Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09) 8A Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update and Crossroad Specific PlanCity Council December 5, 2017 Page 2 of 15 BACKGROUND: 1. On January 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the 2014-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan which is not part of the Mid-Century General Plan update and will remain in full force and effect. 2. On May 6, 2014, the City Council created the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and appointed its members on July 1, 2014, to oversee the preparation of the General Plan and Specific Plan and provide recommendations to the City Council. 3. From September 22, 2014, to December 5, 2017, City has sought to proactively engage the public in the update to the General Plan and the Specific Plan, including 10 community outreach workshops and meetings, 18 GPAC meetings, special meetings of the Planning Commission, regular updates to the Planning Commission and City Council, three meetings of the City Council, updates on the City's social media, e-mails to the General Plan and Specific Plan e-mail list (which includes 380 individuals), press releases sent to local media, flyers distributed throughout the community, articles in the City Manager's report, and invitations to attend public meetings sent to property owners where staff recommended changes to a property's General Plan designation. 4. On January 20, 2015, the City Council considered and provided comment on the General Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. 5. On August 18, 2015, the City Council reviewed recommendations from the GPAC and the Planning Commission on the Draft Land Use Diagram and the associated growth projections. The City Council directed staff to begin the appropriate environmental review of the Draft General Plan, Land Use Diagram, and Specific Plan. 6. On February 2, 2016, the City Council received and provided comment on the Draft Land Use Diagram, List of Allowed Land Uses, Development Standards, and Development Projections for the Specific Plan along with recommendations from the GPAC and the Planning Commission. 7. On September 16, 2016, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and received comments from other agencies and members of the public regarding what topics should be studied in the EIR. 8. On June 19, 2017, the City issued a Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR with a public comment period of June 20, 2017 to August 3, 2017, and received comments from the public and other agencies during and after the comment period. 9. On June 26, 2017 and July 8, 2017, the City hosted two community meetings and the Planning Commission hosted a community forum on July 25, 2017 to receive comments on the Draft General Plan, Specific Plan, and EIR. City Council December 5, 2017 Page 3 of 15 10. On October 23, 2017, the GPAC held a meeting (meeting minutes included as Attachment "N") and unanimously approved a motion recommending the City Council adopt the Draft General Plan and Specific Plan subject to the changes proposed in Attachment "H". 11. On November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing (meeting minutes included as Attachment "0") and unanimously approved a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the Draft General Plan and Specific Plan subject to the changes proposed in Attachment "H" and "I" and certify the Final EIR. 12. On November 23, 2017, a notice of the City Council public hearing was published as required by law. ANALYSIS: The following analysis begins with an Executive Summary and Background sections. After providing a summary and analysis of the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan, this staff report includes a description of the project's impacts and some project alternatives. The report concludes with a section on feedback from community members and recommendations from advisory bodies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Draft General Plan provides a vision of how Temple City will be in 2050. It includes goals, policies, and an implementation program to achieve the vision. Attachment "P" includes a summary of the differences between the existing and proposed General Plan. The most widely used part of the General Plan is the Land Use Diagram. The Draft General Plan proposes five types of changes to the Diagram, the most significant of which is the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is the main method of accomplishing the General Plan's goal of preserving single-family neighborhoods and directing growth to arterial streets and intersections. The Specific Plan focuses on achieving a mixed-use lifestyle center at the southwest corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. This amenity rich development will include residences, shops, restaurants, entertainment venues, space for an outdoor market, public open space, and a trail along the Eaton Wash all at a scale that is appropriate for Temple City. The Draft EIR provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of the General Plan and Specific Plan. It concludes that there are seven less than significant impacts, three impacts that will be less than significant with mitigation measures, and five impacts that are significant and unavoidable. If the City Council decides to adopt the General Plan and Specific Plan, CEQA requires that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations stating that although the project will have significant environmental City Council December 5, 2017 Page 4 of 15 impacts, the benefits to the community of adopting the General Plan outweigh these impacts. BACKGROUND: The Draft General Plan and Specific Plan are the result of an iterative three-year effort that incorporated numerous outreach events, including booths at the Camellia Festival, Lights on Temple City, and the Lunar New Year Festival, community meetings, 18 GPAC Meetings, and regular updates to the Planning Commission and City Council. Residents, business owners, property owners, Council Members, Commissioners, Committee Members, and other various stakeholders have provided input to these plans. Additionally, the General Plan and Specific Plan take into consideration planning initiatives that occurred in tandem or in the recent past, such as the Bicycle Master Plan, the Parks and Open Space Master Plan, the update to the Housing Element, and the MakeTCHappen Community Meetings in 2013. The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document that addresses how the physical environment of the City will change over the next 33 years. It is purposely intended to be a long-range document, challenging the reader and decisionmakers to think about balancing immediate impacts against long range benefits. It covers the seven subjects required by State law and includes one other subject not required -Economic Development. The Specific Plan provides goals, policies, maps, diagrams, development standards, a land use table, an infrastructure plan, and an implementation plan for a new district centered around the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. MID-CENTURY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: A General Plan is a rough sketch of the physical attributes a City will have at a future date. It arrives at this sketch through four tools: a vision statement, a list of goals and policies, a series of diagrams and maps, and an implementation plan. State law requires it to include seven topics or elements (land use, circulation, open space, noise, conservation, hazards, and housing). The elements must be internally consistent with each other and no one element is given more weight than another. The State allows jurisdictions to combine, rename, or include optional elements to meet local needs. The proposed General Plan includes the following elements, which also act as chapters: • • • Land Use; Mobility; Economic Development; • • • Community Services; Natural Resources; and Hazards . Housing Elements are handled in a different manner, since by State Law they are revised on either a five or eight-year cycle. The existing Housing Element was approved in January of 2014 and is scheduled to be updated in 2021. City Council December 5, 2017 Page 8 of 15 with friends, be entertained, and even recreate. The Specific Plan calls for the development of new public open spaces including the activation of the Eaton Wash (Crossroads Policy 7) and other public amenities (LU 14.5). The location, scale, and design of new projects would respect the adjacent residential neighborhoods (page 2-4). The centerpiece of the Specific Plan would be located on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard, south of Las Tunas Drive and north of Broadway. This block would be divided into smaller blocks by a new north-south private road and three or four east-west private roads, (see pages 4-14 to 4-19 for illustrations of the new proposed roadways). This, in combination with the additional public open space, a mix of uses, and an increase in destinations, would transform the block from a site that is hostile to non-automobile traffic to a site that encourages walking, bicycling, and transit trips. The Specific Plan provides for mixed use projects on the east and west sides of Rosemead Boulevard, south of Las Tunas Drive. Some residential only developments would be allowed greater than 250 feet from the intersection of major streets (Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, and Broadway). North of Las Tunas Drive, the Specific Plan does not propose any major changes given the relatively recent age and economic success of those developments. Immediately south of Hermosa Avenue, the Specific Plan calls for a Neighborhood Transition zone, which has specific regulations to ensure proper buffering between higher and lower density areas. The highest levels of intensity are planned for the west side of Rosemead Boulevard south of Las Tunas Drive, since this area is furthest from residential areas and is buffered by the Eaton Wash. The intensity and height of new development would be reduced as it approaches residential neighborhoods. The west side of Rosemead Boulevard south of Las Tunas Drive allows for six story structures. However, the buildings must step down to four stories within 100 feet of Las Tunas Drive and Broadway, and within 300 feet of Rosemead Boulevard. On the east side of Rosemead Boulevard, four story structures are allowed, but the first and second story must be setback 15 feet from the rear property line and the third and fourth story must be setback 30 feet from the rear property line (for comparison purposes the required rear yard setback for a single-family house is 15 feet). The Specific Plan also includes an infrastructure plan, an implementation plan, and design guidelines which cover topics, such as: • • • Building siting, access, and circulation; Building massing, form, and design; Neighborhood transitions; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: • • Landscape, streetscape, and open space; and Public art, signage, and lighting. CEQA requires a jurisdiction to disclose and consider the possible environmental impacts that may result from the approval of a project, including a General Plan or Specific Plan. The City has prepared a Draft and Final EIR for the General Plan and the Specific Plan. The following is a summary of the EIR. City Council December 5, 2017 Page 9 of 15 CEQA provides for four levels of environmental impacts. For each subject area studied, a project can have 1) no impact, 2) a less than significant impact, 3) a less than significant impact with mitigation measures, or 4) a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation measures are conditions placed on a project to lessen the project's impact on the environment. If a project has significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant even when mitigation measures are imposed, these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. In these cases, mitigation measures are still adopted to mitigate impacts to the extent possible, even though they will not reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. Since General Plans address citywide development over several decades, it is not unusual for a General Plan update to result in significant and unavoidable impacts. In the case of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, it is impossible to avoid such impacts because any incremental increase in air pollutants adds to existing pollutant levels, which already exceed regionally established limits. However, it should be noted that a General Plan update may reduce impacts that would have been caused by the previous General Plan, even though such impacts are still considered significant and unavoidable. For example, by focusing future growth into specified areas, the General Plan and Specific Plan would help reduce air quality and greenhouse gas impacts per dwelling unit, resident, and employee. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: The EIR determined the following to be significant impacts that are unavoidable even with the proposed mitigation measures. • Air Quality: The Draft General Plan and Specific Plan would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) as its buildout would exceed growth projections in the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Quality Basin (SoCAB), allow for construction activities that could generate short- term emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's threshold criteria, generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds and contribute to the nonattainment designation of (SoCAB), could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants, and could allow for industrial and similar land uses to create objectionable odors. The Draft EIR includes 11 mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Mitigation measures include items such as: the preparation of a technical air quality report related to construction and operation of discretionary projects not exempt from CEQA, the use of construction equipment that produces less air quality impacts, the preparation of a dust control plan for large construction projects, the installation of high efficiency appliances, the creation of a transportation demand management plan for large projects, and the provision of features such as electrical vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The General Plan and Specific Plan would generate a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact on the environment. Air quality mitigation City Council December 5, 2017 Page 10 of 15 measures (specifically AQ-5 to AQ-8) would help reduce the Specific Plan's impact on the environment. • Noise: The Noise chapter not only includes an analysis of noise, but also ground vibration which can be considered an annoyance and can even cause architectural damage. The Draft General Plan and Specific Plan could result in short-and long- term groundborne vibration impacts and temporary noise increases near project- specific development sites. Mitigation measures are recommended that will require large projects subject to CEQA, that use vibration intensive construction activities and in proximity to sensitive receptors, to submit a technical study evaluating construction related vibration damage impacts and construction noise. Measures would have to be put in place to reduce impacts such as sound barriers, restricted hauling routes, non-essential idling of vehicles, and locating equipment away from sensitive uses. • Cultural Resources: The Draft General Plan and Specific Plan would accommodate growth that could result in an impact to known and unknown historic resources. Project applicants for future development projects with buildings more than 50 years old will need to prepare a historic resource technical study. If the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; the value and integrity of resource will need to be maintained. If retention or relocation is not feasible, the historic value will be preserved through recordation, interpretative, commemorative, or educational measures. • Recreation: Implementation of the Draft General Plan and Specific Plan would result in additional Temple City residents, which would in turn result in an increase in the use of existing City parks and recreational facilities. The General Plan calls for the adoption of a park impact fee to reduce the impact of future development on the City's recreational facilities. The City considered fully mitigating this through efforts such as the acquisition of private property for the development of additional parkland to serve its residents. However, this is not a feasible mitigation as acquiring private property is not an attainable measure for the City for various reasons, including financial and legal. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this impact. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Draft EIR reviewed three subject areas which, with mitigation measures, would be less than significant. These include: • Hazards and hazardous materials; • Utilities and service systems. • Tribal cultural resources; and Less Than Significant Without Mitigation: The Draft EIR found that the General Plan and Specific Plan would create a less than significant impact in relation to: • • Aesthetics; Geology and soils; • • Hydrology and water quality; Land use and planning; City Council December 5, 2017 Page 12 of 15 Alternative C was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with the General Plan's and Specific Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts and does not result in any greater impacts to the Draft Plans. However, Alternative C would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant level. Additionally, Alternative C does not meet project Objectives 1 through 4 and 12 as listed in the EIR; and does not meet Objectives 5, 6, and 8 as well as the Draft General Plan and Specific Plans meet those objectives. Although Alternative C was identified as being environmentally superior, CEQA does not require that the alternative be adopted if it does not meet the City's objectives in updating the General Plan and adopting the Specific Plan. CEQA allows a jurisdiction to approve a project, even if there are significant and unavoidable impacts, when the decisionmaker can find that the impacts are balanced or outweighed by the project's benefits. In these cases, CEQA requires that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be approved to identify the project's benefits. This is commonly done, as General Plan updates and other projects frequently result in significant and unavoidable impacts and are nonetheless approved. Statement of Overriding Considerations: To approve the General Plan and Specific Plan, as proposed, and to certify the Final EIR, CEQA requires the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment E) includes the following considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts: • Promote the City's economic vision; • Implements the objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan; • Implements California State Law AB 1358 -Complete Streets; • Achieves consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy; If the City does not update the General Plan and allows growth to continue under the existing General Plan this would result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and recreation. ADVISORY BODY REVIEW AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT: On October 10, 2017, the GPAC met to review the public comment received on the Draft General Plan, Specific Plan, and EIR (Attachment "S"). In response to the comments received staff prepared a list of proposed changes (Attachment "H"). The GPAC reviewed the public comment, the proposed changes, and recommended that the City Council adopt the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Final EIR as modified by Attachment IIH". After the GPAC meeting on October 23, 2017, the City received additional public comment (Attachment "S"). Some of the property owners along and adjacent to Fiesta Avenue and Bisby Street have expressed concern about the General Plan designation City Council December 5, 2017 Page 14 of 15 3. Change the General Plan designation for the Low Density Residential properties to Medium or High Density Residential. 4. Modify the definition of the Mixed-Use designation to allow for single family and multi-family uses in certain transitional areas, such as this. 5. Include a policy in the Land Use Element allowing for expansion of single family houses in non-residentially designated areas. Staff recommended option four to the Planning Commission. While remaining consistent with the most recent direction from the GPAC and City Council regarding the land use designation for this area, this modification would allow for remodeling and expansion of existing single family and multi-family houses while still providing an opportunity for the area to transition to a mixed-use district, spurring new investment in the area and economic opportunity. Regarding the use of eminent domain to take property and force redevelopment for the purposes of economic development and the elimination of blight, this sort of practice is no longer allowed under State law. On November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission met and reviewed the GPAC's recommendation on the General Plan, Specific Plan, and the EIR. The Commission also reviewed additional changes proposed by staff (Attachment "I") including the recommendations on Bisby Street and Fiesta Avenue. The Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan and Specific Plan including the changes recommended by the GPAC and staff's additional changes as noted in Attachment "I". CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: The City Council is requested to certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan and Specific Plan in keeping with all the City's Strategic Goals: Good Governance, Public Health and Safety, Quality of Life, Sustainable Infrastructure, Economic Development, and Citizen Education and Communication. FISCAL IMPACT: The General Plan Economic Development Element includes goals and policies focusing on strategies to strengthen Temple City's long-term financial sustainability, including participating in efforts to increase local revenue appropriations, pursuing new or enhanced revenue sources, and continuing internal practices that provide the fiscal resources needed to effectively govern and to provide services at a level consistent with community expectations. The General Plan and EIR call for establishing impacts fees to reduce the impact of new development on public services. Until nexus studies are complete, it is unknown the impact these fees would have on revenue. City Council December 5, 2017 Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENTS: A. City Council Resolution No. 17-5298 B. Draft Environmental Impact Report C. Final Environmental Impact Report D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program E. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations F. City Council Resolution No. 17-5299 G. Draft Mid-Century General Plan Update H. GPAC & Planning Commission’s Proposed Changes to the Draft General Plan I. Planning Commission’s Additional Proposed Changes to the Draft General Plan J. Ordinance No. 17-1029 K. Draft Crossroads Specific Plan L. GPAC & Planning Commission’s Proposed Changes to the Draft Specific Plan M. Planning Commission’s Additional Proposed Changes to the Draft Specific Plan N. Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting on October 23, 2017 O. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2017 P. Summary of Differences between the Existing and Proposed General Plan Q. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram R. Map of Changes to the General Plan Land Use Diagram S. Public Comment Received on the Draft General Plan and Specific Plan