, 2004, for a 45- day review period; the 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 Draft EIR 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 Draft EIR were received. The letters and responses to these comments are included in the Final EIR. Responses to comments were distributed in accordance with CEQA ten (10) days prior to the August 16, 2004 hearing. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on August 16, 2004 to consider the Final EIR, the parcel map and conditional use permits and recommendation on the General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement to the City Council along with the staff recommendations on these items, at which time oral and written 2 } 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: 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 this Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both oral and written. 1. Prior to approving this Resolution, the City Council: adopted Resolution Number 2004-36 certifying the FEIR for the Proposed Project; adopted Resolution No. 2004-37 approving the General Plan Amendment to the land use designation and corresponding text; and adopted 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. 3 0 • SECTION 2. CEQA FINDINGS A. PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE The Project Design Alternative (the 'Project'), which is described in the Alternatives section of the EIR and which has been approved by the City Council, is less intensive than the Proposed Project. As recognized in Resolution No. 2004-38, the certification of the EIR for the Proposed Project is applicable to the Project Design Alternative as well. . B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The EIR evaluated seven major environmental categories (land use; earth resources; traffic and circulation; air quality; noise; public services; and aesthetics, light and glare) for potential significant adverse environmental impacts. Both Project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these environmental categories, the City Council concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and sub-issues discussed below can•be mitigated below a level of significance, and for those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, overriding considerations exist which make such adverse environmental impacts acceptable. In addition to the seven major environmental categories addressed in the EIR, the Initial Study concluded that the Project did not have the potential to result in a significant impact in nine other major categories (agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology, water resources and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, utilities and service systems). The City Council concurs with the conclusions regarding. these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) and specifically, in response to comments on these issues, finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required. For purposes of Section 2 C., D., and E. below, the analysis contained in the EIR is assumed to be incorporated in full. C. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT - REQUIRING NO MITIGATION The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues were found in the EIR as having no potential to cause significant impact and therefore require no Project-specific mitigation. In the following presentation, each resource issue is identified and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed. 4 0 • 1. LAND USE a. Conflict with General Plan Designation or Zoning Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could conflict with existing General Plan designations or zoning. Finding: The Project will not conflict with General Plan or zoning and the impact is less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts to land uses from conflicts with General Plan Designations or zoning are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and in the staff report. These analyses concluded that the Project's potential to conflict with existing General Plan designations or zoning is less-than-significant. With the amendment of the maps and text of the Land Use Element, the Project is consistent with the Land Use element and other elements of the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: The Project is consistent with the zoning as the uses are permitted or conditionally permitted under the existing zoning designation of "Medium Commercial," thus no change in the Project site's existing zoning is proposed; the general merchandise/grocery component is an allowed use in the C-3 zone, alcohol sales at the general merchandise/grocery component are allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit, and establishment of a mini-mall on Parcel 2 is also allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit. Section 1.2 of the Land Use Element recognizes that by 1986, the City was almost completely developed with the general location and distribution of land uses having been previously determined. At the time that the Land Use Element was developed it was believed that the Project Site, which is currently owned by Edison, would be used for an expansion of the Edison headquarters. At the time that the General Plan was approved, the population of the City was expected to be 49,300 at full density build-out. Since the time that the General Plan was adopted, the energy business has substantially changed and Edison no longer wishes to retain that property for future expansion. Additionally, as of January 1, 2003, the City's population had already increased to approximately 56,000 (DOF estimate) and according to the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Numbers Allocation, the City is expected to build an additional 776 units which will equate to another 3,055 individuals in the next several years. Based on the additional growth, there is a need for additional commercial services to serve the increased growth. The unexpected availability of a vacant 22.35 acre parcel located less than 1 mile from the 60 freeway and 5 on a major arterial that can be developed with commercial development, provides an opportunity that is consistent with the goals of the General Plan. * The Project is consistent with the general goal of the Land Use Element to underscore the City's commitment to making efforts to encourage commercial development that will benefit the community and the surrounding region, while making sure that the City considers both the costs and benefits of such development and discourage those activities that will have a negative impact. This commercial development will benefit the community by providing shopping opportunities that are not currently available in the neighborhood, increase the City's tax base and increase employment opportunities in the City, while at the same time ensuring that there will not be a negative impact based on the project design, conditions of approval and mitigation measures. * The Project is consistent with Land Use Element Goal 2 which provides, "expand the opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial development around and adjacent to existing commercial and office development." The Project is located adjacent to office development. * The Project is consistent with Land Use Element Goal 4 which provides, "encourage the development of a balance of land use types which are logically interrelated with one another." The Project provides for retail and food uses which are located near both residential and office uses; this provides for a balanced mix. * The Project is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan which recognizes that Walnut Grove is reaching design capacity during peak hours and that additional development in the area should be carefully weighed to ensure that is does not adversely impact the existing circulation system. The Project has undergone extensive environmental review, including a traffic analysis, and the determination has been made that except for impacts on the 60 freeway, the Project has been designed so that there will not be any significant traffic impacts on the circulation system. Unlike an office project, the Project will not have a morning peak hour impact. * The Project is consistent with Circulation Element Goal 2 which provides, "separate traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses from residential neighborhoods." The Project has been designed so that there will be no access off of Delta Street and that there will no truck access on Rush Street. The traffic analysis determined that the residential streets would not be used for pass- through traffic. * The Project is consistent with Circulation Element Goal 3 which provides, "insure that all commercial and industrial development is provided with adequate 6 • 0 parking for its employees and visitors." The Project has been designed to have adequate parking. * The Project is consistent with Resources Management Element Policy 2.3 which provides that new developments incorporate landscaping into the overall site plan. The Project has been designed to include landscaping within the Project site and also perimeter landscaping. * The Project is consistent with the Noise Element which provides that the goals and policies of the Noise Element will include the requirement of sound attenuation walls along significant noise sources and noise barriers at the line of sight. The Project has been designed to include perimeter walls that will attenuate noise. * The Project is consistent with the Public Safety Element Goal 1 which provides, "minimize the hazards to public health, safety, and welfare and to prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and man-made phenomena." The Project provides for a 100 foot no build zone, requires compliance with the latest building codes and also requires compliance with a geotechnical report. * The Project is consistent with the Public Safety Element Goal 2 which provides, "support the efforts of the Los Angeles County Fire Department in fire prevention and safety." The Project will be required to comply with all current building and fire codes as well as the.conditions requested by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. * The Project is consistent with the Economic Development Element. Although the Economic Development Element encourages the development of commercial centers in seven areas of the City, the Element specifically provides that it is concerned with "a development strategy which will address development potentials that will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base." Furthermore, the Economic Development Element recognizes that Rosemead has very little area devoted to 'regional' retail uses, meaning that surrounding cities capture Rosemead sales tax dollars. The retail economic analysis prepared for this Project confirmed that sales tax dollars were being lost to other jurisdictions and that development of the general merchandise/grocery component will allow the recapture of lost sales tax dollars. Lastly, the Economic Development Element recognizes that the area around freeway interchanges may represent an opportunity for commercial development. As the Project is located less than three-quarters of a mile from the Pomona freeway, it has good freeway access. The fact that the Economic Development Element recognizes seven areas where growth could be targeted does not mean that growth should be discouraged in other areas if an opportunity arises; the Project is consistent with the following policies: Policy 2.2 which provides that the City should take an 7 0 active role in attracting commercial activities that are financially beneficial to the City; Policy 2.3 which provides that the City should encourage certain types of uses that will complement and contribute to the economic well being of the neighboring activities. b. Consistency with Existing Environmental Plans or Policies Adopted by Agencies with Jurisdiction Over the Project Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could create inconsistencies with the goals and policies of any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project. Finding: The Project will not result in any inconsistencies with plans or policies of other agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts with regard to land use policies and consistency are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that implementation and occupation of the Proposed Project will not create inconsistencies with the goals and policies of other applicable land use regulations. Land uses to be implemented pursuant to the Proposed Project also would not substantially alter environmental characteristics when compared to environmental effects of current land use zoning for the Project site. The Project is consistent with Redevelopment Project Number One; the Community Development Commission will be required to formally make this finding as well in order for the project to move forward. The analysis contained in the EIR is equally applicable to the Project Design Alternative which is similar to the Proposed Project, but redesigned to be more sensitive to surrounding land uses. c. Incompatible with Existing or Proposed Vicinity Land Uses Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could create conflicts due to incompatibility with surrounding existing or proposed vicinity land uses. Finding: The Project will not be incompatible with existing or proposed vicinity land uses. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to land use and planning are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR which concluded that impacts of the Proposed Project were less-than-significant and no mitigation was required. The Project site is north of State Route 60, west of Walnut Grove Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City of Rosemead. The Project site is currently designated "Office/Light Industrial." Under the City's zoning scheme, commercial uses are allowed in the light manufacturing zone; however, the property is zoned commercial, allowing for this type of use. Existing office uses are located to the south of the Project site. To the east, west, and north, abutting 8 • 0 roadways physically separate the Project site from adjacent land uses. Specifically, to the east across Walnut Grove Avenue, is the Whittier Narrows Golf Course; to the north, across Rush Street, is the Rice Elementary School; to the west, across Delta Street, residential land uses exist. Additionally, the General Plan specifically envisions a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses in the area of the Project site. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the Project that would exceed the expectations or assumptions of the General Plan or zoning ordinance or any other environmental policy resulting in a conflict therewith. The sensitivity of the school and residential land uses is acknowledged in the Draft EIR; office and recreational land uses are generally considered to be less sensitive to Project effects. Consequently, development of the Project will be consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity. Although there were no significant impacts under the Proposed Project, the City Council has approved the Project Design Alternative which addresses concerns raised by the public with relation to traffic and the gasoline station. Furthermore, design elements have been incorporated into the Project that address potential traffic, air quality, noise and visual impacts resulting from build-out of the Project area which will further harmonize the Project with the surrounding land uses eliminating any potential conflicts and the Project is conditioned to comply with all of the design elements. The analysis contained in the EIR is equally applicable to the Project Design Alternative which is similar to the Proposed Project, but redesigned to be more sensitive to surrounding land uses. d. Affect Agricultural Resources or Operations Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could affect existing agricultural resources or operations. Finding: The Project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to agricultural resources are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concludes that the impacts of the Proposed Project are less than significant. The Project site is currently composed of vacant, undeveloped property. A review of historical aerial photographs from 1936 indicates that a portion of the Proposed Project site may have been used for agricultural operations at that time, but no more recent agricultural use of the site is known. Moreover, the Project site is not currently considered valuable or viable for agricultural use. Further, land uses proposed by the Project would not affect any existing offsite agricultural resources. The analysis is equally applicable to the Project Design Alternative. 9 • e. Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in . the division or disruption of an established community. Finding: The Project would not result in the physical disruption or division of an established community. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to established communities are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR which concludes that the impact is less-than-significant. The Proposed Project is bounded by existing roadways to the north, south and east, which serve to separate the vacant Project site from adjacent land uses. An adjacent commercial office use is located to the south of the Project site, separated by a landscaped edge treatment and curb. Residential uses exist to the west of the Project site across Delta Street and a golf course occupies the property to the east of the Project Site across Walnut Grove Avenue. The Proposed Project was to essentially be infill development involving the improvement of a vacant parcel surrounded by developed property. The Proposed Project did not propose improvements that would encroach on existing land uses. As the Project Design Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project, but less intense, the Project's potential to physically divide or disrupt an established community is also considered less- than-significant. f. Result in adverse physical changes to other competing commercial land uses. Potential Significant Impact: Within the context of the community's evolving economy and developing land uses, the Proposed Project has the potential to result in adverse land use impacts resulting from its economic or market impacts on other properties. Finding: The potential for physical impacts of the Project due to economic effects is less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to economic market impacts are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and in the Market Impact Analysis for the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Project contained in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The analysis concludes that economic effects of the Proposed Project could potentially result in adverse physical effects through: (1) impacts to the long-term market shares of existing supermarkets in the trade area, (2) impacts to long-term market shares of existing specialty retail, restaurant, or general merchandise stores in the trade area, or (3) blighting impacts to existing shopping centers in the market area. 10 0 • As presented in the Project Market Impact Analysis,.the potential demand for grocery sales in the trade area in the Project opening year (2005) is approximately $15,.7 million, or approximately 65 percent of the Project's projected first year grocery sales. The Project's grocery component is estimated to generate opening year grocery sales of $24 million. Although these estimates suggest that there would be an $8.3 million diversion of grocery sales from existing stores, this potential diversion of sales will likely be offset by the closure of an existing Ralph's grocery store located approximately two miles from the Proposed Project site (the nearest major supermarket to the Project area).. Further, this $8.3 million represents only three (3.0) percent of total grocery sales within the trade area, and would be fully absorbed by expanding market demands by late 2008. While other competitors could potentially experience some loss of sales to the Proposed Project, the Market Impact Analysis concludes that these potential impacts would not be severe enough to result in the closure of competing uses. The EIR acknowledges that development of the Proposed Project will likely affect the reuse potential of the existing Ralph's building as a grocery store; however, this store is currently undersized to support a modern day supermarket as it is only 22,000 approximate square feet. However, no discernible long-term or physical impacts to existing supermarkets would result from economic effects of the Proposed Project. The potential demand for Specialty Retail sales in the Project opening year is approximately $663.9 million. The Proposed Project anticipated specialty retail sales of $7.6 million, or about 1.1 percent of this potential demand. Similarly, the Proposed Project's restaurant sales for 2005 are projected at $1.2 million, or less than one percent of the potential $416.5 million demand within the trade area. The Market Impact Analysis concluded that the Proposed Project's specialty retail and restaurant sales will not have a significant competitive impact on existing stores or restaurants in the trade area. Based on the preceding, no discernible physical impact on existing specialty retailers or restaurants would result from economic effects of the Project, especially with the reduction of the outpads in the Project Design Alternative. The general merchandise component of the proposed Wal-Mart store will total approximately 170,000 square feet. By Proposed Project opening year (2005), supportable additional general merchandise sales within the trade area is estimated at 189,940 square feet. Thus, the Proposed Project's general merchandise component would be fully supported by demand in the Project market area, and potential "Big-box" general merchandise sales attributable to the Proposed Project would be fully absorbed in the trade area, with no store closures or other adverse physical impacts on like commercial activities. Although comments were made in response to the Draft EIR that there would be blighting due to the Wal-Mart, the City Council has considered all evidence and believes that the conclusions reached by the consultants are correct rather than the mere speculation set forth in the public comment. 11 • 0 As the proposed Wal-Mart is the same under the Project Design Alternative as the Proposed Project, the above discussion, analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the Project as approved. g. Adversely Affect Residential Property Values or Induce Adverse Physical Changes to Residential Land Uses Potential Significant Impact: Within the context of the community's developing land uses, the Proposed Project has the potential to result in adverse land use impacts upon surrounding residential uses. Finding: The potential for physical impacts upon residential land uses due to economic effects of the Project is less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Effects of the Proposed Project upon residential land uses could potentially result in adverse physical impacts through: (1) reduction in residential property values; and (2) potential blighting effects on residential land uses. Potential impacts relevant to impact on residential property are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and in the Analysis of Impacts on Residential Property Values contained in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The Analysis considered the effects of Wal-Mart stores on neighboring residential property values, as indicated by relative property values of residential uses prior to and following construction of Wal-Mart stores in other areas. Residential sales data from "areas of influence," within one-quarter to one-third of a mile from newly constructed Wal-Mart stores, was compared to similar sales data for homes within a one-mile radius of the same stores. The analysis of this data indicates that residential property rates in the immediate areas surrounding the Wal-Mart sites did not vary significantly from averages for the larger one-mile reference areas or from citywide averages. Further, with one exception, on a price per square foot basis, price appreciation rates for each site's immediate "area of influence" equaled or exceeded averages for each of the comparison areas. On this basis, no adverse impact on residential property values has been identified. Discernible long-term or physical impacts to existing residential uses would result from economic effects of the Proposed Project. As the proposed Wal-Mart is the same in the Project Design Alternative as in the Proposed Project, the analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the approved Project. 12 2. EARTH RESOURCES a. Secondary Seismic Effects Potential Significant Impact: Development of the Proposed Project could . result in exposure of people or structures to secondary seismic effects, such as liquefaction. Finding: The Project will have a less-than-significant impact in regard to liquefaction hazards. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to earth resources are discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and in the Project-specific Geotechnical analyses included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the.EIR concluded that the Proposed Project will have a less-than-significant impact in regard to liquefaction hazards. The easterly portion of the Proposed Project site is located within an area mapped as having a potential for soils liquefaction. A site-specific geotechnical review was performed to identify the extent and characteristics of potential liquefaction hazards that could affect the Proposed Project. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that due to the presence of underlying dense to very dense sands and very stiff to hard cohesive soils (silts and clays), the potential for liquefaction at the Project site is considered low. Further, the majority of the building areas proposed by the Proposed Project are within the westerly portion of the Project site, outside of the area mapped as having a potential for soils liquefaction. As the Project Design Alternative has even less development than the Proposed Project, the analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the Project as approved. 3. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION a. Substantial Increase in Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion within the Study Area. Finding: Based on implementation of the Project with Project-initiated traffic improvements and related traffic/circulation requirements identified within the Project Conditions of Approval, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact in terms of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to traffic and circulation of the Proposed Project are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR 13 and in the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Traffic Impact Study included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR; the discussion and analysis concluded that there would not be a significant impact. The Proposed Project incorporated numerous design features and improvements which would alleviate traffic congestion resulting from the Project. The Project Traffic Impact Study projections indicate that, with these design features and improvements, all of the key Study Area intersections and Project access driveways would operate at acceptable levels of service upon buildout of the Project. Draft EIR Tables 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 summarize the detailed discussion of Level of Service (LOS) conditions at signalized and unsignalized intersections, both with and without the Proposed Project. Moreover, the Project Design Alternative includes less commercial development than the Proposed Project analyzed in the Draft EIR resulting in a slight reduction of overall traffic. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works has concurred that the Project plus other related project traffic will not have a significant impact to County intersections or roadways in the area. With less development, the.Project Design Alternative will have less traffic than the Proposed Project; additionally, the Project Design Alternative includes development of an internal ring road which will allow all truck traffic to enter the site through the Walnut Grove Avenue entrance which will alleviate all Project- generated truck traffic on Rush Street. The Project Design Alternative is conditioned to complete the design features of the Project prior to build-out. As such, the Project is not considered to substantially increase traffic, nor result in traffic congestion. The City Council rejects the contentions made by the Department of Transportation in its correspondence of August 17, 2004 for all of the reasons stated in the response letter sent by Applied Planning, Inc. dated August 25, 2004 and which is a part of the record for this Project. b. Inadequate Access or Emergency Access, or Safety Hazards due to Design Features Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in significant impacts due to inadequate access or emergency access, or could implement design features that would result in safety hazards to motorists and/or pedestrians within the Project area. Finding: Based on implementation of the Project with the Project-initiated traffic improvements discussed above and related traffic/circulation requirements identified within the Project Conditions of Approval, the Project will have a less- than-significant impact relative to inadequate access, emergency access, or safety hazards. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts related to traffic and circulation are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and in the Rosemead 14 • 0 Retail Center Traffic Impact Study included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR. This discussion and analysis concluded that the impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. As indicated in the Project Site Plan concept, and consistent with the City's adopted development standards, implementation of proposed and required improvements at the Proposed Project driveways would provide adequate access to the Project site, and acceptable peak hour LOS driveway conditions. The Project proponent is required to fund and implement 100 percent of these improvements prior to Project opening. Further, to ensure appropriate design and implementation of all Project access improvements, the final design of the Project site plan, to include locations and design of proposed driveways, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, as required by Project Conditions of Approval. The Proposed Project has been reviewed by both the County Fire Department and the County Sheriffs Department. The County Fire Department included specific conditions to be incorporated into the Project. The County Sheriff's Department did not raise any concerns regarding access. The Project as approved will include additional features which further improves access to the Project site by eliminating the truck access on Rush Street, increasing the driveway width of the main Walnut Grove Avenue entry driveway, and including development of an internal ring road which will allow all Project- generated truck traffic; to enter the site through the Walnut Grove Avenue entrance. This will eliminate any conflicts between passenger car traffic and trucks at the previously proposed smaller, secondary entrance on Rush Street. Moreover, the Project Design Alternative involves less commercial development than the Proposed Project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The Project also eliminates development of the gas station which is a heavy traffic generating use. The lower intensity of the development will reduce the number of Project-generated traffic trips thereby further reducing any impacts associated with access to the Project site. The Project design elements, as well as the conditions requested by the County Fire Department, are incorporated as conditions of approval and must be completed prior to the occupancy of the building. Accordingly, the Project will not result in a significant impact due to inadequate access, emergency access, or safety hazards; comments raised to the contrary by the public are only speculation. c. Insufficient Parking Capacity Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in inadequate parking capacity on-site or off-site. Finding: Based on implementation of the Project with Project-initiated traffic improvements and related traffic/circulation requirements identified within the Project Conditions of Approval, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact relative to parking capacity. No mitigation is required. 15 • 0 Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts related to traffic and circulation, including parking, are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and in the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Traffic Impact Study, included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR. The original Site Plan indicted that there would be sufficient parking for the Proposed Project. As to the Project Design Alternative, using the most stringent methodology of calculating parking requirements, the proposed Wal-Mart would require a minimum of 922 parking spaces (one parking space per 250 square feet of floor space, based on 230,367 square feet) and there are 1103 spaces shown on Parcel 1. The fast-food restaurant on Parcel 3 (2,448 square feet) would require 49 spaces and 75 spaces are provided. There are 29 parking spaces provided for the multi-tenant use on Parcel 2 (3,000 square feet) which would allow sufficient spaces to accommodate a mix of restaurant and commercial uses; Planning Condition 16 specifically requires that the parking requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code be met, so that the uses that occupy the multi-tenant building will not be allowed to exceed the available parking. As required by Project Conditions of Approval, final design of all parking areas will be reviewed and approved by the City. Accordingly, the Project will not result in a significant impact due to inadequate parking. d. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access; Alternative Transportation Conflicts Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists, or conflict with adopted policies regarding alternative transportation (transit). Finding: Based on implementation of the Project with Project-initiated traffic improvements and related traffic/circulation requirements identified within the Project Conditions of Approval, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact relative to pedestrian and bicycle access and alternative transportation policies. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts related to traffic and circulation are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and in the Rosemead Retail Center Traffic Impact Study included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR. Consistent with the City Municipal Code requirements and Project Conditions of Approval, the Project will provide pedestrian and bikeway facilities which enhance access to the Project site. The Project Traffic Impact Study indicates that the Proposed Project would not adversely affect conditions at any pedestrian crossings in the Study Area. Further, the Project is required to provide the facilities necessary to safely integrate alternate transportation modes, including transit operations, into the site access and circulation system. The conditions of approval, along with the reduction in traffic due to the Project Design Alternative, will insure that there is not a significant impact in regard to pedestrian or bicycle access; nor will the Project conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. 16 4. NOISE a. Long-Term Vehicular Noise Increase Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in increased vehicular noise levels on area streets in excess of the adopted threshold (increase of 3.0 dBA or greater). Finding: The Project will not result in vehicular noise which exceeds the City's adopted threshold. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts related to noise are discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. The analysis therein and the Noise Study prepared for the Proposed Project and included in Draft EIR Appendix E concluded that the Proposed Project would not result in vehicular noise which exceeds the City's adopted threshold. Motor vehicle noise levels were measured for various roadway segments within the Study Area under existing conditions, and then compared to a modeled forecast for traffic conditions in the Proposed Project opening year (2005). Traffic volumes in 2005 were evaluated with and without buildout of the Proposed Project to identify the significance of long-term, Proposed Project-related increases in motor vehicle noise. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Project would not result in audible noise increases (greater than 3.0 dBA) along any of the roadways analyzed. The greatest Proposed Project-related noise increase (1.8 dBA) would not be considered audible outside of a laboratory environment, and is projected to occur along Rush Street west of Delta Avenue. As the Project Design Alternative will result in less traffic trips than the Proposed Project due to the reduction in commercial development and elimination of the gas station, the analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the Project as approved. Moreover, the Project will include development of an internal ring road facilitating delivery truck access through the main entrance off of Walnut Grove Avenue instead of through the originally proposed secondary Rush Street entrance and a condition has been imposed requiring this design. Potential effects of noise generated by Project-related traffic increases are considered less-than-significant. b. Long-Term, Off-Site Operational Noise Impacts Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in long-term acoustical impacts from future operations that would affect off-site land uses. Finding: The Project will not result in significant long-term operational noise impacts that would affect off-site land uses. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts of the Proposed Project relevant to noise are discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and in the 17 • 10 Noise Study prepared for the Proposed Project and included in Draft EIR Appendix E. The Draft EIR and the Noise Study acknowledge that activities associated with long-term use of the proposed commercial development will generate intermittent operational noise in the Project vicinity from sources such as landscaping activities, building maintenance, trash pick-up activities, heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) units, deliveries and parking lot activities (e.g., engine noise, car doors slamming). Based on design elements of the Proposed Project, the Draft EIR and Noise Study concluded that there would not be a significant impact from long-term operational noise on-site that would affect off-site land uses. These design features included: the rear of the proposed major retailer (Wal-Mart) will be located along the western Project boundary, on the east side of Delta Street which will aid in blocking the transmission of most of the noise generated by on-site activities from residential uses on the west side of Delta Street; a 14-foot high perimeter wall will extend along the western Project boundary, and wrap around the northwesterly and southwesterly corners of the Project site; a secondary 12-foot screening wall that is designed to reflect potential noise from loading/unloading activities away from sensitive residential uses will be constructed at the proposed loading docks. Each of the above design elements of the Proposed Project are also a part of the Project Design Alternative and incorporated as conditions of approval. The Project Design Alternative has also been designed and conditioned to focus Project-related traffic to the east along Walnut Grove Avenue, in the direction of land uses which are not particularly noise sensitive by eliminating the truck access on Rush Street and increasing the size of the main driveway on Walnut Grove Avenue. The Project also includes an internal ring road that facilitates delivery truck entrance to the Project site from Walnut Grove Avenue instead of Rush Street as originally proposed which will also help to contain delivery vehicle noise within the Project site and reduce impacts that may have been perceived by land uses to the north and east of the Project site. Based on the EIR and Noise Study, the fact that the Proposed Project will generate less traffic and noise due to the reduction in overall size, and the fact that additional design improvements have been incorporated, it is reasonable to conclude that noise associated with on-site Project operations, including delivery vehicles, would be below the City of Rosemead noise standards. c. Long-Term, On-Site Operational Noise Impacts Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in the exposure of future Project employees and/or patrons to severe on-site noise impacts. Finding: The Project will not exceed adopted standards for interior noise levels. No mitigation is required. 18 • 0 Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to noise are discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and in the Noise Study prepared for the Proposed Project and included in Draft EIR Appendix E, which concluded that the Proposed Project would not exceed adopted standards for interior noise levels. The City has established a 55 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for commercial land uses as part of the General Plan Noise Element. Typically, commercial construction such as that expected for the Proposed Project produces an interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dBA CNEL.. Exterior noise levels on the Project site are projected to be less than 70 CNEL along Walnut Grove Avenue and Rush Street; therefore, with building attenuation, the proposed land uses would be consistent with the City's adopted interior noise standard. Although noise levels are expected to increase as traffic volumes in the Project area grow, it is expected that even under worst-case circumstances, exterior noise will not exceed 80 dBA. As the Project Design Alternative reduces the amount of development, the EIR analysis is equally applicable and it is reasonable to conclude that the Project's potential to subject employees and/or patrons to severe noise impacts is less-than-significant. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Substantial Adverse Physical Effects due to Project Demand for Public Services Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in substantial adverse physical effects due to demands for fire protection/emergency medical services, police protection services," or other public services. Further, the Project could result in substantial adverse physical effects from the construction of new or altered government facilities needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services, police protection services, or other public services. Finding: The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts upon public services. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts related to public services are discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts upon public services. Regarding fire protection and emergency medical services, three Los Angeles County Fire Department stations currently provide service to the Project site, with response times ranging from four to eight minutes. For police services, Los Angeles County Sheriff patrols headquartered at the Temple City Station currently serve the Project site. It is anticipated that the Proposed Project could result in an incrementally increased demand for police and fire protection and/or emergency medical response services, resulting in a potential need for additional 19 • 0 personnel or equipment. However, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would require the provision of new physical facilities, or substantially increased or altered police or fire protection services or emergency medical services. As the Project Design Alternative results in less development and therefore a lesser need for public services, the EIR discussion, analysis and conclusion is equally applicable. Further, under the Project's Conditions of Approval, fire prevention, protection, and suppression requirements (e.g., use of fire resistant roofing materials, building sprinklers, and hydrant placement) must be designed to the satisfaction of the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the Project will be required to implement a security plan which is subject to the approval of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. This will require, at a minimum, private security guards, parking lot patrols and security cameras inside the major anchor store and in the parking lot areas. On this basis, the Project will not result in, nor cause substantial adverse physical effects due to Project demands for fire protection/emergency medical services, police protection services, or other public services. Nor will the Project cause substantial adverse physical effects from the construction of new or altered government facilities needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services, police protection services, or other public services. In addition to the EIR discussion, the City Manager of Rosemead has contacted various jurisdictions with Wal-Marts and other big-box retailers and at least two of these jurisdictions have reported that the little "ma and pa" type of businesses create more of an impact on police services than does an operation such as Wal-Mart, in part due to Wal-Mart's security procedures. This is further evidence that there will not be a significant impact on police services from the Project. 6. AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE a. Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and its Surroundings Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in the degradation of overall visual qualities of the Project vicinity, or obstruct a designated scenic vista or existing visual resource. Finding: The Project's effects on the existing visual character of the site are considered less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to aesthetics of the Proposed Project are discussed in Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR which concludes that there will be no significant visual impacts, including impacts associated with the use of the Project site, signs, landscaping or screening 20 • 0 issues. No designated visually or aesthetically significant elements are located within or adjacent to the Project site. Within the context of nearby existing urban development, the overall visual qualities of the Project vicinity will be altered as permanent retail/commercial architecture replaces the existing vacant site. The most visible components of the proposed development will consist of buildings, screening walls, landscaping and signs. The Proposed Project would comply with review and approval procedures, development standards, and design guidelines identified in the City Municipal Code and the Project Conditions of Approval. Compliance with these requirements would adequately address potential visual impacts of the Proposed Project. Views of the Proposed Project site's commercial and retail establishments as developed with the proposed uses will not differ significantly from visual effects at the Proposed Project site as it would have been developed with light industrial or office uses under the current General Plan. Also, given the context of existing and proposed neighboring office/light industrial uses, development proposed by the Proposed Project is considered compatible with vicinity land uses. As the Project Design Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project and will require the same type of review and approval procedures, the EIR's analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the Project as approved. As with the Proposed Project, the Project Design Alternative is designed and conditioned so as to insure that the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings will not be significantly impacted and an additional condition has been added to add additional landscape and hardscape features along the Rush Street perimeter to provide added visual interest and enhancement. b. Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project could result in impacts due to the creation of a substantial new source of light or glare. Finding: The Project's effect in creating substantial light or glare is considered less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential impacts relevant to light and glare of the Proposed Project are discussed in Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR which concludes that the impacts of the Proposed Project's effect in creating substantial light or glare is considered less-than-significant. As the Project Design Alternative would involve substantially similar development, the analysis of the EIR is equally applicable to the Project as approved. The Project site is currently undeveloped and, as such, is not a source of light or glare. Existing sources of light include vehicular light from nighttime traffic along Walnut Grove Avenue, and Rush Street, along with lighting of existing office/commercial properties to the south of the Project area. Lighting of the Project will include street lighting, exterior night lighting of structures, and lighting necessary for safety and security. Based on the typical commercial uses proposed by the 21 • Project, it is unlikely that the proposal will result in significant new sources of light/glare. All Project lighting will be implemented consistent with the Project Conditions of Approval and applicable City standards to prevent spill-over to adjacent residential land uses located west of the Project site across Delta Street. 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS a. Land Use - Potential cumulative land use impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis therein concluded that the Proposed Project would not have any cumulative impact based on the infill nature of the Proposed Project and the fact that there are no other projects proposed in the Project vicinity that would cumulatively contribute to the Proposed Project's potential land use effects. Based on this discussion, the City Council finds that the Project Design Alternative, which is substantially similar to the Proposed Project in terms of land use, will not have a significant cumulative impact on land use. b. Earth Resources - Potential cumulative earth resources impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis therein concluded that the Proposed Project would not have any cumulative impacts as there are no proximate or related projects that would cumulatively contribute to, or be affected by, seismic considerations or issues relating to such other earth resources as erosion, subsidence, unstable or unsuitable soils. Each project is mitigated based on compliance with local and regional seismic design and engineering standards. Based on this discussion, the City Council finds that the Project Design Alternative, which includes less development than the Proposed Project, will not have a significant cumulative impact on Earth Resources. C. Traffic Impacts - Potential cumulative traffic impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis, which assumes completion of the entire Proposed Project at the time of opening, in conjunction with other traffic at the time of opening determined that with the Proposed Project improvements, there would not be any significant, cumulative traffic impacts except to the Pomona freeway. As the Project Design Alternative will not generate any additional traffic than the Proposed Project and makes additional design improvements to help alleviate traffic concerns, the City Council finds that except for impacts to the Pomona freeway, the Project Design Alternative will not result in significant cumulative impacts. d. Noise - Potential cumulative operational noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that the noise from the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively significant as the operational noise from the project would not contribute discernibly to effects of other noise sources. As the Project Design Alternative has less development, and therefore 22 less operational noise, than the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that the Project as approved will not have a significant cumulative impact on noise. e. Public Services - Potential cumulative public service impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that there would not be cumulative impacts of fire protection, emergency medical response and law enforcement as each project is reviewed and the demand for services reduced through appropriate project design and construction. As the Project Design Alternative involves less development than the Proposed Project and therefore less demand for services, the City Council finds that the Project Design Alternative will not have a cumulative impact on public services, especially with the elimination of some of the outpad buildings that could have been used for smaller retail operations that are reported to have a greater impact on police services. f. Aesthetics - Potential cumulative aesthetic impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that there would not be any cumulative aesthetic impacts from the Proposed Project as there are no proximate or related projects that would affect, or be affected by, aesthetic or light or glare. Because the Project Design Alternative is substantially similar in terms of aesthetics, the City Council finds that there would not be any cumulative impacts on aesthetics from the Project as approved. D. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The following issues from the Earth Resources environmental category analyzed by the Draft EIR were found to be potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that all potentially significant impacts of the Project listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted by the City Council. Specific findings of the City Council for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 23 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081, that the following potential significant environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the implementation of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Except for the mitigation measure pertaining to the gasoline station, each of the mitigation measures identified herein is incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and included as a condition of project approval. 1. EARTH RESOURCES a. Primary Seismic Effects Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project may result in exposure of people or structures to primary seismic effects including fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. Finding: The impacts of the Project related to primary seismic effects are less than significant with imposition of the mitigation measures listed below. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Proposed Project's potential impacts on earth resources are analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and in the Project-specific Geotechnical analyses included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The EIR analysis concludes that although the Project Site contains a mapped fault trace upon which building should be restricted; the following measures will mitigate the impacts of fault rupture and seismic ground shaking below a level of significance. The discussion, analysis and conclusions are equally applicable to the Project Design Alternative. Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: Prior to building permit approval, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall delineate the 100-foot wide "no habitable structures zone" along the surface trace fault traversing the project area, which are preliminarily identified in Surface Fault Rupture Investigation, Southern California Edison Property (GO-5 Parcel) City of Rosemead, Los Angeles California (Hushmand Associates, Inc.) October 2002, Figure 4. No habitable structures shall be permitted to encroach within the identified restricted zone. Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Prior to issuance of building permits, all facilities and buildings shall be designed consistent with seismic considerations identified within the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, pages 6-8, et al.) 24 • The Project Surface Fault Rupture Investigation included trenching and excavation within the proposed building area, and comparison of findings with previous studies which included extensive trenching over the entire Project site. The Project investigation confirmed the identification of a near-surface fault trending in a northwest-to-southeast direction across the central portion of the Project site. The approximate location of this fault is illustrated in Draft EIR Figure 4.2-1. The Project investigation notes that the remainder of the Project site is considered "free of active faulting, and is suitable for the Proposed Project providing that good engineering practices are followed." The 100-foot building restriction zone, incorporated into Mitigation Measure 4.2.1, was recommended by the geotechnical engineer conducting the Project investigation, and is considered sufficient to reduce primary seismic impacts to a less-than-significant level. With the Project Design Alternative, even the outdoor seasonal sales area has been moved out of the building restriction zone. Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 will serve to further protect structures outside the building restriction area on the Project site. Additionally, the Project will be required to comply with the provisions of the Los Angeles County Building Code, which includes specific provisions for the seismic design of structures. The City Council is aware of the comments relating to the Whittier Narrows earthquake that was made in response to the Draft EIR. However, the imposition of these mitigation measures and conditions will reduce the impacts of fault rupture to below a level of significance. b. Unstable Soils/Subsurface Conditions Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project may result in the exposure of people and structures to unstable soils and subsurface conditions. Finding: The impacts of the Project related to unstable soils and subsurface conditions are less than significant with imposition of the mitigation measures listed below. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Proposed Project's potential earth resources impacts are analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and in the Project-specific Geotechnical analyses included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation identified significant areas of undocumented, unconsolidated fills within the Project site, along with compressible natural soils, construction debris, and potentially expansive soils (clay) which could lead to problems with settling and subsidence during seismic events. The EIR concluded that with the mitigation measures set forth below, the impacts relating to unstable soils and subsurface conditions would be less than significant. 25 • 0 Mitigation Measure 4.2.3: Prior to issuance of building permits, all earthwork within the project area shall be completed consistent with recommendations, requirements, and specifications presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, pages 8- 13, et al.) • Mitigation Measure 4.2.4: Prior to issuance of building permits, foundation requirements and specifications shall be incorporated in all project plans and construction documents consistent with recommendations, requirements, and specifications presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. Construction of facilities shall be realized consistent with recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, pages 13-14, et al.) Mitigation Measure 4.2.5: Prior to issuance of building permits, building floor slab requirements and specifications shall be incorporated in all project plans and construction documents consistent with recommendations, requirements, and specifications presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. Construction of facilities shall be realized consistent with recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, pages 14-15, et al.) • Mitigation Measure 4.2.6: Prior to issuance of building permits, project facilities shall be designed consistent with requirements and specifications addressing lateral earth pressures, as presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. Construction of facilities shall be realized consistent with recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, pages 15-16, et al.) Mitigation Measure 4.2.7: Prior to issuance of building permits, should use of buried metal pipe be proposed, site-specific corrosively testing shall be conducted by a qualified expert. Any resulting recommendations and requirements shall be incorporated in the project design and construction documentation. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, page 16, et al.) Mitigation Measure 4.2.8: Prior to issuance of grading/building permits, project drainage plans shall reflect positive drainage gradients adjacent to all structures, directing storm water runoff away from foundations and towards suitable drainage collection and discharge facilities. (Appendix 8, Geotechnical Investigation, page16, et al.) • Mitigation Measure 4.2.9: Prior to issuance of grading/building permits, all exterior concrete and masonry flatwork shall be designed consistent with requirements presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. Construction of 26 l i • exterior concrete and masonry flatwork shall be realized consistent with recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix B, Geotechnical Investigation, page 16, at al.) Mitigation Measure 4.2.10: Prior to issuance of grading/building permits, all paved areas shall be designed consistent with requirements presented in the project Geotechnical Investigation. Construction of paved areas shall be realized consistent with recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation. (Appendix B, Geotechnical Investigation, page 16, et al.) • Mitigation Measure 4.2.11: A qualified geotechnical engineer shall be present to observe all earthwork activities within the project site, to include grading, compaction of all fills, sub grade preparation, pavement construction, and foundation excavations. (Appendix B, Geotechnical Investigation, page 8.) As the Project Design Alternative would involve the same type of development as the Proposed Project, implementation of the above mitigation measures will also ensure that the Project's potential for impacts related to unstable soils and subsurface conditions is reduced to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, with the approved Project, even the outdoor garden center is.removed from the fault zone. E. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, the following adverse impacts of the Project stated below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in the, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on this Project. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation measures which are imposed and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible. 1. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION a. Increased Freeway Vehicle Densities Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project may result in increased vehicle densities on freeway segments that currently operate below LOS "C," the Caltrans' target standard. Finding of Unavoidable Significant Impact: Project-related traffic will result in vehicle density increases on the Pomona (SR-60) Freeway which currently operates below LOS "C." 27 • 0 Facts In Support of Findings: Traffic and circulation issues are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and in the Rosemead Retail Center Traffic Impact Study included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR. The EIR indicates that Proposed Project-related traffic will result in vehicle density'increases on the Pomona (SR-60) Freeway which is considered a significant unavoidable impact. The EIR indicates that operating conditions on the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), both east and west of the SR-60/San Gabriel Boulevard interchange, currently exceed the Caltrans LOS "C" target standard. Vehicle densities in this freeway segment will be incrementally increased by the Proposed Project-related traffic. Although the Project Design Alternative will involve a reduction in traffic trips, the traffic will still result in significant vehicle densities. Typically, mitigation of freeway impacts is realized through construction of new or additional freeway lanes. Analysis included in the EIR Traffic Study indicates that construction of one new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction would be sufficient to improve vehicle densities on the Pomona Freeway within the Study Area, and to mitigate any potential effects of Project-related traffic. The addition of HOV lanes to the SR-60 within the Study Area is currently being considered by Caltrans, but has not been fully funded or scheduled for construction. Because the construction of freeway mainline facilities is a Caltrans function and responsibility, it is not feasible for the Project (or any individual development) to ensure that additional freeway capacity will be available to reduce the Project's calculated vehicle density impacts. No mitigation has been identified to address this significant and unavoidable impact. 2. AIR QUALITY a. Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions Potential Significant Impact: The Proposed Project may result in short-term construction-related impacts on air quality. Finding of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Despite implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, the short-term construction related emissions will have an unavoidable significant impact on air quality with relation to Regional Organic Gases (ROG), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Local Particulate Matter (PMtp) i Facts In Support of Finding's: Air quality issues are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR and in Appendix D. The EIR indicates that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below would not reduce the criteria polluting emissions for ROG, NOx,, and PM1o generated as a part of the construction phase of the Proposed Project to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impacts of construction-related dust 28 particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day, as part of the construction specifications. Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative groundcover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind erosion of the soil. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including Rule 403, insuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4 Any construction access roads (other than temporary access roads) shall be paved as soon as possible and cleaned after each workday. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved roads shall be 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 4.4.5 Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes and when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 4.4.6 Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. Mitigation Measure 4.4.7 Consistent with provisions and assumptions of the project Air Quality Impact Study modeling, total disturbance within the project site shall not exceed 4.5 acres per day. Mitigation Measure 4.4.13 Pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations, the following measures addressing project construction emissions shall be implemented: • Application of non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Installation of wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site.onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment 29 leaving the site each trip; Configuration of construction parking so as to minimize traffic interference; • Provision of temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction in order to maintain smooth traffic flow; • Scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the extent practicable; • Routing of construction trucks so as to avoid congested streets or sensitive receptors; • Provision of temporary dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction equipment on and off-site; • Appointment of a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 emissions. • Street sweeping at least once per day if visible soils material is carried on to adjacent roadways. SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers shall be utilized for these purposes. Short-term impacts on air quality will occur during the construction activities required to implement the Proposed Project. These adverse impacts include: air pollutant emissions at the off-site power plant serving the construction site with temporary power lines needed to operate construction equipment and provide lighting, pursuant to AQMD methodology; exhaust emissions from the construction equipment used as well as the vehicles used to transport the off- highway construction equipment required; exhaust emissions from passenger vehicles of construction workers; particulate emissions (fugitive dust) from grading activities; exhaust emissions from heavy vehicles used to transport building materials to the site; emissions related to the development of on-site landscaping; and emissions from architectural coatings used for buildings and paving materials used for roads. As reflected in the analysis in the EIR, grading activities are estimated to result in the creation of 1,179.25 pounds per day of PM10 emissions, which exceeds the SCAQMD daily threshold of 150 pounds during the site grading phase. In addition, construction activities are estimated to result in the creation of 463.25 pounds per day of ROG emissions while architectural coatings are being applied, and 419.07 pounds per day of NO, emissions, which exceeds the SCAQMD daily threshold of 55 pounds for each of these criteria pollutants. Even with implementation of the Project Design Alternative which includes less development than the Proposed Project and therefore less impacts, the pertinent thresholds for the above described criteria pollutants will still be exceeded. Despite implementation of the above-stated mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts, a significant, unavoidable air quality impact remains likely. 30 b.. Long-Term Operational Impacts, Stationary and Mobile Sources Potential Significant Impact: Long-term, stationary and mobile source emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Finding of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: The Project will have long- term adverse operational impacts on air quality with relation to Carbon Monoxide (CO), Regional Organic Gases (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Facts In Support of Findings: Air quality issues are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR and in Appendix D. The EIR concludes that even with implementation of the mitigation measures stated below, the impacts relating to criteria pollutant emissions for CO, ROG, or NO, associated with the operation of the Proposed Project would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level under current standards. Mitigation Measure 4.4.8 To aid in the reduction of operational emissions, the project shall comply with all applicable emissions-reducing policies and regulations as outlined in Draft EIR Section 4.4.5. These regulations and policies include, but are not limited to: regulatory requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, statutes established under the California Clean Air Act, Air Quality Management Plan policies, SCAQMD rules, policies of the City of Rosemead General Plan, and requirements of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure 4.4.9 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall prepare and submit to the SCAQMD an application for a Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate the gasoline refueling station proposed on site pursuant to Rules 201, 203, 212 and 1401. Specifically, this new stationary source of benzene emissions shall install Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT), and operate within the conditions specified by the SCAQMD. Copies of SCAQMD approval documentation and any conditions of approval shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The project gasoline refueling station shall operate in compliance with SCAQMD requirements and regulations for the life of the project. Mitigation Measure 4.4.10 Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Mitigation Measure 4.4.11 The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium vapor lights) shall be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site. 31 • 0 Mitigation Measure 4.4.12 Consistent with the site plan concept, the project shall provide pedestrian walkways, thereby encouraging walking as a mode of transportation between related facilities on-site, and to adjacent uses. Mitigation Measure 4.4.14 Pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations, the following measures addressing project operational emissions will be implemented: Routing of truck traffic to avoid sensitive receptors; Synchronization of traffic signals in the project vicinity to provide efficient traffic flows; Enforcement of local truck parking restrictions; Restriction of truck idling to ten (10) minutes maximum; Provision of electrical service hook up for refrigerated trucks. The primary generators of long-term operational emissions include vehicles, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, consumer products, and the Project gasoline station. As stated in the Draft EIR, SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded relative to emissions for criteria pollutants CO, ROG and NO,. Even with implementation of the Project Design Alternative, which deletes the gasoline station, SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded relative to emissions for criteria pollutants CO, ROG and NOx. Despite implementation of the above-stated mitigation measures, except Mitigation Measure 4.4.9 which is not applicable due to the elimination of the gasoline station, a significant and unavoidable air quality impact remains. No other feasible mitigation or technology exists that would further substantially minimize, or eliminate these impacts. 3. NOISE a. Short-term, Construction-Related Noise Increase Potential Significant Impact: Noise levels during construction will exceed the City's adopted residential exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA CNEL. Finding of Unavoidable Significant Impact: The Project will exceed the noise threshold of 65 dBA CNEL during construction. Facts In Support of Findings: Noise issues are discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and in the Noise Study prepared for the Proposed Project and included in Draft EIR Appendix E. Despite implementation of noise attenuation features and the following mitigation measures, the Draft EIR concludes that Proposed Project-related construction noise will likely exceed the City's residential exterior noise threshold at receiving residential land uses along Delta Street. This is a temporary, short-term impact that will dissipate entirely at the conclusion of construction activities. 32 • 0 Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 In order to create a physical barrier between the construction activities and the residential uses located west of Delta Avenue, the western building wall and the 14-foot perimeter wall located on the western property line shall be installed as part of the initial phase of construction. The barrier is intended to minimize construction noise and other construction related nuisances. These features shall be completed within 60 working days of project commencement. Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 To minimize the noise impact of the construction activities, construction equipment access to the project site should be taken, to the extent possible, from Walnut Grove Avenue, away from the noise sensitive receptors along Delta Street. Mitigation Measure 4.5.3 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 Wherever feasible, stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise receptors in the vicinity. Mitigation Measure 4.5.5 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity. The City's Municipal Code (Section 8.36.030) restricts construction operation to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. Construction is not allowed at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. In addition to this limitation, the preceding mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize adverse noise impacts on the adjacent community. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located west of the Project site, separated from the Project site by Delta Street, a local residential street with a 60-foot right-of-way. These residences will be subjected to short-term noise generated by construction equipment and activities on the Project site which will likely exceed City noise standards. Although the construction period will be of a more limited duration under the Project Design Alternative due to the reduced amount of development, noise standards will still be exceeded during construction. As indicated in Section 7.4.5 of the Draft EIR, the only real way to avoid this significant impact would be to prohibit development which is not feasible. 4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS a. Traffic Impacts - Cumulative traffic impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. This analysis concluded that the Proposed Project, in 33 conjunction with other development in the area will have a significant impact on the 60 freeway and that the only way to mitigate this impact would be to install freeway mainline improvements, i.e., another lane. As the traffic impacts of the Project Design Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that the Project Design Alternative will also have a significant cumulative impact on the 60 freeway. The City Council also finds that as mainline improvements are the only way to mitigate this impact, it is not feasible for this Project to mitigate the impacts on its own and that mitigation in within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation. b. Air Quality - Cumulative impacts relating to air quality are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that the Proposed Project, in conjunction with any other projects in the area, will exceed the CO, ROG and NOx standards and that such impacts cannot be mitigated. As the Project Design Alternative is similar in design to the Proposed Project, the air impacts will be similar, although reduced. The City Council finds that the Project Design Alternative will lead to significant cumulative air impacts and that there are no mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts. C. Noise - Cumulative construction noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis concluded that the Proposed Project, in conjunction with other vicinity noise levels, would exceed 65 dBA and therefore would cause a significant impact. The City Council finds that although the amount of development and therefore the amount of noise in the Project Design Alternative is reduced, there will still be noise in excess of 65 dBA, causing a significant cumulative effect. There are no mitigation measures beyond those which have already been imposed which can reduce these impacts. F. SUMMARY The City Council finds that except for those impacts listed in Section E above, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project in the way of conditions of approval and mitigation measures, that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR and outlined above. With regard to the unavoidable impact of increased densities on the 60 freeway, the City Council finds that the only feasible mitigation, to add additional lanes to the freeway, is the responsibility of and within the jurisdiction of Caltrans and it would be impossible for any single Project to mitigate this impact. With regard to short-term construction related emissions, the City Council finds that even with mitigation, construction activities on this site will lead to significant impacts, but there is no feasible way to mitigate this impact as any construction 34 • 0 will lead to significant short-term emissions. Increases in local and regional pollutants are not entirely avoidable, as development activities within this region will continue to increase the amount of pollutants both locally and on a regional basis. With regard to long-term operational emissions, the City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed and that there are no other technologically feasible ways to mitigate such impacts. With regard to short-term construction related noise, the City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed and there are no other technologically feasible ways to mitigate such impacts. G. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1. Project Objectives. As delineated in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, the following are the Proposed Project Objectives: Create a new mix of retail/commercial uses responsive to City and regional markets; Provide retail/commercial uses to service the needs of residents; Increase economic benefits to the City through job creation; Augment the City's economic base by providing a variety of tax- generating uses; Provide retail/commercial development compatible with vicinity land uses; and Ensure development of the Project site in a manner consistent with the policies, objectives, and requirements of the City's General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Municipal Code). 2. Alternatives Considered Six Project alternatives and the potential impacts for each are discussed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR. In addition to the six alternatives, five other 35 0 0 alternatives were considered and rejected for the reasons set forth in section 7.3 of the Draft EIR. The City Council has determined that the six alternatives is a reasonable range of alternatives as required by CEQA. The City Council has considered these alternatives for the development of the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center and makes the following findings. a. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would likely be developed consistent with permitted or conditionally permitted uses under the site's current "Medium Commercial" zoning designation, and in a manner consistent with the objectives and policies identified for the site's current General Plan "Office/Light Industrial" land use designation. For purposes of comparison with other alternatives, the 22.35-acre Project site was assumed to be developed with multi-story office uses over approximately 13.41 acres, or 584,140 square feet of commercial offices. Although the No Project Alternative would reduce operational air impacts below a level of significance, the No Project Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Project because it does not achieve the stated objectives of the Project, to (1) provide retail/commercial uses responsive to City and regional market forces that will serve the primary retail commercial needs of area residents; and (2) augment the City's economic base by providing tax generating uses. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would result in worse traffic during morning peak hour traffic. b. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative assumes no near-term development within the Project area, or a "status quo" condition. This scenario might occur should changing financial, market, or other considerations preclude development of the Project site. Although the No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior project as there would not be any impacts, this alternative was rejected because it does not achieve any of the stated objectives of the Project. Furthermore, the City could not legally insure that this alternative would be implemented absent payment of just compensation to the Property owner. C. Retail/Commercial Reduced Intensity Alternative The Retail/Commercial Reduced Intensity Alternative assumes construction of new retail/commercial uses similar to those proposed by the EIR Project, but at an overall reduced scope. By developing the Project site with a "major" alone, traffic and operational air emissions would be limited when compared to the EIR 36 0 • Project. Alternately, traffic generation and operational emissions impacts could be reduced through elimination of a "major" use, and development of the Project site with a combination of smaller pads or supporting anchor stores. However under this alternative there would still be an unavoidable significant impacts on the 60 freeway and air impacts remain individually and cumulatively significant. The Retail/Commercial Reduced Intensity Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Project because it would curtail full attainment of the Project's commercial objectives in that this alternative would provide for limited additional retail/commercial services available to City residents. Additionally, limited commercial development of the Project site resulting from the Retail/Commercial Reduced Intensity Alternative would diminish or eliminate additional employment venues and tax-generating potentials. d. Commercial Offices Reduced Intensity Alternative The Commercial Offices Reduced Intensity Alternative assumes construction of 358,532 square feet of office/commercial uses, or an approximate one-third reduction in office uses that might be implemented under the No Project Alternative. This alternative would also reduce traffic and operational air quality emissions impacts when compared to the proposed EIR Project; significant air impacts would be eliminated and there would not be an impact on the 60 freeway. The Commercial Offices Reduced Intensity Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Project because it would curtail full attainment of the Project's commercial objectives in that this alternative would provide for limited additional retail/commercial services available to City residents. Additionally, limited commercial development of the Project site resulting from the Reduced Commercial Intensity Alternative would diminish or eliminate additional employment venues and tax-generating potentials. e. Mixed Use Alternative The Mixed Use Alternative assumes development of the Project site with a neighborhood shopping center, including a grocery store anchor, on 15 acres, and up to 160 multiple-family residences on the remaining 7.35 acres. This alternative would reduce overall traffic impacts, but would put additional traffic on Delta Street. Air impacts would remain cumulatively significant. The Mixed Use Alternative would increase public service demands. The Mixed Use Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Project because it would curtail full attainment of the Project's commercial objectives in that this alternative would provide for limited additional retail/commercial services available to City residents. Additionally, limited commercial development of the 37 • • Project site resulting from the Reduced Commercial Intensity Alternative would diminish or eliminate additional employment venues and, tax-generating potentials. f. Project Design Alternative The Project Design Alternative is intended to provide a revised design for the Proposed Project that incorporates additional sensitivity to neighborhood concerns. Specifically, the Project Design Alternative creates a separation between more sensitive surrounding land uses and the delivery truck routes. The Project Design Alternative removes all truck access from Rush Street and provides an internal ring road on the site. The ring road would provide trucks the ability to enter the site from Walnut Grove Avenue and proceed through the site to the proposed loading docks on the north and south sides of the proposed Wal-Mart. In order to accommodate the internal ring road, the 9,000 square foot retail pad at the northern site boundary, and the 10,000 square foot retail pad at the site's western boundary have been removed. The 3,000 square foot restaurant/retail pad proposed between the Alhambra Wash and the northerly Walnut Grove entry has been moved to the south of this entry, and the proposed service/fueling station has been replaced by a 2,448 square foot fast food use. Finally, the Project entry would be widened to 58 feet, to allow four 12-foot lanes (two inbound and two outbound) and a ten-foot wide landscaped median. This alternative will allow for landscape and hardscape enhancements on Rush Street over the Proposed Project. While there would be a reduction, air impacts would remain individually and cumulatively significant and there would still be an impact on the 60 freeway. The Project Design Alternative is considered a superior alternative to the Project as proposed. As proposed, the Project Design Alternative would restrict truck access to and from the site to Walnut Grove Avenue. The gas station would be removed from the project reducing community perceived nuisance issues. The Project Design Alternative also contains less overall commercial development on the site. The Project Design Alternative was approved by the City Council in lieu of the Proposed Project. 3. Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as there would be no impacts. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council determines that after the No Build Alternative, the Commercial Offices Reduced Intensity Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. 38 H. BENEFITS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Project Benefits Benefits from the approval of the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Project, Project Design Alternative, will be derived from the establishment of a productive commercial/retail use for existing and, future City and vicinity residents. The following benefits will occur as a result of Project implementation: (1) creation of a productive commercial/retail use, capitalizing on the Project site's access and approximate location to major roadways including SR-60 and Walnut Grove Avenue; (2) the Project will allow for productive use of currently vacant land within the City with a commercial/retail use as contrasted with the approved office/light industrial uses of the Project site to provide retail services to residents of the City and surrounding community; (3) the development of additional commercial/retail uses will provide for increased economic benefits to the City of Rosemead to increase sales taxes and additional employment opportunities; (4) the Project will lead to the creation of at least 425 full-time-equivalent jobs, and generate at least $0.64 million in annual sales tax revenue; and (5) the Project will bring a much needed market to the Project area. 2. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City Council of the City of Rosemead adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR and listed above. This section specifically addresses the requirements of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require the lead agency to balance the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable significant impacts to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. The City Council finds that the Project benefits listed above of the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Project, Project Design Alternative, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed development to be governed by the planned development cited above is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these findings. The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed six alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might, reduce or eliminate the 39 significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. The EIR presents evidence that the development of the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center will cause significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to non- significant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above and the City Council makes the following finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Rosemead Commercial Retail Center, the City Council hereby determines that the Project Design Alternative will reduce, but not eliminate, the significant impacts and that this Project Design Alternative is more sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. The City Council further determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR for the Project Design Alternative, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks as the economic, social, and other considerations of`the Project listed in subsection 1 above outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reasons for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described above. REVISIONS NOT SIGNIFICANT CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 provides that recirculation of an EIR is not required where new information is added, but such information merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. For the following reasons, the changes made in the Final EIR are not significant and recirculation is not required: 1. The Air Quality discussion of the Final EIR has been revised to add two mitigation measures suggested by the SCAQMD to help reduce construction and operational emissions from the Project. The addition of these mitigation measures does not change the level of analysis. The mitigation measures are essentially an expansion of conditions providing that the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations. 2. Mitigation Measure 4.4.8 has been revised to correct an incorrect cross- reference. This is a mere clerical correction and does not change any analysis. 3. Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR has been revised to include a correct Regional Location map. This is a mere clerical correction and does not change any analysis. 40 0 0 4. Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect changes in the Existing Conditions relating to fire protection services as noted in the response from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The added information makes insignificant changes. The actual staffing level which is now reflected in the EIR betters the staffing level that was originally reported and therefore there is no change in the analysis. 5. Table 1.10-2, the Conditions of Approval, have been revised (as per Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2004-36). 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 and 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. With respect to the condition that was amended that provided that Wal- Mart may operate on a 24-hour basis once the grocery component is open also does not create a change. The applications that were submitted for the Project clearly indicated that the operations would be 24 hours and the Project was not analyzed by the environmental consultants with any such limitation. The hours of operation were not a mitigation measure and a limitation on hours is not needed to reduce any impact below a level of significance. 41 0 • 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. SECTION 4. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires the adoption of a monitoring or reporting program regarding the changes in the Project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP"), included as Section 4 in the Final EIR, (MMP) is adopted, with the exception of mitigation measure 4.4.9 which is not applicable as the conditional use permit for the gas station has been denied. The mitigation measures have been adopted as conditions of Project approval. The MMP fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements: A. The MMP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the Project and mitigation measures imposed on the Project during Project implementation; and B. Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. SECTION 5. APPLICABILITY OF THIS RESOLUTION The approval and adoption of the CEQA findings, mitigation measures, Statement of O Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in 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 6. 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. 42 r1 • On motion by Council Member Imperial , seconded by Council Member Taylor , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of September, 2004, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California by the following vote: AYES: Alarcon, Vasquez, Clark, Taylor, Imperial NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: 2)& ~ cz&~ MA A T CLARK, MAYOR ATTEST: I hereby certify that the foregoing.Resolution No:. 2004-39 was duly and regularly adopted by the Rosemead City Council at a..).regular meeting held on the 8th day of September 2004.), by the following vote: NANCY V LDERRAMA- Yes: Clark, Imperial, Taylor, Alarcon, Vasquez CITY CLERK No: None, Absent: None, Abstain: None Cidye'cl rk 43 6 P