Date: June 17,2014 TAFF REpORT Commllflity Development Department To: From: By: Steven A. Preston, City rvfanager Jack L. Wong, Interim Community Development :Mark Gallatin, AI CP, Planning rvlanager~.. Subject: 835 EI Monte St. Planning Case PL-13-117 (Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Overlay Zone) Applicant: Olson Urban Housing LLC Oohn Reisch!) Architect: William Hezmalhalch Architects Inc. SUMMARY This application consists o( two parts. The first part is a request that the City Council certify the final environmental impact report (FElR) (or a residential project with 88 condominium units and 206 parking spaces on a 5.4 acre parcel west o( the Rubio Wash (the project site) by making findings required by CEQA and adopting a mitigation monitoring program. The second part is a request (or the City Council to change the project site's land use and zoning designations (rom General Commercial and C-I (Retail Commercial) to High Density Residential and R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) respectively. The applicant is also seeking a Planned Development Overlay Zone to create customized development standards (or this large irregularly shaped site. A tentative tract map to consolidate the existing lots and create the condominium subdivision (or the new units was approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2014. The Design Review Commission also approved this project's design under a Precise Plan o( Design (PPD) review on that date. The Planning Commission has certified the FEIR (or purposes o(the tentative tract map and the Precise Plan o( Design and has recommended that the City Council certify it (or the general plan amendment, zone change and planned development overlay zone and approve those three entitlements. Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 14-1 I certifying the final environmental impact report (or the Olson Residential Community Project and adopting a mitigation monitoring program, ADOPT Resolution No. 14-/2 approving a general plan amendment (or properties located at 835, 846. 850. 900 and 90 I EI Monte Street, 700 and 722 Gladys Avenue and 865 Santa Fe Avenue
835 EJ Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and final EJR June 17,2014 Page 2 from General Commercial to High Density Residential and INTRODUCE AND PLACE ON FIRST READING Ordinance No. 613-C.S. approving a zone change for the same properties from C-I (Retail Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) with a Planned Development Overlay. I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND The complete site is located on both sides of the Rubio Wash, a Los Angeles County flood control channel, and is bounded to the north by Santa Fe Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, to the east by Earle Avenue (located in Rosemead), to the south by unimproved City-owned land as well as single family homes, apartments and the ~fission Lodge nursing home in San Gabriel and industrial buildings in Rosemead, and to the west by South Gladys Avenue. The complete site is currendy owned and operated by Huy Fong Foods, Inc., and is currendy improved with an approximately 170,000 square foot industrial warehouse building located primarily in the City of San Gabriel with a portion of it bridging over the Rubio Wash and crossing into the City of Rosemead. The site also includes a caretaker's residence, an underutilized warehouse building on the northern portion of the property and several other storage buildings south of the industrial building, all of which lie within the City of San Gabriel. The closest residential neighbors to the project site are two apartment buildings and two single family homes on Gladys Avenue and the ~ssion Lodge nursing home, also on Gladys. Across Gladys from the site is the San Gabriel Nursery and across Santa Fe Avenue is a self-storage facility. (see vicinity map of project site below)
835 fl Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PDa and Final EIR June 17, 2014 Page 3 IiJ ProJm Bollldliy C- COlIIIDmUI U - LIrht!IWs1Ilal M - MamzflcIWiDJ... MFR Multi-FIlIIIiy ~ i SFR SiDp Fami1y~ Olsoll Sall Gabriel Residll1ltial CommUlIl1). ProjiKt Envlronmfl/tal Impact Report The applicant proposes to demolish all the existing buildings on-site and construct a new residential community consisting of four single family homes and 84 townhouse condominium units. The existing industrial warehouse building in Rosemead would be retained as would a portion of it spanning Rubio Wash and remaining in San Gabriel's jurisdiction. In an administrative action separate from these entitlements, the applicant is processing a lot line adjustment so that the industrial building is on a separate parcel (still commercially zoned) from the proposed residential development.
~ ~_$> 835 B Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final BR June 17,2014 Page 4 On June 2, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the tentative tract map and certified the final environmental impact report for purposes of the tentative tract map and Precise Plan of Design. They also adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the general plan amendment, zone change and planned development overlay and certify the final environmental impact report for those entitlements. Also on June 2, 2014, the Design Review Commission approved the Precise Plan of Design required for the project. Copies of their staff reports are attached. ~ :== ~'~t~ f.. l~ "'"("~"~~.~tt ~:-;,,-~--.--...f""<_1x'ytv._iq:rr....,-,~ JICI""... ',, " "~ _-~I'IoI~. "",,...~...,,~~-,.. " "'-,... -- ~... TofaiUnk.. " ----. o., 2III.l ~ l.vt..,.1,q~._~... - *.JllftnQl~ &lli1owtowr1t1qmeii11 " 'Jlhip.~ " flngio fomtt ~ J6,1"~PIlI'AI::1W liosrx.:.-lotola»~} " GamQe: IU.~ "lipoc:m.tilladfrl Zl~ "f"aroilet;.~ "0I'IVeWafl --.12D62U, total -. Pf~o.s..:,t:n us,,", " COfnrngnO.$"! 4O,WnJ"f, c l:h!ailc~.owttd...1:lqhl~...oirihie' ~lanj'iq: ~1aI~luw:"'3 lo'~: '1,~:V,(".A} ~~~ :; =---.,' ",,->,.i_~aoo... ~ Conceptual Site Plan The project is designed in a simplified Spanish Colonial residential style, in buildings ranging from one to six units (five-plex pictured).
835 El Monte Street GPA, Zone Change. PD~ and Final ElR June'7,2014 Page 5 II. ANALYSIS A. ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting permission to change the zoning and general plan designations on its properties. The project site is made up of eight assessor's parcels, all of which presently have C-1 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations and General Commercial general plan land use designations. The applicant proposes changing the zoning on all eight parcels to R-3 (Multiple Family Residence) and the general plan land use designation to High Density Residential. SURROUNDING USES: The neighborhood surrounding the project site is a mixture of commercial, residential and institutional uses within the City of San Gabriel and west of Rubio Wash. East of the wash, in Rosemead, the uses are entirely industrial. Immediately proximate to this site are two existing apartment buildings and two single family homes. To the south is the :Mission Lodge nursing home, on a site that is almost entirely zoned R-3. Undeveloped City-owned land is also located south of the site, as is the San Gabriel Humane Society. Gladys Avenue forms a natural buffer between the proposed residential community and the commercial uses to the west which front on San Gabriel Blvd. Likewise, the Rubio Wash channel provides complete separation from the industrial uses in Rosemead. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed zone change and general plan amendment can be supported for several reasons: Changing the general plan designation and zoning on these parcels to High Density Residential and R-3, respectively, to facilitate the proposed residential community would be compatible with the residential and institutional uses that have been on the east side of Gladys Ave., in some cases for nearly 90 years.; and The properties in question were zoned for commercial use in the mid-1990s upon the establishment of the former Redevelopment Agency, some after having previously been industrially zoned, in anticipation of a large commercial center someday developing on the east side of Gladys Ave. The Redevelopment Agency is now defunct after 20 years of existence in which the large commercial center never materialized. The likelihood of such development happening on these properties in the foreseeable future is low, and the community would be better served by changing their designations to allow for new housing to be built; and The zone change and general plan amendment will set the stage for the removal of vacant, blighted buildings and the redevelopment of underutilized property with quality housing that will help the City reach its regional housing targets, as well as provide much needed revenue from fees, property taxes and utility user taxes all while improving the neighborhood's infrastructure. B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE The San Gabriel Municipal Code allows the use of a zoning tool known as a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zone. As the name implies, a PD~ is an overlay on top of the existing underlying zoning designation. A PD~ may be established where a proposal for a large-scale development
835 EJ Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PDO and Final EJR June 17,1014 Page 6 (one acre or larger) makes it desirable to apply regulations more flexible than those applicable to other zones. It is typically reserved for substantial sites that because of size, shape, topography or location do not easily lend themselves to the strict application of the underlying zoning standards. As required by the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation on establishing a PDO to the City Council, which grants the final approval On June 2, 2014 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council approve the PDO. In this case, the size and shape of the site are the two factors that make it a good candidate for a PDO. The site is over five acres in size and is very irregular in its shape. It varies from very wide at the north end of the property to very narrow further south. The application of a PDO to this site will allow for the flexibility needed to work around the site constraints by crafting development standards that are tailored to it, resulting in an efficient and well-thought out site plan. This flexibility makes the project economically feasible and allows for a wider range of unit sizes to accommodate different housing needs to be provided. With respect to those development standards, street frontage, minimum bedroom size, building heights, setbacks, distance between buildings, open space, and trash enclosure location differ in varying degrees from the R-3 standards (see bold items in Table 2 below). The table below summarizes how this project compares to the R-3 development standards: Table 2 Development R-3 zone Proposed Planned Standard Development Overlay zone!vfinimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. 237,402 sq. ft. Minimum street 70 ft. 50 ft. to 398 ft. frontage Density 1 unit/1,742 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit/2,698 sq. ft. of lot area (25 units/acre) (16 units/acre) Minimum unit size 2 bedroom 1,100 sq. ft. 2 bedroom 1,280 sq. ft. 3 bedroom = 1,320 sq. ft. 3 bedroom 1,528-1,987 sq. ft. 4 bedroom = 2,278 sq. ft..rvfinimum bedroom size 125 s'l' ft. 96 sq. ft. Maximum lot coverage 60% 33% Maximum building 3 stories or 35 ft. 2 stories and 25 ft., 1 in. height (stories or feet) 3 stories and 36 ft., 6 in. Front setback 15 ft. + 3 ft. for each story above the first 9 ft. lin. to 16 ft. Side setback i 10ft. for buildings up to 28 ft. 4 ft. to 25 ft. for buildings up tall to 28 ft. tall 15 ft. for buildings over 28 ft. tall i 5 ft. 5 in. to 55 ft. for I buildings over 28 ft. tall riear setback 10ft. minimum 4 ft. to 45 f1.
835 El Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final ElR June 17,2014 Page 7 Distance between 20 ft. 10 ft. to 70 ft. 6 in. buildings Minimum open space Total open space - 400 sq. ft. The total open space /bedroom. requirement for this project Private open space =at least is 102,000 sq. ft. (2.34 acres). 40% of total open space. The project provides 72,062 Ground level private open space sq. ft. of on-site open space. minimum dimension of 10 feet, (This does not include open minimum area of 200 sq. ft. space that does not meet the Above ground private open minimum R-3 standards) Of space minimum dimension of 6 this, 22,531 sq. ft. (31.3%) is feet, minimum area of 50 sq. ft. private open space and Common open space minimum 49,531 sq. ft. (68.7%) is dimension of 20 feet, minimum common open space. area of 200 sq. ft. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to improve approximately 1.6 acres (72,310 sq. ft.) of abutting City-owned land into open space with a trail that would be available to both project residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Together, the on-site and off-site open space to be developed comes to 144,372 sq. ft. or 3.31 acres. Ground level private open space minimum dimension of 5 feet, minimum area of32 sq. ft. Above ground private open space minimum dimension of 5 feet, minimum area of 58 sq. ft. Common open space minimum dimension of 20 feet, minimum area of 200 sq. ft. I Minimum l~~dscaping Required setbacks and unused All areas not devoted to areas paving or building are ~Minimum 8% of parking lot, landscaped. I minimum 5 ft. planter width Vehicle parking 2-car garage/unit + 1 guest 2-car garage/unit + 1 guest space/3 units. Tandem allowed space/2.5 units if in enclosed structure and not I
835 B Monte Street GPA, Zone Change. PDa and Final ElR June 17.2014 Page 8 Bike parking Trash enclosures more than 50% of total required resident parking. Short-term =10% of required vehicle spaces Long-term - 1 per 4 units No closer than 25 feet from any door opening to the outside of or any window of any dwelling unit. Fence/wall height Front yard maximum 4 ft., with 30" landscaped setback Side or rear yard = maximum 6 ft. 4 units have tandem garages Short-term =10% of required vehicle spaces Long-term =1 per 3.1 units No closer than 25 feet from any door opening to the outside of or any window of any dwelling unit. (One enclosure is 23 feet from the nearest window) Front yard maximum 3 ft. 6 in., with 30" landscaped setback Side or rear yard - maximum 6 ft. i I 10ft. sound wall provided at north end of site as a noise mitigation The attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-02 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change, general plan amendment and planned development overlay zone. A zone change and planned development overlay require the City Council to adopt an ordinance and a general plan amendment requires the City Council to approve a resolution. Accordingly, staff has prepared Ordinance No. 613-C.S. and Resolution No, 14-12, which are attached to this report. C. OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL One of the most compelling aspects of this project in terms of community benefit is the opportunity it presents to increase open space not just for residents of the development, but also for the surrounding neighborhood. Thanks to the convergence of geography, policy and economics, a creative solution was forged which will result in approximately 1.6 acres of currently undeveloped land being improved as passive open space with a pedestrian/bicycle trail paralleling the Rubio Wash. The majority of the land being converted to open space already belongs to the City. In its present state, it is unimproved and littered with concrete, rocks and other debris deposited there over many years. As one moves south of the project site's southern boundary, the topography of the Cityowned land slopes increasingly toward the wash, making it less than ideal for public open space. Immediately south of the project site and west of the City's property is land owned by the San Gabriel Humane Society, a non-profit organization that has been serving the community from the same location for 90 years. Unlike the City's land, the Humane Society property is relatively flat. The project applicant, Olson Urban Housing LLC, has agreed to improve the City-owned land with landscaping, lighting and a pedestrian/bicycle trail. This area would be maintained by the project's
t 835 El Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final ElR June 17,2014 Page 9 homeowners association. In exchange, the City would credit a portion of the developer's open space impact fees, totaling nearly $200,000. A description of the area and the maintenance responsibilities would be included in the project's Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In order to extend the trail to Grand A venue and make it accessible to the surrounding neighborhood, the best and flattest route would be along the east side of the Humane Society property. Like the City's land, the Society's property is largely choked with weeds and debris and is bisected by a crude dirt path which borders obsolete and decrepit structures the Society one day hopes to demolish. """,,,,_A. "'-"'..."'~4 e-..-",~",'\i,,".,, ',,~, ~;n'll"'-~""",'" ~ ~ ~ ~~'!~ J,-...,_pa...t\iI :~=~ EI Monte St, Open Space Concept To achieve connectivity to Grand, the Society would have to grant a public access easement to the City. In exchange for this easement, the City would grant the Society an easement for the easterly edge of their parking lot which currendy encroaches onto City property. As this report was being completed, negotiations were still underway between the City, Olson and the Society to finalize an agreement to make the open space and trail a reality, including details on how the portion on the Society's property would be improved and maintained. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission approval included a condition which will require a recorded agreement to establish the trail to be in place before final approval of the landscape plan is given. Final landscape plan approval by the City Landscape Architect is required prior to issuance of building pennits. It should be noted that none of the proposed trail would encroach into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District's easement. D. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Besides replacing blighted industrial uses on site, the project will be trans formative for the minimally improved public spaces on El Monte St., Gladys Ave. and Santa Fe Ave. The improvements brought by this project will provide a pedestrian friendly and inviting walking experience to and
835 EJ Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final ElR June 17,2014 Page 10 from this new residential community. Most importandy, the project will bring needed upgrades to neighborhood infrastructure, such as street paving, sewer upgrades, sidewalks and lighting, and street trees, all paid for by the developer and not the City's general fund. E. CONSTRUCTION A number of conditions of approval have been added to nurunuze the disruption caused by construction activities in the neighborhood. This is especially important given that the project will be built in phases and will occur simultaneously with the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) construction to the north. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and the first building permit for each phase of development, the applicant will be required to submit a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval. The Plan will oudine how construction traffic, parking, and other localized impacts from project work will minimize traffic impacts on San Gabriel Boulevard, as well as coordinate with ongoing traffic from the ACE project. The Plan will include signage, lane closures, use of signal persons, etc. to help reduce potential traffic impacts from project construction. The Building Division has required access to Santa Fe Avenue, Gladys A venue and EI Monte Street to be unobstructed at all times, with construction vehicles required to park on site. City staff will monitor the site daily to ensure construction debris is not placed on the street and is not allowed to accumulate on-site. Trash pickup for the businesses and residences adjacent to the site must not be disrupted or impeded in any way by construction activities. During construction all dust and debris must be removed from sidewalks, parkways and streets on a daily basis. Construction times are limited by the City code to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction will take place on Sunday or holidays. All construction activities shall comply with the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. Construction activities shall require installation of "Best Management Practices" to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff as well as compliance with the MS4 stormwater permit. Additionally, the project will have to comply with the City's construction and demolition waste ordinance requiring that at least 50% of the construction and demolition wastes generated be diverted from landfilling by using recycling, reuse or other diversion programs. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW LSA Associates, Inc. has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project. A Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this project was issued on December 30, 2013, to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties. The notice was also sent to all property owners and occupants ",ithin a 500 foot radius of the site. A total of six agencies responded to the NOP during the 30-day public review period, which extended from December 30,2013 to January 30, 2014. As required by state law, the representatives of those Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were notified to request if they wanted consultation on the project. Two tribes requested consultation. The City also held two scoping meetings for agency representatives or members of the public to suggest issues or potential impacts to be addressed in
835 El Monte Sueet GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Anal ElR June 17.2014 Page If the DEIR. The first meeting was held on January 15, 2014 at City Hall and had no attendees, and the second on January 29,2014 at the Parks and Recreation Department and had two attendees. When completed, the DEIR was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days from April 1 to May 16, 2014. Prior to the close of the public review period, five comment letters were received. Comments were received from the San Gabriel County Water District, Southern California Gas, the Olson Company, the State Clearinghouse, and the City of Temple City. Temple City had no concerns about the project. It should be noted that the City of Rosemead and Los Angeles County (Regional Planning, Public Works, Flood Control District and Sanitation Districts) were also given notice of the DEIR but chose not to comment. The State Clearinghouse reported that no state agencies had comments. Southern California Gas likewise had no concerns and indicated they have the capacity to serve this new community. The Olson Company requested that a comparison of the project's traffic to the traffic that could be generated if the site were to be developed with some type of commercial use be included. Such a comparison was provided in the Response to Comments section of the FEIR. The San Gabriel County Water District required the applicant to prepare a water supply assessment report. The applicant has complied with this requirement. Following the close of the public review period, three additional comment letters were received, from Southern California Edison, Union Pacific Railroad and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Staff, LSA, and the City Attorney reviewed the letters and determined that they would have no impact on the determinations reached in the FEIR because the comments were adequately addressed in the mitigation measures and conditions of approval Because final approval of the zone change, general plan amendment and planned development overlay zone rests with the City Council, so does certification of the FEIR. For purposes of the project's other entidements, the Precise Plan of Design and the tentative tract map, the Planning Commission certified the FEIR on June 2. The table below summarizes the contents of the FEIR. Table 3 Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction and Purpose Effects not found to be significant. Discussion of cumulative impacts Project description Description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project (environmental setting) Consideration and discussion of environmental impacts, including: Significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the. proposed project is implemented. Significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented.
835 EI Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PDD and Final ElR June 17, 2014 Page 12 Growth-inducing impact of the proposed project. The mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects. Alternatives to the proposed project. References List of Preparers Why an EIR?: A major factor in deciding that an EIR was the appropriate level of environmental review for this project was the fact that it proposes a general plan amendment and zone change for a site over five acres in size, making it one of the largest proposed developments in San Gabriel in the last 30 years. Table 4 Categories Analyzed in EIR Those categories for which the EIR found Aesthetics potentially significant impacts and required Agriculture and Forest Resources mitigation measures are highlighted with an Air Quality, including Human Health asterisk (*) and boldfaced in the table to the *Biological Resources left. The required mitigation monitoring and *Cultural Resources reporting program is attached to this report. *Geology and Soils In each of those topic areas with significant *Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy impacts, the mitigation measures reduced the Conservation and Global Climate Change impacts to a less than significant level. *Hazards and Hazardous Materials *Hydrology and Water Quality Alternatives Considered / Land Use and Planning Environmentally Superior Alternative: rvlineral Resources CEQA requires that an EIR describe "a. *Noise range of reasonable alternatives to the Population, Housing and Employment project, or to the location of the project Public Services and Facilities which would feasibly attain most of the basic *Transportation/Traffic objectives of the project but would avoid or *Utilities and Service Systems substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." An EIR must evaluate a "No Project" alternative in order to allow decision makers to compare the effect of approving the project to the effect of not approving the project. Accordingly, the follmving two alternatives were analyzed in comparison to the proposed project: Alternative 1: No Project - No Build Alternative; and Alternative 2: Modified Site Plan. Alternative 1 is required under CEQA. Alternative 2 was selected because a change to the proposed site plan (i.e., removal of the two buildings closest to the existing train tracks in the northern section of the project site) could substantially reduce vibration impacts to future project residents. This alternative would use the portion of the site closest to the train tracks as a private park and open space, and the rest of the site plan rearranged so that only one building would be eliminated from the total. This would result in 80 units compared to 88 units with the proposed project. All other impacts would be equivalent or similar to those of the proposed project.
835 J Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final fir June 17,2014 Page 13 The proposed project would only have one significant impact - introducing new residents into an area with significant vibration from train activities. The project noise analysis indicates that there are no cost effective or feasible mitigation measures available that could reduce vibration impacts in project units closest to the train tracks to less than significant levels. All other impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Alternative 1 would leave the site in its current underutilized condition with a large warehouse building and related parking. It would not generate any traffic, air pollution, noise, or other environmental impacts related to developed urban uses. It would still be unattractive (building currendy has extensive graffiti) and a minor nuisance for local residents. Alternative 2 would eliminate the one significant impact of the proposed project (i.e., the two residential buildings that would experience significant vibration from trains). It is assumed the other mitigation measures under the proposed project would be implemented for this alternative as well. The only significant impact of the project is introducing new residents into an area subject to significant vibration from train activity. Therefore, it may be possible to find a vacant site in the city on which the proposed project could be built that would not experience this significant impact. During the alternatives review process, staff reviewed the available vacant land in the city that could support a project the size (acres, number of units) and type (condominium residential) of the proposed project, and that had an appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning classification. Staff was not able to find an appropriate alternative vacant site within the City limits. It should also be remembered that the one "significant" impact of the project is actually an impact of the environment on the project, and not (as CEQA stricdy requires) an impact of the project on the environment. Although this impact is significant and unavoidable, the City, as lead agency, is therefore not required to select a feasible alternative site for the proposed project. When an alternatives analysis is prepared consistent with CEQA, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified in the EIR. Alternative 2 (M:odified Site Plan) reduces the severity of and may even eliminate the only identified significant impact of the project (i.e., introducing new residents into an area subject to significant vibration from train activity). Therefore, it is environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative would achieve the objectives of the project to almost the same degree as the proposed project. The developer indicates that providing an upscale condominium project on this site, with its development limitations/constraints, may not be economically feasible if 10 percent of the units were to be eliminated (80 vs. 88). It would likely raise the price of the 80 units compared to the 88 units, which would make the units under the alternative less competitive in the local housing market, and would not be available to as wide a range of buyers in today's housing market. Finally, the one "significant" impact of the project that triggers the analysis of alternatives is actually an impact of the environment on the project (i.e., an existing hazard), and not an impact of the project on the environment, which is the traditional definition of an impact under CEQA. Therefore, the City, as lead agency, is not necessarily required to select the environmentally superior alternative instead of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: For each of the nine categories where project impacts were determined to be significant, a series of mitigation measures were prepared which will be imposed on the project in order to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The measures include three to address
835 B Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final BR June 17,2014 Page 14 biological resources impacts, five to address impacts on cultural resources, one to address impacts on geology and soils, one to address greenhouse gas impacts, two to address impacts from hazards or hazardous materials, three to address hydrology and water quality impacts, four to address noise impacts, four to address transportation and traffic impacts, and one to address impacts on utilities and service systems. Given the project's location in close proximity to a railroad and industrial uses, a brief discussion of the noise mitigations required by the EIR is in order. The mitigation measures will require the applicant to, prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a Construction Noise Reduction Plan (CNRP) to the City for review and approval. The CNRP shall show how construction noise impacts will be limited near occupied residential dwellings. Furthermore, during grading and construction of all phases of the project, all construction vehicles shall access the project site using EI Monte Street and San Gabriel Boulevard mainly south to the 1-10 Freeway, and Santa Fe Street if approved by the City. This route shall be indicated on all approved plans and contractors shall be notified of the accepted route prior to the start of activity on the site. Also, prior to the start of any construction-related activity on the site, the project developer shall post a notice at the project entrance at Gladys Avenue and EI Monte Street that is clearly visible to area residents. The notice shall give the name and telephone number of the construction superintendent or other responsible person to whom residents can report excessive noise or other nuisance conditions on the project construction site. The sign shall be removed within 10 days of the completion of the last phase of project development. Finally, prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, the developer shall submit project plans demonstrating that residential buildings meet the noise attenuation construction standards outlined in the project noise study. The required improvements include a ten-foot sound wall on the west, north, and east sides of the two northern-most buildings of the project closest to the railroad line, and enhanced window glazing and use of mechanical ventilation on these and other buildings. Conditions of approval were added requiring that all potential buyers of the units identified in the EIR as impacted by vibration from train activity be notified in writing of the unavoidable vibrations and the frequency and hours of the train schedule and requiring a declaration of vibration impacts be recorded against those units. All environmental documents relating to this project, including the FEIR, the DEIR and all technical reports were also posted on the City's website. The public comment period for the DEIR ended on May 16,2014. IV. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Due to the size of the project, the City required the developer to hold at least one neighborhood meeting as part of the overall community outreach effort which includes mailings, postings, published notices and other means of soliciting input from the community. In this case, two neighborhood meetings were held. The first, in June 2013, drew eleven attendees. The second meeting, held in November 2013, drew six people. The meetings were forums for the applicant to present the evolving project and receive feedback from the surrounding neighbors. Generally, the feedback was positive, with neighbors liking the fact the new community would not be gated and encouraged by the proposed installation of a traffic signal at San Gabriel and El Monte to improve traffic flow and safety.
835 El Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final fir june /7,20/4 Page /5 In addition to the community meetings, a study session was held with the City Council on June 4, 2013 and previews of the project were provided to the Design Review Commission on April 28, 2014 and to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2014. V. PUBLIC NOTICE Because of the scale and significance of this project, the Planning Division mailed all property owners within 500 feet of this property a notice informing them of this application request. This is above and beyond the legal requirement for noticing all property owners within a 300 foot radius. Notices were also sent to everyone who attended one of the two community meetings hosted by the developer or the two environmental scoping meetings hosted by the City. This hearing was also advertised in the San Gabriel Sun on June 5, 2014. Notices were also posted at City Hall, San Gabriel Post Office, and the San Gabriel Fire Department and at the project site on Gladys Ave. VI. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the City Council: A. Following public testimony, adopt Resolution No. 14-11 certifying the final environmental impact report for the Olson Residential Community Project and making findings required by CEQA and adopting a mitigation monitoring program; and B. Following public testimony, adopt Resolution No. 14-12 approving a general plan amendment for properties located at 835, 846, 850, 900 and 901 EI Monte Street, 700 and 722 Gladys Avenue and 865 Santa Fe Avenue from General Commercial to High Density Residential; and C. Following public testimony, introduce and place on first reading Ordinance No. 613-C.S. approving the zone change for the properties located at 835, 846, 850, 900 and 901 EI Monte Street, 700 and 722 Gladys A venue and 865 Santa Fe A venue from C-1 (Retail Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residence) with a planned development overlay. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 2, 2014 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-01 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-02 4. Design Review Commission Staff Report dated June 2, 2014 5. Resolution No. 14-11 6. Resolution No. 14-12 7. Ordinance No. 613-C.S. 8. Public Notice 9. Final Environmental Impact Report 10. Architectural and Landscape Plans 11. Electrical Site Plan and Photometric Site Plan
835 EJ Monte Street GPA, Zone Change, PD~ and Final ElR June 17,1014 Page 16 12. 13. Conceptual Grading and Utility Plans Tentative Tract Map No. 072626 F:\Community Development\Planning\Planning Division\Planning Cases\P1anning Cases 2013\835 EI Monte St., PL 13 1 J7\City Council\835 EI Monte St., Plr13 \ I7 CC Staff Report.doc